You Do Not Exist

My biggest problem with the healthcare thing is that nothing is being thought through. They're pushing, full speed ahead, on reforms without listening to what constituents want. No one is thinking through the best way to achieve their goals, and Obama himself said to throw grandma under the bus if she gets a disease. (Not, literally, just drug her until she forgets her cancer is killing her.) Watch the video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/26/obama_maybe_youre_better_off_taking_painkillers_and_forgoing_surgery.html

"Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." – President Obama

Creepier and creepier every day.

Larry d., using a form of your main word, I must say that the Dems thought they were creeping up on us and suddenly it turns out that they aren't. Now they are coming up with all these handy accusations of people who didn't allow them to creep up on this one.

King, I keep seeing those two videos offered for comparison. There is so little comparison between the two demonstrations. In the one at Obama's old school they are destroying property and laying hands on the people they don't like. University security is having to use force to get them away from the speakers. In the other those well dressed old people (wearing T-shirts, shorts, and other forms of casual dress) are walking along shouting and little else. The best part of all this is that Dems just can't see that they are getting their own form of behavior slipped back to them.

Tory, I don't think that is what he is saying at all. I wonder why people have such a problem with Obama's statement here. He is right, the decisions are being made NOW whether we like it or not. BC/BS my mother's insurer cut off the medicines that were removing water from her body during her heart failure. (the treatment was $4500 per week, she had it done for 2 years. THey were right, it wasn't working.) Medicare did not cover those drugs. The hospital wanted us to pay for this out of our pockets or she would expire. We went to her doctors and told them we didn't have the cash and guess what..poof out of thin air they came up with another treatment that was covered and extended her life for another 3 years. So who's the villan here, the hospitals or the insurance companies?
As I said before I feel there does come a time when it may be necessary to just take the pill. It happened with my mother. Her legs were so full of fluid that they were seeping. I don't hear any insinuation by BO that he is just going to throw the sick out into the streets and have them fending for themselves. I don't think they are saying that the people are sick will be given Kool-aid to end their lives. I think congress really need to sit down and have this one explained to them en mass.

I wish they would just come forth with a bill summary that is written in english and is understandable by people with average intelligence. Then America could make up it's own mind. Sorry I went off subject King, I just wanted to comment on Tory's video.

Mr. King,
So, if you can find an example of those on the left preventing others from speaking, it justifies the use of this tactic by those on the right? I won't attempt to defend either group's actions, but it seems that the forum of Congresspeople meeting with their constituents is just about as elemental form of representative democracy you can find. If you think that these disruptions are spontaneous, you are more than naive. Once again the dictum holds — Follow the money.

What money, frank? What do you mean by spontaneous? Are you just making this stuff up or repeating something you read on a lemming blog again?

The hooligans I've seen in videos of these town halls have been union thugs sent by Obama's minions to counter voices of dissent. What kind of country does that sort of thing happen in?

I am afraid it is going to get very ugly. A growing number of the silent majority are becoming increasingly concerned about the direction Obama plans to take this country. I realize that the left views these people as tools of the ruling structure and that the reactionaries willl attempt to feed on their fears and use them as their weapon to defeat the progressives(yes, I have read the progressives handbook). But to attermpt to intimidate, demonize and ridicule these people will only increase their resolve. The bitter clingers( I proudly include myself) as Obama likes to call them wont back down.

Look if the republican party had a plan, might be different. These people who are disrupting town meetings are organized efforts by Fox and other groups such as "America for prosperity" that are organizing the groups of protesters ..Hannity has call out for people to join , they are being told specifically what to do to disrupt the meetings. This is Not a grass roots effort as some are trying to say it is. Fox news is not a grassroots organization. This is BIG business with insurance companies backing. And they are trying to knock out any plan the democrats propose. Period. Obama trying to work with them. Personally I feel he shouldn't , he should ram through the best plan and ignore the republicans. Because it is hopeless, they don't want change. They want to keep it the same.
I actually love to hear some republican OPINIONS on how to reform health care. So far all I 've been hearing is trashing what ever any democrat proposes. These people do not come to the meetings to discuss anything.

And Hello America spoke, last election we want health care reform.
And Obama's plan is not to take away any ones choice. And there is alot of misinformation out there and Ignorant protesters who don't even know what the plan is that they are protesting against!
Some of the myths are " Democrats want to kill your grandmother"
no The legislation would order Medicare to pay for consultations between patients and doctors on end-of-life decisions, which it currently doesn't cover. But the consultations wouldn't be mandatory, no one says you got to even talk about pulling the plug.
Myth 2 plan will pay for abortions – NO stays same as is now ,
Myth 3 Obama will ban all private health insurance. No you can still keep your lousy private insurance co if you want to. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it is different.
They think government bureaucrats will ration care. As if insurance companies are not in the make money business. Actually it will be the government that keeps pR insurance companies in check. MY moms on Government medicare , she can go to any doctor and has all her bills paid. that's alot better than what I have under my pr insurance plan.
And if it wasn't for the government right now having some rules your insurance company would be screwing you royally .

So you are upset that we are upset about ignorant protesters ..yep you bet we are .
So you dug up a video of some acting unruly. But you know what everyone has a right to speak ..but the protesters at the health care reform do not want to voice any opinion other than government should be out of health care., they just want to destroy and say no . That is their intent to destroy the meetings. Sorry but government always was involved in your health care and always will be. and i'll give you a link ..some here need to know a few things
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12971518

You are wrong, Andrea. Double Period!

Why is everyone so concerned about government being in health care. It already is in healthcare and it already is the biggest player. My guess is that the insurance and hospital industries would like things to stay the same. Now I understand why conservatives want everything to stay the same, because by definition conservatives want to conserve what is the present policy.

As far a rationed care is concerned presently I have much less access to care than I did in 1985 because now you need to get referrals to see specalists when in 1985 you did not need that. The reason you need referrals is that you primary care physician is the gate keeper of health care and it is in his best interest to keep usage of the system down so that he can make a bigger bonus at the end of the year. I am not saying that is a bad thing I am just stating that care is already rationed.

Right now the determining factor as to the quality of care you receive is how thick is the stack of money you bring to the table. A prime example is Magic Johnson. Over 85% of the people that caught HIV during the same timeframe are dead. Because Magic has a big stack of greenbacks he has not even advanced to having AIDS much less dying.

America is supposed to be the land were the playing field is level in all aspects. Lets start by making the playing field level in healthcare so everyone has equal access to the same treatments, doctors and care no matter what income level you happen to be in.

averagejoe, if you couldn't tell by reading my post, I was giving *my* opinion, not summarizing another person's. That IS what I'm saying, actually. No one has addressed my point, which I think is the problem many Americans have with Obama's grandiose plan. Why do we have to make a rush decision on this very important issue and pass a bill within months of him becoming president? Why can't we, say, take a year or so to truly analyze the situation and come up with a better-informed plan?

I'm sorry about your mother's health problems, but that's a red herring, IMO.

two things I got from tory's video……1. get a second opinion 2. make a living will

I agree with joe…..I understand what Obama is saying

"What's the hurry?"…..wasn't that GM's motto?

you wanna know why they are trying to rush it and I wanna know why they're dragging it out

tory, here's another red herring…….my wife's knee doctor wanted an MRI of her knee but he has a x-ray machine. He tells her to get an order for an MRI from her primary care physician. The knee doctor takes x-rays of her knee even tho he has the MRI……he bills for the x-rays and uses the MRI. Gotta make money some way……so what's a little fraud

Walter, I understand what Obama is saying when he talks about single payer health insurance. I hope that Andrea who doesn't seem to understand any part of all this can read this post where I say that the reason those people want to pass this bill as quick as they can is to get on toward single payer.

Now they know they don't have enough votes to pass that now but as Barney Frank says this will be a good first step. They plan to kill private insurance with that public option thing and nothing short of that. Only a complete fool would believe that with taxes to fall back on the government option would make for a level playing field. They know what they are doing on that part and it is scary that they can force that socialized medicine on us.

MP Daniel Hannan told Glenn Beck that we would never be able to go back if this doesn't work. He also told Beck that the British health system is the 3rd largest employer in the world. The largest is the Chinese Army followed by the Indian railroad service. I wonder how long it would take for our system to become the largest employer in the world. With about 6 times as many people as the British have we would need more managers. Hannan says that the 1.4 million English employees is made up or more bureacrat managers than doctors and nurses.

How do we ever go back if we don't like socialized medicine? With that many bureaucrats we would have the largest, best organized lobby in the world and be stuck with it.

If anybody really wants proof of what they are planning watch Barney Frank perform in this video talking to a man from a group that is really pushing for a single payer system. They don't really believe Barney but I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

Roy Like any bill if it is not passed quickly they tend to DIE. The republicans did the same thing under Bush when they quickly rammed things quickly in like the war vote. This isn't something just one party does. And it does not mean there is a alternative plan. Single payer system is not on the table no matter what Barney Frank wants. Paul Krugman NY times says it well – town hall Mob ..this is not conversation , this is trying to destroy it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html

larry d.,
Aside from Fox News, some of the players are Dick Armey's Freedomworks and the Conservatives for Patient's Rights run by Rick Scott. Scott, if you are unaware is the former head of Columbia/HCA, the for profit hospital chain which paid a $1.7 billion fine for overcharging the government. The money for their services comes from the healthcare industry.

You claim that the people disrupting these meetings were union thugs sent by Obama? Now that is really tin foil hat territory, my friend. Even the wingnuts haven't come up with that.

You have often demanded sources for my and other people's assertions. Once sources are provided, then you demand to know the methodology that those sources used. So now, my friend, it's your turn. Just where in hell did you get your "information" that union thugs sent by Obama are disrupting these town hall meetings?

Frank They think they can rattle off anything as fact. Unfortunately there is no logic to their thinking. This do not see that the same companies that have driven hundreds of thousands of American families into bankruptcy because their private insurers refused to pay for urgently needed surgery or cancer treatment, is behind this.

frank,

What do you mean by players? Are you saying the attendees at these town halls are from those organizations? Are they paid? Is there any evidence?

As far as union thugs, here's video of SEIU thugs beating up a guy for handing out pamphlets at a town hall in St. Louis. The victim was hospitalized. They also showed up in Tampa, where they got all the good seats then roughed up a guy. They wear t-shirts to identify themselves.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/tea-party-protesters-attacked-1-man.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLpHbD5cy0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts5siyBYddM&feature=related

frank says, "So, if you can find an example of those on the left preventing others from speaking, it justifies the use of this tactic by those on the right?"

In the first place, I think the "disruption" of the townhall meetings has been grossly exaggerated by the Dems and it's pet media for political effect. They take a 30 second video byte out of a long townhall event to make it appear worse than it actually is. I haven't seen one Democrat yet at a townhall meeting who has been prevented from speaking. What I mostly see is citizens trying to make their voices heard at these events. Those citizens feel they are being ignored, and then the Dems in Congress turn around and call them names. It's a disgraceful way for our government officials to act, and as angryc said, such treatment of our citizens is only going to escalate the problem.

Andrea says, "These people who are disrupting town meetings are organized efforts by Fox and other groups such as "America for prosperity" that are organizing the groups of protesters .."

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right (even though I disagree), and that all these people at townhall meeting are going there at the bidding of Fox News.

So what ??? Unless those people agreed with the ideas Fox News was presenting, they wouldn't be going to the townhalls, would they ? Fox News isn't dragging them out of their homes and putting a gun to their heads. Those people have as much right as anyone else to be heard, to ask questions. Your argument is equivalent to blaming Obama's Organizing For America group for "manufacturing" phony votes for Obama in the 2008 election. It's a ridiculous argument. People listen to all the ideas out there and then they CHOOSE who they think is right. That's how democracy works. You don't get to decide whose ideas are valid and whose aren't. Neither does Obama or the Democratic party.

Big Mac says, "My guess is that the insurance and hospital industries would like things to stay the same."

The insurance companies are against the government public option in health care, because they know Obama's goal is single-payer government health care insurance, which will destroy the private insurance companies. I don't know of any industry that would favor it's own destruction.

But beyond the public option, the insurance industry is strongly in favor of Obama's plan, because it will FORCE everyone to purchase health insurance, giving the insurers a lot more customers via the government mandate. Ditto for the pharmaceutical companies, who have just announced that they plan to spend $150 million pushing Obama's health care reform, because they'll sell a lot more drugs.

The AMA also suddenly supports Obama's plan, after opposing it for months. The reason ? Money.

Obama's forced health care will increase medical business and costs across the board, which means more m-o-n-e-y for the health care players.

As for rationing, I don't see any other way for Obama to save a significant amount of money on health care, other than limiting services to those who spend the most on health care, the elderly.

What we have now is the insurance companies between the patients and the doctors. With ObamaCare, we'lll have the insurance companies AND the government between the patients and the doctors. But you're right, that's already the way it is with Medicare (who, btw, killed my mother last year by refusing to treat her cancer).

I don't know if right wingers are trying to get people out to protest or not. They haven't contacted me, but that's not much proof I suppose. Who HAS contacted me many many times is Moveon, urging me to put pressure on my congressmen to get the Healthcare thing rolling.

I do believe that cranking up a demonstration is more of a liberal thing than a conservative one. If any conservative organization is working behind the scenes to get people to turn out, it is the grossest hypocrysy I can imagine for any democrat anywhere to object.

Isn't that what town meetings are about? If there is a move afoot to rezone a piece of property to permit multifamily structures near a single family neighborhood, isn't someone going to call everybody who lives anywhere near and get them to turn out to counteract whatever pressure the developer is bringing. Isn't that how town meetings work?

I've seen it happen in my town and nobody ever got called a gangster or Nazi over it.

Frye,
You're exactly right.

I'm on all kinds of mailing lists from both the right and the left, and they BOTH try to move people to action. That's why it is so completely disingenuous for the Democrats to be complaining about these "organized" townhall meetings. The DEMS ARE TRYING TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING at every turn, yet somehow, only when conservatives are protesting do you hear these phony condemnations. I'm much more concerned that so many Democratic party leaders are calling American citizens "thugs," "astroturfers," "jihadists," a "mob," etc. As larry said before, it's creepy as hell.

I forgot, frank. The union thugs started showing up at these things immediately after the Obama Administration briefed dem congress people on how to control the town halls–"Punch back twice as hard"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html

What is this country coming to?

frank says, "You [larry] claim that the people disrupting these meetings were union thugs sent by Obama? Now that is really tin foil hat territory, my friend. Even the wingnuts haven't come up with that."

SEIU union thugs disrupted a townhall meeting yesterday, and beat up a conservative. No tin foil hat required. Just reality.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/07/video-seiu-activists-try-to-set-obamacare-opponents-straight/

Oops. Sorry, larry. I stepped on your message.

I guess the thugs got Obama's message, eh ? They punched back alright. Literally. Nice talk from our President.

Did you see the video of the Dem. representative ranting and raving just because a constituent (a urologist) had the nerve to ask him a question about health care during Q&A at a townhall meeting ?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/07/video-democrat-screams-at-constituent-for-asking-tough-question-on-health-care/

I think the message from the Democrats to the citizenry is clear – "shut up."

King sez…."The insurance companies are against the government public option in health care, because they know Obama's goal is single-payer government health care insurance, which will destroy the private insurance companies."

King then sez….."What we have now is the insurance companies between the patients and the doctors. With ObamaCare, we'lll have the insurance companies AND the government between the patients and the doctors."

is that supposed to make some kind of sense?

Andrea, I hope you have been getting better now that the day has worn on and you have been out of bed long enough get awake.

I find that much of the bad in the House bill as considered will be weeded out since they didn't get it passed in the heat of the moment. I am sure that, as Barney Frank says, "They just don't have the votes to pass single payer healthcare. When will you see that single payer is nothing but socialized medicine? Maybe some early morning you will suffer a brain fart and will finally realize this.

walter,
Yes, it makes perfect sense if you understand the issue. Do I really have to explain it ?????

Let me throw out a few interesting links. The first two are by a person who has experience with both the U.S. and Canadian health care system. She is very fair about the good and the bad of the Canadian system.

This is the takeaway from the two parts:

The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers

This next article is pretty scary. It shows that medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies. More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts.

The researchers studied 2,134 random families who filed for bankruptcy between January and April in 2007, before the current recession began.

They used public bankruptcy court records and surveyed 1,032 people by telephone.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5530Y020090604?sp=true

There is a lot of fear in play. Let's go back to the fear mongering in 1961 with, "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine." This was a 10-minute record sent out by the American Medical Association.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

I don't see how a debt of $5,000 or ten percent of family income due to a medical emergency would on its own bankrupt any well-educated, middle-class working homeowner, jimmy. Those types usually have insurance, for one.

That statistic also seems hinky because I suspect that contacted by phone a good percentage of your average bankrupt profligates would blame his or her troubles on a neck or back injury or such.

I doubt many bankruptcies can be attributed to a single cause outside long-term unemployment, poor credit decisions or a failure of a business.

Mr. King and larry d.,
Thanks for providing the links. Though some were from the extreme right, others open to interpretation, apparently a backlash is developing. Whether pro or con, preventing others from speaking is wrong.

from King's hotair link…….

1. It wasn't a healthcare event. The healthcare event was scheduled for later in Aug.

2. Dr. Hill asked why he was going to vote on a healthcare bill like the one that failed in MA. How does Dr. Hill know what the bill that WILL BE voted on look like?

3. Dr. Hill repeatedly referenced the healtcare plan passed by state legislators in MA. This was not a healthcrae event….why would a U.S. Representitive from Georgia know specifics about a heathcare plan passed by state legislators in MA.?

let's be a little bit honest here….Dr. Hill asked a question that there is simply no answer to….why is U.S. Rep. Scott going to vote for a bill that does not yet exist?

that's called sandbagging. Rep. Scott pushed back against a sandbagger…..I don't blame him.

Du King:

Long time reader first time poster. I would like to congratulate you on perfecting the machavillian system(recently adopted by the repugs) of accusing the opposisition of the tactics used by your party(I know you say you are a libertarian but lets get real). Du King says the left is trying to dehumanize the opposition? He asks if anyone has seen swastikas? The answer is yes. I've seen swastikas, SS bolts, and a truly funny sign that had Obama w/a Hitler moustache. Truly comical and helpful in this debate.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with this bill(right now there are 5 versions of the bill, so if anyone claims they know exactly what it is, they're full of sh*t). My problem is that a minority doesn't let the representative speak, shouts down others with "no socialism" and pretty much destroys any chance for meaningful discussion. This may be the way that their daddy's discussed issues with their mamas (along w/ a love slap across mamas' face), but it is not acceptable in a democratic society.
As for union members roughing up these clowns, it is regrettable. But, these people must understand, if you enter a public function, w/ the sole intent of shutting it down, of not letting the elected official speak,and shouting down legitimate questions(being a vocal thug)-then they may get a sock in the face.-Sorry.

I also apologize for the bill to put Palin's baby down, The Logans Run Admenment(on your 60th b-day you gotta go), and the govt angling in on the biggest scam to the American people and the biggest drain on the economy-Health Insurance.

Thanks to New Franklin for pointing out the differences between the two groups in scale and demeanor. Palin continues to make her mark as spokesperson for the know-nothings who seem all too eager to succumb to the fear planted in them by recipients of the healthcare industry's $1.4 million/day expenditures dedicated to defeating the will of the majority.

larry d. doesn't understand how an unexpected bill of 10% of one's gross could throw people into bankruptcy. I suppose it wouldn't if one's wages had not stagnated and if one had the disposable income to save for this contingency. Most people just aren't in that kind of financial shape.

What really bothers me about the healthcare debate is that neither side seems willing to use the examples we have to design what the plan should be. We have the examples of Medicare and the VA sytems in this country, and plenty of examples from other countries. Surely we could have discussions about what works and what doesn't out of these examples. Surely we can match or improve upon what other countries do that attains better results for less money than our system achieves.

Here is a link I'd like to post. Rachel Maddow comes up with some debunking.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2012265-rachel-maddow-exposes-fake-protesters-at-health-care-town-halls

Da King Michelle Makin and others have been claiming the protesters to be a grassroots movement. I won't call a big corporation like Fox grassroots.

Also Da King I'd like to actually take this opportunity to thank you for allowing my posts. I know some times I ramble and they are long, and we do not agree.
I was listening to Sean Hannity the other day ( yes I do listen to the other side at times) and actually wanted to write him my rebuttal to what he said on his show. So I went to his web site but In order to do so you have to sign up and register which I did. So I posted a very civil post on his blog with my opinion. Next thing I knew I was banned from his site and my post was removed with no reason . In fact the message I got said : banned reason none specified . On his site he writes freedom of speech.
My foot.

No, I don't understand how an unexpected $3,500 bill would send someone making $35,000 into bankruptcy all on it's own, frank. Or a $25k bill for someone making $250,000. It would have to be on top of a lot of bad decisions.

Calling it "regrettable" that the current regime sends union thugs to give dissenting voices a "sock in the face" is telling. The anti-Nazi posters are becoming more on-point every day in this country.

Larry,you gotta be living in the twilight zone. Anti-Nazi posters? The former Prez came closer to that argument over the past eight years than anyone! The Constitutionality of some of the decisions regarding the fallout of 9/11, Gitmo, bugging phones, serveillance, and others. Do you even understand what Nazism is? If you did, you wouldn`t write some of this crap.

Fred, can you provide the dates that Obama stopped bugging of phones and listening to phone calls from outside the US by the NSA? Somehow I don't think you can do that. If those things were so bad for Bush to use to protect us what do we need them today for unless Obama has some ulterior motive in mind.

I think it is time for me to offer some proof of why we don't need socialized medicine. Please go to http://glennbeckclips.com and scroll down to the third video and listen to MP Daniel Hannan talk about the British socialized medicine. Pay some attention to the numbers that concern time of work done in the UK.

Now lefties this is Glenn Beck but Daniel Hannan could probably win our election for President in 2012 if he could run. Maybe by then we will have taken out the natural born citizenship requirement for that office.

New Franklin, please keep posting as there is never too much of that done and also this place does practice freedom of speech.

Now can you explain how you can equate a group shouting for a whole 30 second sound bite but surely not for 2 whole hours with a man trying to hand out, for money, copies of very serious parts of our early history? I don't understand that and surely that isn't what the White House had in mind when they told the Senators to go out and "hit them in the face twice as hard as they hit you". Do you really think that a group of hit men from a union has a right to grab the man's wares from his hands and then knock him down by hitting him in the face? Surely you don't think like that.

Andrea,
I would never stop you from posting. You're always welcome here. I don't want this blog to be an echo chamber of my views. The whole idea is to spark a discussion.

I'm surprised Hannity's blog would ban you. I watch his tv show once in a while, and he has guests on who disagree with him all the time (unlike, say, Keith Olbermann, who never lets the opposing viewpoint be aired).

New Franklin,
Welcome to the blog, but why do you doubt that I am a Libertarian (mostly) ? Which views of mine lead you to question that ?

frank,
There has been one actual act of violence committed at a townhall meeting, and it was a pro-Obama union person who committed it.

Why are the Democrats on this blog so afraid of a bunch of older people complaining at townhall meetings ? That's primarily who the ObamaCare opponents are, older people. I don't get it.

FYI – No townhall meeting has been shut down yet due to the crowd. You are being shown 30 second sound bytes out of long townhall meetings. Some perspective please.

King-

In response to your inquery of why I question you being a Libertarian, it is because a Libertarian would have been (and should be) outraged at the erosion of personal freedoms ushered in by the Patriot Act. The warrantless phone taps, home searches and all the other B.S. done to 'protect' us. You just shrugged. Those who choose security over freedom deserve and receive neither.

As for the 'ObamaCare opponents' who are primarily 'older people'-most are already enrolled in govt. health care- its called Medicare. My problem with
the Town Hall disrupters are that they believe
Limblobs 'accusations of 'rationed health care' and Palins talk of 'death panels'.
They try to scare those less informed,and drown out the congressmen and senators who are crafting and will be voting on a healthcare bill. If these people want to rant and get some screen time, they should hold another tea bag party. They have a right to free speech(no matter how wrong it is).But it ends when they trample on others right to free speech.

I don't see how they're trampling on somebody's free speech; certainly not nearly as much as the campus libs (mostly campus libs) who shout down conservative speakers almost every day somewhere in the US.

It looks to me like the difference between organized republican protests and organized democrat protests is ' But we're right and they're wrong!'.

Please, please please let Palin be the Republican nominee in 2012.

New Franklin,
It's funny you brought up the warrantless wiretaps, because in this very post, I stated that national security was one of the few areas in which I part somewhat with the Libertarians. You are right that I had little problem with the NSA wiretapping international phone calls from suspected terrorists following 9/11 (as long as there is oversight to prevent the government from abusing it's power). I still don't have a problem with it as it continues under the Obama administration. I believe defense of this country is one of the crucial roles of government, and the Constitution agrees (as opposed to, say, the government running our health care system, which has no Constitutional basis).

If the Patriot Act authorizes home searches without probable cause, that is news to me, and I would oppose that, as I oppose other unconsitutional laws, such as RICO.

Here is the Libertarian Party statement of principles, found at lp.org:

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market."
—–
In reading the above, it should become apparent why I oppose liberalism so strongly, because liberalism stands exactly opposed to these principles. Liberals believe in the omnipotent state (as long as liberals run it). Republicans, on the other hand, pay lip service to many of these principles. The problem with them is, they don't really adhere to them, as we saw during the Bush administration, which was an era of great government expansion.

Note – When the Libertarians say they believe in the rights of the individual, that does not apply to terrorists, because those rights are only granted to peaceful citiziens, not to those who want to destroy us. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

King, thanks for answering my question to Fred about when Obama stopped the use of NSA listening to those phone calls that HAVE led to protecting us more than once. Once would have been satisfactory for that stuff, as I see it, but it has been more than that. Obama spoke out against those things last summer but he failed to do away with them after his coronation.

Thanks, also, for reminding all of us that the Constitution is not a suicide pact as Libeals seem to want when they are not in control.

Mr. New Franklin,
I, too, wonder how so called libertarians could countenance the trashing of the Bill of Rights by the Bush administration. Apparently, fear cancels principles.

king sez…."Why are the Democrats on this blog so afraid of a bunch of older people complaining at townhall meetings ?"

I'm not afraid….just wondering why

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2002/Oct/Survey–Medicare-Beneficiaries-Report-Greater-Satisfaction-With-Insurance–Better-Access-To-Care-Tha.aspx

King, you were a supporter of the Protect America Act only if it contained language that had immunity for telecoms. You even suggested that democrats were holding up the bill because of money from the plaintiffs lawyers.

That doesn't sound too libertarian to me…..sounds more like a republican Bush apologist

Roy I watched the clip and if you dont think we WAIT here you must be on government medicare. Because I've had to wait just to see a primary care physician a few months for a check up. I had an apointment this last May which I had to cancel , the next opening was SEPTEMBER. Hows that. I've had to wait 2 months for a biopsy and to have a mamogram it is a 6 month wait. Right here in Good old NY . So don't tell me we dont have wait time as well. Here is a link for you
http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Canadian%20health%20care%20hardly%20Marxism%20threat/1823845/story.html
Anyway Obama is not proposing the system they have in England . So why becks comparing it , I have no clue. If private insurers provides the best quality health care and are offering a good deal, they will still be around. So you can use them. But alot of us do not have good plans.

I've got great healthcare and so does everyone I know. Foreigners flock to the U.S. for treatment, which may be expensive but is the best in the world and getting better every day, due to market-driven advances in technology and pharmaceuticals.

larry d. Says:

August 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I don't see how a debt of $5,000 or ten percent of family income due to a medical emergency would on its own bankrupt any well-educated, middle-class working homeowner, jimmy. Those types usually have insurance, for one.

I doubt many bankruptcies can be attributed to a single cause outside long-term unemployment, poor credit decisions or a failure of a business.

this from webMD…….http://www.webmd.com/news/20050202/medical-bills-can-lead-to-bankruptcy

Andrea, if you can't get healthcare in NYC then let me recommend that you move to a better supplied, MD wise, area. I have never had to wait more than two days to see my primary care physician and they are never sitting around waiting for the next patient. Now I know that not every locality is like that but out here in the sticks it is like that.

Why I even blew a crown the other day and called the very nice dentist's receptionist and they worked me in the next day for re-attaching it. My regular appointments don't come so quickly but they do have time for good customers and I am sure that.

I am sure you remember that I went into a hospital after my heart attack on Sunday evening and I was operated on Wednesday morning. Of course, I was near enough stopped up that I was an emergency but I didn't have to wait for some bureaucrat in DC or Topeka to decide whether I was too old for the surgery at 72. They determined that it was either now or never in my case so I am still around.

We've got lots of room and very few unemployed people and most of them don't really want to work. Come on out since we have lots of room and lots of doctors and such like. Of course, I have to drive about 140 miles to get to the best surgeons but that is just a small trip to us.

I can't wait to see what the Dems have in store for we of the old folks group but I don't think I will like it. Just think, they have broken the groups down for swine flu innoculation and the last the last group is 25 to 64. Not one word about those over 64 which means we are the ones who have to take up the slack for the shortage. That is an example of government health care since they are still demanding that we old people (over 65) get out regular flu shots this fall. I guess if we make it that far we will be ok.

I've told you and told you that you needed to relocate and I think you might be able to find a job that your experience would serve you well in our smaller cities where all the health care is waiting. Actually we don't have to go to Wichita to get surgery. They have it in that old icon of the West that we call Dodge City and that is only 65 miles away.

Really, you should check out the chances to live out your reclining years away from the hustle and bustle of the big city. LOL

walter says, "King, you were a supporter of the Protect America Act only if it contained language that had immunity for telecoms"

You want telecoms to be prosecuted for providing the government with the phone records of terrorists, walter ? What kind of principle is that ???? Maybe you prefer the Kill America Act, where we stand around impotently as the terrorists carry out their plots against us.

As stated by the Libertarian Party in my previous post, Libertarians only support the rights of individuals who are peaceful persons, not for terrorists who are trying to kill others.

roy,
I've had the same experience as you have. I've never had to wait more than a couple days to see my primary care physician. Never had to wait long for any medical test. Never had to wait very long for any surgery or other medical procedure.

GLADNEY THE UNINSURED ACTIVIST…. Over the last few days, a conservative activist in St. Louis named Kenneth Gladney seems to have become something of a cause celebre in far-right circles. Depending on which version of events you choose to believe, Gladney either initiated or was involved in a scuffle at a town-hall event late last week.

At least one prominent conservative blogger said Gladney was "brutally attacked" by SEIU members outside the event. After watching the video, there's ample reason for skepticism. Gladney was, in fact, pulled to the ground during the fracas, but he seemed to bounce back up quickly, and is seen walking around soon after without any obvious injuries. His attorney has argued that Gladney was beaten during the fight, but there's nothing in the clip to support that.

Gladney later went to the hospital, claiming to have sustained injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face."

Yesterday, about 200 conservative activists held a protest outside the SEIU office in St. Louis. Gladney was there — bandaged and in a wheelchair — as a featured guest. Some of the activists held signs that read, "Don't Tread on Kenny." Reader R.D. alerted me to this tidbit in the local news account of the protest:

"Gladney did not address Saturday's crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. "A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too." Brown read. "This should never happen in this country."

Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance. [emphasis added]

Wait, the conservative opponent of health care reform, fighting (literally) to defeat a plan that would bring coverage to those who lose their jobs, lost his coverage because he got laid off?"

I'm not in a position to say whether Gladney sustained genuine injuries or whether he's exaggerating for 15 minutes of Fox News fame and a lucrative out-of-court settlement.

Either way, the new right-wing cause celebre needs to take up a collection to pay for his medical bills because he doesn't have health insurance. It's a fascinating sign of the times.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php

Some folks look past their personal circumstances when it comes to civic activism, jimmy. It's not about handouts for everybody.

Of course it's nice to see the democrat smear machine gearing up for another attack on a regular citizen.

Mr. King,
Telecoms providing the government with the phone records of terrorists? You should know better than that. The telecoms (some of them) provided the government with the all their records. Do you really believe that the Telecoms determined who were terrorists and turned in only the terrorists' records?

Jimmy,
Is there no one liberals won't attack for political gain ? Now, they are targeting the guy who got beat up. Classy.

frank,
Do you really think the government cares if I phoned my aunt last week ? I'm pretty sure they don't. They were targeting terrorists.

Are you okay with the government building a centralized database of everyone's medical records for ObamaCare ? Funny, I haven't heard one single complaint from the left about that. No big Constitutional threat pieces from MSNBC on that one. No worries about privacy there. They all think it's a great idea, but Bush trying to track terrorist phone calls is supposed to be some kind of great burning of the Constitution. Sorry, I don't believe you guys even really care about this stuff beyond the political advantage.

Maybe you send Bush's name over to Obama's White House snitch-on-your-fellow-citizen email address, frank.

King sez….."You want telecoms to be prosecuted for providing the government with the phone records of terrorists, walter ? What kind of principle is that ????" The principle involved here is if you break the law you are held accountable. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of that.

King…..you and your ilk F.U.B.A.R.ed the republican party and now you have your sights on libertarians? It's a bad day to be a libertarian now that King is on your side.

walter,

My ilk had nothing to do with FUBAR'ing the GOP. They did that on their own as I opposed their big government plans (exception – national security), just as I am opposing Obama doing the same thing but worse.

I'll ask you the same question I asked frank. Do you have a problem with the government creating a national database of everyone's medical records for ObamaCare ?

King sez….. "(exception – national security), .." so you were republican 99% of the time?

the database question……this reminds me of the story out of Warren County OH about the woman who just lost her job but had a $300,000 house, $80,000 in savings, a child and a husband collecting SS benefits…..and she was applying for food stamps. An employee at the benefits office stole this woman's information and sent it not only to the republican Warren County Commisioners but also to a blogger by the name of Matt Turley. Oh how pleased those republican Warren County Commisioners were with that employee who stole that woman's information as was blogger Turley. WTF is a county employee sending someone's information to a blogger for?

As the republican crapbags in Warren County have shown us, nobody's information is safe.

the pro's of a datsbase would be it would save money and lives

larry d.,
I haven't heard of a "snitch-on-your-fellow-citizen" by Obama. Is it the same program that Bush initiated? Damn that Obama!

Mr. King,
Oh, they were targetting terrorists? Well, that makes it all right. Your right. I'm really scared that this medical database is going to be used to compile a list of the elderly and medically infirm to be euthanized at the FEMA death panel camps.

Ok, I'll leave the snark to larry. Bush could have done all the surveillance and wiretapping he wanted under FISA. The only difference would be that under FISA, a public record would have been produced. They were on a fishing expedition. If you wish to believe that the only information they were interested in were terrorists conversations, go ahead. By the way, just what part of the Constitution is sancrosanct to scared "libertarians"?

Far from being something sinister, I can see how a medical database could be quite useful for the individual. For example, if someone is brought unconscious to an emergency room. Knowing that the person was insulin dependent, would help in diagnosis. Also, if you are still convinced of the evil intent of the medical database, are you concerned that the military holds a DNA database on our troops?

So, walter and frank are FOR the government invading people's privacy to create a database of their medical records, but against invading the privacy of terrorists.

That's what I thought. You guys don't care anything about privacy. You only care about going after Bush.

And frank, I didn't say anything about an "evil intent of the medical database." I think a centralized medical database is a pretty good idea. The only evil intent is the one y'all created about Bush pursuing terrorists after 9/11.

You haven't been paying attention, frank. Of course Bush wouldn't ask fellow citizens to turn one another in because they disagreed with one of his policies.

But the Obama Administration has asked you to report to them anything you hear about healthcare reform, in casual conversation, that sounds "fishy." You've got a lot of work to do to catch up on your snitching. You can turn us in using the email address, flag@whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Mr. King,
Bush invaded the privacy of all Americans, not just terrorists. Surely, as a libertarian, you should be able to appreciate the difference and recognize the totalitarian potential of his actions. When coupled with his assertion of the power to imprison people indefinitely without trial, the power to confiscate guns, as was done to New Orleans residents during Katrina, the power to confiscate people's assets, the power to ignore the laws and treaties of our country, the power to torture, and the power to wage illegal wars, it is difficult for me to assume anything but the worst. The Bush administration, in its quest for a permanent Republican government didn't want to govern, they wanted to rule.

larry d.,
Of course he wouldn't.

But Obama sure did.

larry d.,
I remember when Bush assumed these powers, I warned that them evil Democrats would inherit those powers. Obama seems in no hurry to relinquish them, and if you think that any politician will voluntarily cede power, you are sadly naive

p.s. That why those powers do not exist in the Constitution.

frank,
So, you think Bush did all the things he did to create a "permanent Republican government," and not to root out terrorists ?

Right. War is always soooo popular with the American public. It's tin foil hat time.

How'd that permanent Republican government thing work out ?

But, yes I do realize the potential for abuse of the powers the government was given. I've watched the government abuse it's power for my entire adult lifetime. The 4th amendment was trampled into dust long before Dubya arrived at the White House doors, and the government has circumvented the Constitution in almost every way possible for a long, long time. I've been objecting to those abuses for decades. Of all those abuses for all those years, however, the one time I was willing to give the government a pass was when our national security really was at stake after we were attacked. We didn't know what was coming next, and I give Bush credit for stopping numerous terrorist attacks against this country, and for taking the fight to the terrorists (though I thought the Iraq war was a mistake).

Oddly enough, that one time when some extraordinary government authority was called for is the time liberals decided to become strict constructionists. Like I said before, this isn't about the Constitution for liberals, it's just about getting Bush because he's a Republican. FDR basically did everything Bush did, and liberals didn't make a peep about that.

Mr. King,
I'll agree that the Constitution has been abrogated in the past. But don't for a moment try to make the claim that liberal concerns about government violations of the Constitution began with George W. Bush. Many of us have been objecting to these abuses since LBJ's time. But the amount and scope of Bush's violations of the Constitution far exceed any of his predecessors. National security—gimme a break! Seven years after 9/11, our nuclear and chemical plants remain unprotected, our borders porous, incoming cargo remains largely uninspected, and immigration unimpeded. While security screeners have passengers jump through hoops, uninspected packages are loaded into the cargo holds of airplanes. The "numerous" attacks prevented by the Bush administration consist largely of terrorist wannabes without the brains or means to carry anything out. As for "taking the fight to the terrorists", Bush withdrew troops from Afghanistan for his war of choice in Iraq at the time when they were closing in on bin Laden. And, finally, war may or may not be popular with the American public, but there is no better way to sell foreign policy or quell criticism than by becoming a "war president". That's why Bush insisted on a never ending "war on terror" instead of a war on Al Qaeda.

I don't remember Bush setting up a snitch email program, frank, or seeking the power to do so.

larry, why would Bush need "snitches" when he had the telecoms feeding him Americans' conversations and e-mail? Bush's program was probably 10,000 times more efficient.

what I'd like to find out more about is the pentagon's spy on Americans program Able Danger.

Me too. Maybe you can inform me.

frank,
Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to attack Bush for every national security measure he took at the same time you are attacking him for every national security measure he didn't take ? It makes it appear as if partisanship is your only concern, especially when other Presidents haven't addressed the issues you raise either.

You say "the amount and scope of Bush's violations of the Constitution far exceed any of his predecessors"

Not true. FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans, for instance, or torture of the Nazis. Truman was the only one to use nukes. We had J. Edgar Hoover spying on Americans in the 60's (and actually, the government has been spying on us as long as I've been alive). We have unconstitutional RICO laws. McCarthyism. We've had habeas corpus suspended for Americans. We've had Project Echelon and other offshoots of it for a long time. We've had instituionalized racism and slavery. Our banking transactions have been reported to the government for as long as I can remember.

Not to mention that Obama is continuing many of those Bush policies. I'm willing to bet you can't find even one Bush anti-terror policy that doesn't have some equivalent done by an earlier President.

I'd like to know more about Able Danger myself, and why Congress whitewashed the information in it's investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html

King….it was Don Rumsfeld who took able danger off the table….not congress

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld

Secretary

Department of Defense

Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

We the undersigned are formally requesting that you allow former participants in the intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER to testify in an open hearing before the United States Congress. Until this point, congressional efforts to investigate ABLE DANGER have been obstructed by Department of Defense insistence that certain individuals with knowledge of ABLE DANGER be prevented from freely and frankly testifying in an open hearing. We realize that you do not question Congress’s authority to maintain effective oversight of executive branch agencies, including your department. It is our understanding that your objection instead derives from concern that classified information could be improperly exposed in an open hearing. We of course would never support any activity that might compromise sensitive information involving national security. However, we firmly believe that testimony from the appropriate individuals in an open hearing on ABLE DANGER would not only fail to jeopardize national security, but would in fact enhance it over the long term. This is due to our abiding belief that America can only better prepare itself against future attacks if it understands the full scope of its past failures to do so.

On September 21, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing on ABLE DANGER which Bill Dugan, Acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight, certified did not reveal any classified information. Congressman Curt Weldon’s testimony at that hearing was largely based on the information that has been given to him by ABLE DANGER participants barred from open testimony by DOD. Their testimony would therefore closely mirror that of Congressman Weldon, who did not reveal classified information. Therefore we are at a loss as to how the testimony of ABLE DANGER participants would jeopardize classified information. Much of what they would present has already been revealed. Further refusal to allow ABLE DANGER participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding ABLE DANGER. This would suggest not a concern for national security, but rather an attempt to prevent potentially embarrassing facts from coming to light. Such a consideration would of course be an unacceptable justification for the refusal of a congressional request.

Sincerely,

Mr. King,
I supported Bush's attempt to capture or kill bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda. They are mass murderers, just as was McVeigh, and deserve his fate. However, neither they nor McVeigh, represent the existential threat that our country faced in WWII. I've never heard of FDR ordering the torture of Nazis. His internment of the Japanese, Germans, and Italians, may seem comparable to Bush's claim of the power to imprison anyone indefinitely without legal redress, but once again, the threat we faced was infinitely greater. Of course, Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan was made with the alternative of an estimated 1 million casualties. The rest of your examples are not abuses of presidential power. Lincoln suspension of habeas corpus was again a response to the existential threat of the Civil War. When the Supreme Court ruled against him, habeas corpus was restored.

Bush not only claimed the right to torture in contravention of post WWII treaties, he claimed to the right to interpret and disregard any laws, even the ones he signed. He claimed not only the right to imprison anyone indefinitely without charge or legal representation, he claimed the power to confiscate anyone's property. I'm sure others can add to the list. But suffice it to say that anyone who calls our Constitution "just a goddam piece of paper" in frustation to being told of limits on his power, cares not a whit about national security. For Bush, it was all about being a "war president".

But the biggest difference between Bush and his predecessors is his war of aggression against Iraq. Robert Jackson, Supreme Court Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor described a war of aggression as the supreme war crime in that it contains within it all war crimes.

As to the continuation of these crimes by Obama, he has already violated his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of our country. So have all in Congress who did not impeach Bush. It is the sorriest example of bipartisanship, ever.

Did I say FDR tortured the nazis ? Yeah, I guess I did. No, I have to take that back. Brain fart. I can't affix that to him. Nazis were starved in detention camps all over Europe though. And the Brits did torture them.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2005/12/brits_tortured/

And Clinton started the rendition program. Don't forget that. He knew terrorist suspects would be tortured. He just didn't want to be held responsible. That was his way of getting around it. I wonder why absolutely nobody mentions that ? Then there's Filegate, where Clinton was spying on his political enemies. This stuff is as old as the hills. Bush certainly didn't invent any of it.

But I don't find any of the rest of your "that's different" arguments persuasive in the least, except for Lincoln suspending habeas. I understand that one. You can't think RICO and Echelon are okay and then complain about warrantless wiretapping of terrorists, for god's sake. That's crazy. They are the same issue.

FDR imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII would be exactly equivalent to us imprisoning Muslim-Americans now because we're at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was uncalled for, and Congress has apologized for it. But I don't hear anyone calling FDR an evil criminal. Hmmm.

And I'd say the "goddamned piece of paper" remark showed just the opposite of what you claim. It showed Bush DID care about national security. The context was the renewal of the Patriot Act, which was about…national security. Bush was exhibiting frustration at not being able to take what he thought were the necessary measures to fight terrorists. It's a troubling remark, but I don't see how it could be taken any other way.

walter,
There was a 16 month investigation. I'm just not sure I buy the official conclusions. Too much contradictory testimony, data destroyed. Shady.

Mr. King,
I don't know what to tell you if you cannot tell the difference between a terrorist group and the people who had conquered most of Europe, the South Pacific, and Asia. I do know a number of veterans of WWII who might like to try.

If national security was Bush's concern, why did he drop Clinton's plan to go after Al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole? Why did he ignore the warnings not only from the Clinton administration but from the intelligence branches of at least five of our allies of the danger posed by Al Qaeda? Ya don't think that the PNAC boys were too busy with their plans to invade Iraq, do ya?

The Nazis were the ones with the Swastikas, right ?

"If national security was Bush's concern, why did he drop Clinton's plan to go after Al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole?"

Huh ? al-Nashiri, the orchestrator of the USS Cole attack, is in Gitmo. The rest of the defendents were convicted and all subsequently were freed or escaped from Yemeni prisons.

Regarding Clinton, let's cut to the chase. Why didn't Clinton go after Al Qaeda while they were carrying out one attack after another against the USA in the 90's and 2000 ??? Putting Clinton up as the big terrorism fighter, especially when compared to Bush, is laughable. I can't even believe you went there.

Mr. King,
Clinton's plan to go after the Cole bombers was ready for Bush on day 1 of his presidency. He did nothing until after 9/11. I would also point out that when Clinton did, he was frequently criticized as trying to draw attention from the impeachment proceedings. But, please, enough of comparing Clinton and Bush. Just because I disapprove of nearly everything Bush did doesn't mean that I am in the thrall of either Clinton or Obama, for that matter. Our means of picking leaders has pretty much declined into a race for the money. It guarantees that we get hacks.

You are distorting things, frank. Clinton had a plan to go into Afghanistan HIMSELF (according to Clinton) after the USS Cole bombing, but they couldn't pin the attack on Al Qaeda.

Clinton – "After the [attack on the USS] Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible. . . . So that meant I would've had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night."

As for leaving a strategy for Bush, Clinton said of Bush on a Fox interview, "They did not try. I tried. . . . When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted."

Factcheck calls this an exaggeration.

http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html

From Factcheck – It's not true that the Bush Administration "did not try" to address the al Qaeda threat before 9/11, though how hard is open to debate. It unquestionably got off to a sluggish start. The first principals' meeting on terrorism didn't take place until Sept. 4, 2001. That doesn't mean nothing was happening, though. In March, 2001, Rice asked the CIA to draw up a new set of authorities for covert action in Afghanistan. It drafted two documents, including one that permitted greater use of lethal force in a variety of circumstances. However, CIA Director George Tenet argued to the Deputy Director of the National Security Council that the Administration should make some larger decisions about policy before deciding on final language, and the draft was put on hold (p. 210). Also in March, Bush expressed frustration to Rice about not being able to get bin Laden. "I'm tired of swatting at flies," he told her, according to the 9/11 Report (p. 202). Bush told the Commission that he was frustrated with catching terrorists one-by-one or cell-by-cell, though he understood that it took time to mesh diplomatic, financial and military measures into a coherent policy (p. 202).There was also a great deal of discussion in the spring and summer of 2001 about the ongoing development of an armed Predator – a pilotless drone that could launch Hellfire missiles when it found its target (p. 211).
====
In any case, al-nashiri was caught by the CIA in 2002. He was caught on BUSH'S watch. And BUSH was the one who finally invaded Afghanistan, as Clinton said he wanted to do. I don't know what you are complaining about, frank, but the partisan slop was entertaining.

also from factcheck……

Rice: We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.

False: Rice's statement is not supported by the 9/11 Report, which describes the plans Clarke drew up and says they were conveyed to Bush's aides, as we noted earlier. The 9/11 Report says that as the Clinton Administration drew to a close in December 2000, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper on eliminating the al Qaeda threat, "the first such comprehensive effort" since a 1998 plan known as Delenda (p. 197). The Report also says (p. 201): "After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper."

Clarke is emphatic about the matter, telling interviewer Charlie Rose on Sept. 28, 2006:

Clarke: The Clinton Administration in the last month, in December of 2000, asked us to develop a comprehensive plan that we could hand off to the Bush Administration that had a military attack plan, that had an intelligence attack plan. It had diplomatic steps. It had economic steps. It was a comprehensive plan.

So, the Clinton administration left a comprehensive strategy for Bush, that the Clintons somehow could not carry out themselves. Is that about right ?

I'll leave you to ponder the absurdity of those words.

Here's a hint. Bush left a comprehensive terrorism strategy for Obama to follow. If Obama does not follow it, and to a great extent he hasn't, does that make Obama an idiot ? Or, does each Presidential administration carry out it's own strategy ????

And I could give a crap if Clarke is upset. Every administration hires it's own people. If Bush made any huge mistake, it was in letting Clinton's man George Tenet remain as head of the CIA. Tenet was the one who blew the WMD intel.