Quick Links to Posts By Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Liberals and RINOs – A Clear and Present Danger

During the last week, while the Bush Administration was scoring big on both the foreign and domestic fronts, a few liberals and RINOs (Republican In Name Only) in congress engaged in political action detrimental to the success of the US in the Global War on Terror. While such actions probably don't rise to the level of “unpatriotic”, they are surely short-sighted and irresponsible.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was a leader in a Senate filibuster to block renewal of the Patriot Act. Feingold and his supporters, in spite of their protests to the contrary, were engaging in pure politics. The Patriot Act legislation up for renewal contained several bi-partisan fine-tunings to address earlier concerns expressed by critics of the act, yet Feingold sanctimoniously said he was concerned about “violations of the constitutional rights” of Americans. The legislation essentially gives the government the same legal tools they have had for years in fighting the "drug war" and organized crime. It's interesting to note that the senator was not so concerned that he and his cohorts offered to approve a temporary three month extension of the current, untuned Patriot Act.

Feingold picked up the support of other Senators courtesy of the cover provided by a story in the New York Times citing leaked information of a program of wiretapping and electronic surveillance by US intelligence agencies in some cases without court authorization. What Feingold doesn't say is that congressional leaders were aware of the program since its beginning and that a book on the subject by a New York Times reporter is about to be released. Surely it is purely coincidental that the Times had been aware of the story for a long time and just happened to release it on the day of the Senate vote on the renewal of the Patriot Act.

As Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) noted in a report by the Associated Press:

At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Well, as it turns out the author of this article turned in a book three months ago and the paper, The New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author...I think it's a crying shame ... that we find that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the Patriot Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release on the night before the vote on the floor on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as part of a marketing campaign for selling a book.

President Bush angrily condemned the leak and the Senate filibuster in his weekly radio address:

Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate. Since then, America's law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: It has protected American liberty and saved American lives. Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.

The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

It's obvious that Feingold was engaged in pure politics in an effort to keep the successes in Iraq from being the primary topic on the Sunday news shows. He can't come up with a single case of any American's rights being violated because of the Patriot Act. This from a man who, along with Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ), almost single-handedly shredded the First Amendment with their clearly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold “Campaign Reform” legislation.

Speaking of Senator McCain, he was busy this week pushing his “anti-torture” legislation. This legislation that prohibits “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of captured enemy combatants and suspected foreign terrorists would be laughable if it didn't negatively impact our war effort. Rush Limbaugh dubbed it the “Terrorists Bill of Rights” in describing the net effect of the legislation. The insidious thing about this unnecessary, purely politically grandstanding legislation is that McCain has succeeded in tying it to two defense bills including an appropriations bill to provide for the troops, effectively blackmailing the Bush Administration into signing on to it.

The US government does not engage in real torture or inhumane treatment, but interrogation techniques that are often less intense than some fraternity hazings have been decried as such by liberals and international “human rights” groups. Humiliation and minor discomfort is not torture. Forcing hardened terrorists to listen to endless loops of rap and heavy-metal music while being paraded around in their skivvies is not torture. Disallowing the wearing of diapers on their heads is not torture. Keeping the bastards awake for many hours at a time or exposing them to a wide variance of ambient temperature could be, at worst, classified as inflicting discomfort but is not torture.

How many of Americans (at least among those who recognize what's at stake in the Global War on Terror) really give a damn if a terrorist hell-bent on destroying this country is subjected to “creul or degrading” treatment (especially as defined by namby-pamby liberals)? If a dirt-ball terrorist, who has no problem with making a person beg for their life on camera before cutting off their head with a dull knife, has information that could be used to prevent a nuclear detonation or release of a biological attack in a major city, isn't it prudent to do whatever it takes to obtain the information? Put yourself in the position of a soldier or a interrogator who must make a crucial decision, often in the heat of battle, and have to weigh the possibility of court-martial or criminal prosecution if they make the “wrong” decision.

It's truly sad that supporters of the Patriot Act filibuster and the anti-torture legislation are so politically driven and/or intellectually irresponsible to realize how damaging their actions could be to the country.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you talk about Domestic Issues there is practically no difference between McCain and Rodham-Clinton.

McCain is a liberal "Republican" and while Rodham-Clinton is a liberal since she needs to be seen as less liberal she will hold back on promoting many liberal policies to retain hold of the center.

In this respect, McCain might even be more liberal because he will purposely promote liberal policies to get supporters while Rodham-Clinton will hold back fearing she would lose support.

But the real difference between the two is in foriegn policy. Rodham-Clinton was part of the well it may have been ill-advised the nonetheless successful attacks on Serbia.

McCain on the otherhand, is noted for being a fighter pliot in Nam who when captured betrayed fellow prisoners to increase his own comfort.

I believe that Rodham-Clinton knows how to fight. She was probably one of those woman whose first response when offended by a male was a kick to the groin. I for one wouldn't want to be anywhere near her when she is on the warpath.

Extreme times call for extreme measures. If it becomes a choice between McCain and Rodham-Clinton then I will be among the first to open up a local chapter of Republicans for Rodham. With the the slogan being "if you were bin Laden, who would you want to be up your ass?".

12/18/2005 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bad move on McCain.

He has made himself the poster child for blame the next time there is a domestic terror attack.

And the Bushies can honestly say, don't blame us, our hands were tied.

This is one of those cases where something that at the time seems short term smart turns out to be long term stupid.

Or in this case long term fatal, and unfortunately not just to McCain's political career.

12/18/2005 10:52 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

Shrillary or McCain...talk about a Hobson's choice!

McCain has demonstrated "flexibility" in his position on issues based on what the media reports as the "correct" position and thrives on the silly "maverick" label. He has demonstrated a troubling lack of judgment when it comes to crucial defense issues, a propensity to view the Constitution as a living, breathing document open to whatever interpretation is convenient or politically expedient at the time, and a general lean to the left on social and economic issues.

Rodham-Clinton is a cold, unethical, sanctimonious, self-aggrandizing megalomaniac who accomplished very little on her own until she glommed onto the up-and-coming Bill Clinton. Her ability to weasel out of the problems created by her character flaws is largely due to political power she usurped from her husband. I question how "tough" she really is as she shamelessly switches her public persona and demeanor from Hitlerly to the Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm depending on the situation. She, like McCain, also has the mainstream media at her beck and call.

Given the choice between the two I would have to reluctantly give the nod toward McCain. McCain is wrong on several issues and is often unpredictable, but I think he is basically honest and ethical relative to Shrillary. The Clintons, through their actions and inaction, are responsible for so many problems President Bush is currently dealing with and having a co-perpetrator in charge with the opportunity to cover up her and Bill's complicity in issues she would have to make crucial decisions on would be extremely dangerous. If it came down to a decision about her legacy versus the good of the country I don't like the odds that she would opt for the good of the country.

It is imperative that the American voter is never forced to make an election choice like this because either outcome would be hazardous to the health and prosperity of the nation. We conservatives need to keep up the heat on McCain and deny him any possibility of becoming the Republican presidential candidate.

God help this country if it ever comes down to choosing between Rodham-Clinton and McCain.

12/19/2005 9:39 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger