Pick Hillary, she's our gal

Well except for the fact that we have lost our habeus corpus rights, we dispatch fighter planes when a tragic, but accidental crash of a private airplane occurs, we actually give attention to online chatter...I'd agree with you

Democrat Senator Chris Dodd is weak.

"Well except for the fact that we have lost our habeus corpus rights...."-by: Dennis C

Only if you're a terrorist.

This is WAR.

Democrats have a hard time with word definitions.

Ask the freedom loving Democrats what they think about the second amendment ... like Pelosi. Watch them run like roaches in the night.

"It's a major, major retreat for us as a people," Dodd said during a visit to Iowa on Tuesday afternoon. "It's incredible what they did."

I guess Senator Dodd thinks terrorists like the following people should be treated with kid gloves...

CHAD, yet another FRONT of the GWOT: Rebels kill women and children in Chad

Scotsman.com: In Koukou Angarana, Chad-SUDANESE Janjaweed militia and Chadian rebels have attacked at least ten villages in south-east Chad in the past fortnight, killing over 100 people and displacing more than 3,000 others, according to local and UN officials. The attacks are part of a spillover of violence from Sudan's western Darfur region, where violence has increased...[..]

"First we were attacked by local Chadian Arabs and the Janjaweed," said Usman Mucktar Hassan, exhausted after fleeing his devastated village. "They came on horseback and used M14s to shoot at us. [..] The rebels came in their Toyotas. They had heavy arms like bazookas. They killed many people." [..]

"When they started shooting we all ran. Some women didn't even have time to grab their children," said Kaltouma Adam Ali.

"They started shooting the men first, then killing women and children, and taking cattle and food. I saw a woman and her two children killed. They even tried to shoot my baby."

Yeh, I feel REAL safe with Bush's War on Terror--

1.Within months of 9/11 , Bush appeased Osama's
biggest grievance, by pulling troops out of
Saudi Arabia. He later made a comment that he
"was'nt really worried about Osama"

2.A Special Force whose sole job was to hunt for
al Qaeda was shut down about two years ago.

3.Pakistan recently gave amnesty and safe-haven
to al Qaeda--no objections from the Bush Admin.

4. Worldwide terrorist-attacks have increased
at least tenfold since George w. Bush took
office.

5.After winning the war in Iraq, in 2003,(with
Clinton's military), Bush messed up the chance
to win hearts & minds, by giving the rebldng.
to corrupt outfits. Instead of rebuilding, we
ended up with Military Occupation, resentment,
and the festering and growth of terrorist groups
of all sorts in Iraq, and a Shi'ite govt. with
ties to Iran.

Could the dems possibly screw up any worse??
BTW-- expect a love-message from Osama,sometime
before the election

To paraphrase Senator Dodd's comments:

It is better to deny a Republican president the tools needed to fight the enemies of our country than to risk having that Republican president defeat those enemies.

His statement has absolutely nothing to do about rights, due process, or our national conscience. It's all about the politics--and the country be damned if necessary.

So Dodd is outraged over this legislation, and regrets not filibustering it; yet he is 'persuaded' by other Democrats not to even attempt a filibuster, or to even threaten one?

Yeah...Sure. When has not having enough votes stopped a filibuster attempt by the Dems? remember Alito? They were way short of votes, but Dems went on record as trying to stop Alito's getting on the SCOTUS by attempting to block a cloture vote.

There are plenty of Dem Senators who would've gone along with Dodd. Boxer, Obama, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, etc.

The Dems didn't want another instance where they were again proven weak on the WOT. This was for votes, not for any principle, and Dodd's 'regret' purely B.S. for his left-wing supporters.

Dodd said during a visit to Iowa on Tuesday afternoon. "It's incredible what they did."

They? What THEY did? Is he really that stupid? Either by his direct or indirect actions as a senator he is part of the “they” he portrays to slam. Talk about the party of switch and bait.

Would he suggest using the catch-n-release program previously used for illegal immigrants when dealing with terrorist?

Huh? You sure twisted the context of Dodd's words. I think he meant giving up our habeus corpus rights and our right to due process is a major blow to who we are!

I'm sure you knew that, but are being intentionally deceptive (ie lying). Either that or Bush and the Republicans came to the conclusion that "They hate us for our freedoms, SO we must become less free so they don't hate us anymore!"

Actually, here's the President's actual words:

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

So I guess he's just staying true to his words. . .

WE as Americans did not give up our Rights. We codified the fact that enemy combatants caught fighting against us wearing no uniform and having affiliations with terrorist groups have no f'ing Rights. They aren't Americans.

Maybe you should worry more about protecting American lives then assigning American Rights to the enemy, coulterfan. You lefties make me sick.

Did you catch this part, Matt?

"Dodd said he would introduce legislation in the lame duck session of Congress, seeking to overturn provisions of the measure, but he conceded his chances of success were slim. The Connecticut senator noted the irony of Bush's action coming close to the 60th anniversary of the judgments against Nazi war criminal in the Nuremberg trials."

I notice that the 226th anniversary of Benedict Arnolds treason just passed in September. Perfect for the liberals.

WE as Americans did not give up our Rights. We codified the fact that enemy combatants caught fighting against us wearing no uniform and having affiliations with terrorist groups have no f'ing Rights. They aren't Americans.

Better check your facts and actually READ the legislation. American citizens CAN be defined as 'enemy combatants' (like when FDR deprived Japanese AMERICANS of their rights and property). Furthermore, if "waterboarding" is now allowed even for 'enemy combatants', why did we prosecute the Japanese for waterboarding American soldiers? Are we prepared to play by the new rules Bush has created (if an American is waterboarded, can be held indefinitely, has no legal representation, and has no right to hear the charges against him/her, ARE WE IN A MORAL POSITION NOW TO OBJECT?)

I notice that the 226th anniversary of Benedict Arnolds treason just passed in September. Perfect for the liberals.

WHO were the biggest traitors in American history? Which group TOOK UP ARMS AGAINST THE US AND WANTED TO SECEDE? I'll give you a hint, some people (including Macaca Allen) STILL fly their Anti-American flag proudly!

Liberals are not the traitors. In fact, SOME today EVEN WANT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT OUR FREEDOMS (Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, Anti-Flag Burning Amendment, etc)- and they are not the liberals. In fact, "liberal" comes from "liberty", something their opponents seem to also be against! It's SAD when you love the flag more than the freedoms that the flag stands for!

C'mon, spell it out for a "stupid liberal", what will Iraq look like when we're 'done'? What do we need to do before we can leave?

Why can't anyone answer the question???

Coulterfan:
I'm going to say what my parents used to say to me rather frequently when I was a teenager a few years back.

There is not telling you anything because and I quote my parents, "You'd argue with a signboard and take the wrong way home."

Your hatred of commonsense and George Bush make you irrational and idiotic in your devotion to anti-anything Bush favors.

Heck, he'd wish your loved ones a happy birthday and you'd be screaming about no plan for Iraq.

It's true... you're kind has ruined the discourse in America. Think back to Senator Biden and his statements about Bork. The list is rather inexhaustible to boot.

So... when you're on the road today and it says turn right, to get where you want to go, follow the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and turn left... after all, it'll only take more time and two more left hand turns to get where you needed to go if you just turned right in the first place.

Settle down, coulterfan. Take a breath. Take a pill. Take a reality break.

I am an American. If I violate a law, I am entitled to the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If I take up arms against my country, I am to be considered an enemy combatant and subjected to a different standard. It's not complicated.

Yes, OF COURSE Americans can be considered enemy combatants. Duh. Ever hear of Johnny Bin Walker? You guys just can't figure out the difference between robbing a 7-11 and joining a band of armed militants dedicated to destroying the country and killing as many of us as possible.

Actually, I think you could understand, but have chosen not to, because your real goal is not the preservation of American freedoms but the opportunity to savage conservatives for every single thing you can find/invent. It's this intellectual cowardice and moral dishonesty that makes us so contempuous of the radical Left---the gleeful flauting of fairness, reason, or fact in the pursuit of glorifying hate and malice.

And you just keep inventing "facts" and then parading them as if they were valid. Go ahead and choose to personally define the Confederate Flag as "anti-American"---but don't try to pass that off as a valid definition. It's just the way it is defined in your own dark and murky hyper-emotional hate-driven universe.

You probably never noticed or cared, but when I refer to the fever swamp radical Left as Liberals, I always capitalize it, as there is now such a vast chasm between the word "liberal" and the political "Liberal". Liberalism (capital L Liberalism) is the most illiberal philosophy I have ever seen. It is also totally self-contradictory.

It claims to be for freedom of speech, yet tries to block anything but ultra-Leftist speech on campuses around the country---by threats of violence, by boycotts, by physical barricades to try to intimidate students from attending, by organized heckling, even by physical assault as in the recent attacks on the Minute Men speakers.

It claims to be in defense of the Constitution, yet it demands a very free-form definition of that Constitution, dependent on personal interpretation and very selective application of the rights and freedoms within that Constitution---the right to life, for example, is subject to personal definition of "life", and the right to bear arms is just ignored.

The list of illiberal positions taken by those who, in defiance of logic, call themselves "Liberals" is way too long to post here. But if you are going to wrap yourself in the flag of liberalism, you had better learn how to be liberal, and not just A Liberal.

I am an American. If I violate a law, I am entitled to the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

Not necessarily anymore. But I guess you're OK with that. I further assume that you're OK with the fact that a Democratic president would get to use this exact same law--meaning a Democratic president would get to define who is an "enemy combatant" with no recourse for the accused.

Kinda puts all your prattle about "freedom" into context: You don't really care about it that much.... It's just a term for political gamesmanship, eh li'l Almy?

Go ahead and choose to personally define the Confederate Flag as "anti-American"

Ummm...you are aware that the Confederates wnated to secede from the United States, right? Sounds pretty anti-American to me. But I guess you have a conservative bizarro-definition of the term you prefer to use instead of the real one.

"If I take up arms against my country, I am to be considered an enemy combatant and subjected to a different standard. It's not complicated."

"Go ahead and choose to personally define the Confederate Flag as "anti-American"---but don't try to pass that off as a valid definition."

Umm, do you see any inherent contradiction here? Did the Confederates, ummm, ever "take up arms against [our] country?"

So. . .by your own definition, Southerners during the civil war should have been declared "Enemy Combatants" and denied an attorney, the right to habeous corpus, could have been held indefinitely, etc. Correct?

"Your hatred of commonsense and George Bush make you irrational and idiotic in your devotion to anti-anything Bush favors."

What? When did I say I hated Bush or was devoted to anything anti-Bush? In fact, I don't hate him BUT he is a terrible president. I could, however, name quite a few things he's done that I agree with. How about it? You name 3 things Clinton did that improved this country and I'll name 3 things Bush did ("No Child Left Behind", "AIDS relief to Africa", "War in Afghanistan against Al Queda and Taliban). Your turn. . .

The absolute silence on what the plan is in Iraq (other than "Stay the Course") speaks volumes! Crazy Sen Burns says there's a "secret plan to win Iraq", but when is it going to be employed?

And, yes, many members of the Administration put forth these fantasies (Cheney "We'll be greeted as liberators", "the insurgency is in its last throes"; Wolfowitz "the war will pay for itself"; Natsios "the war will cost no more than 1.7 billion to the American taxpayer"; Rumsfeld "I doubt the war will last 6 months", etc!) WMDs were used to scare the American people into this war and THIS is why most Americans feel we were lied into the war and no longer support staying there indefinitely.

And, furthermore, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave and support attacks against Americans! But, instead of a serious discussion on how to proceed, the Republicans are unwilling to take an honest bi-partisan look at how to win. They have no idea what they're doing- they still don't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite!

Hey, who said:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

and

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

and

"As well, you not only need to have a clear mission here, but we need to have a Commander-in-Chief with a clear vision, who sets clear goals for our military."

Any Guesses? Why, it's Bush on Kosovo! At the time, he made it clear that we needed an exit strategy, a timetable, and a clear mission. He has provided none of these in Iraq!

Admit it, YOU GUYS don't know what the mission is! I don't even think the administration knows- they seem to be "winging it" ("We'll know when the mission is done because it will feel done!")

Can nobody tell me what the mission is? When can we go home? How many of you are enlisting to serve in Iraq? Do you REALLY think things are getting better?

The Iraq war has now lasted longer than our involvement in World War II with no end in sight- the Pentagon has plans to stay, with current troop levels, until at least 2010!

Hey, Almiranta, I STILL can't believe how stupid your statement is:

"Go ahead and choose to personally define the Confederate Flag as "anti-American"---but don't try to pass that off as a valid definition."

THAT is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard! If Anti-American means anything, it means being "Anti" America. I mean, by definition, those who take up arms to fight against America are "Anti-American"!

You might want to brush up on your American history, my friend. The Confederate flag symbolizes more than just "Bo and Luke's Wicked-Fast Car"!

ROTFLAO

The absolute silence on what the plan is in Iraq (other than "Stay the Course") speaks volumes!

CF, I've lost count of the number of times you've asked essentially that same question over the last couple days. You said in another thread earlier today that you've studied Bush's plan, but it keeps changing. Which is it? You know, when some keeps doing the same thing over and over, each time expecting to get a different result, it's an indication of schizophrenia.

Crazy Sen Burns says there's a "secret plan to win Iraq", but when is it going to be employed?

No, sorry, that was "Crazy Senator Kerry" who said that. He never really spelled it out, but it was pretty obvious his plan was to win before he lost. (or vice versa -- I'm not sure)

Any Guesses? Why, it's Bush on Kosovo! At the time, he made it clear that we needed an exit strategy, a timetable, and a clear mission.

You mean the mission wasn't to blow up the Chinese embassy?

It seems CF did not take any of my advice--not to take a deep breath, and certainly not to take a pill. And no way did he take a reality break. So, I will wipe his hysterical spittle off my screen and respond......

The south wanted to secede from the Union. They did not want to destroy the North, or take it over, or push it into the sea, or in any other way obliterate it. They were perfectly happy with the idea of a United States of America---they just didn't want it to be in charge of their own states, because they wanted to make rules that were in violation of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. The fighting was about the determination of the North to keep the Union intact and the determination of the South to stomp off and create their own country if they didn't like the rules passed by Congress. Anti-AMERICAN? Get real.

You state that now I am not necessarily entitled to the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. But this is ridiculous, and a gross misrepresentation of the new legislation signed into law by the President. I get to choose whether or not I will be entitled to habeus corpus. I get to make my own decision about that, and then to announce my decision by either taking up arms against my country or not doing so.

Of course, on Planet CF, the planet of dark and murky motivations, seen only through the crystal ball of lunatic leftism, it is vaguely possible that some president somewhere some time could claim that writing bad checks or sticking up a bank was the same as being an enemy combatant. But I was in more danger of having the IRS sicced on me for being a Republican, and/or having my FBI files illegally turned over to my political enemies, than I ever will be of being named as an enemy combatant----something about being an enemy, and being a combatant, being required. But I guess that is TMI for a lefty.

How typically snide and smug and superior you are, referring to my comments as "prattle" while you blatantly misrepresent them. It would take a pretty wild stretch to claim that I do not value my freedom. Clearly, I do. I am just smart enough to realize that I will have a lot more of it if I don't have to be dragged along with a bunch of other unwilling hostages to fly into a building, or have to decide between burning to death or leaping a thousand feet to my death.

But you just keep muddling up criminal acts with terrorist acts, and keep misstating other peoples' statements, and keep on inventing your own definitions, and keep on preening over your own perceptions of your own intellectual superiority. And we'll keep on being glad people like you are not in charge, and working to make sure you never are.

Because people like will get us killed.

And besides, your pathological hatred and your frantic efforts to try to make it seem rational are just kind of creepy.

I know that being anti-intellectual and uninformed is fashionable in the GOP these days, so I'm not going to hold your stupidity against you. As a matter of fact, hell- wear it like a badge of honor if you want, there are MANY in your party who do!

You state that now I am not necessarily entitled to the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. But this is ridiculous, and a gross misrepresentation of the new legislation signed into law by the President. I get to choose whether or not I will be entitled to habeus corpus. I get to make my own decision about that, and then to announce my decision by either taking up arms against my country or not doing so.

By any definition, McVeigh and Nichols were terrorists. Also, Kopp and Rudolph were terrorists. There are many "pro-life" groups with links to terrorism (ie blowing up abortion clinics, shooting doctors and the like). There is NO DOUBT that a president could now hold these people indefintely, torture them, deny them the right of a fair and speedy trial, etc. Even when guilty, our criminal justice system has always had rights for the accused. I think that this made the McVeigh and Nichols trials much more credible to the American people. Maybe YOU would be happy if they would have just mysteriously disappeared, but that seems sort of contrary to a "free country".

But what about Jewell, what about when the Feds make mistakes? I thought Conservatives were suspicious of the Federal Goverment?

Hey CF,

As discussed on another thread, the Military Commissions Act applies ONLY TO ALIENS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS. Sorry about the shouting, but the cement was leaking out your ears and I wanted to make sure you heard me.

So, are you an alien? I know you live in an alternate universe, but are you a citizen of the United States? If so, the Military Commissions Act does not apply to you.

If you are an alien, are you taking up arms against the United States as member of the armed forces of a state (we don't mean one of the United States, we mean foreign country. "State" is diplo-speak for country.)? If so, you are a "legal enemy combatant" and the Military Commissions Act does not apply to you.

But, if you are an alien and are you taking up arms against the United States and are not a member of the armed forces of a state, you are an "illegal enemy combatant". Look out we're coming after you.

Good explanation, A-10, but you're just pissin' into the wind. It passed into CF's left ear and out the right without any resistance whatsoever. Tomorrow he'll be right back here asking what Bush's plan is, how will we know when we've won, what about if the government locks up his sister and throws away the key -- nothing between those ears but dead air space.

No, sorry, that was "Crazy Senator Kerry" who said that. He never really spelled it out, but it was pretty obvious his plan was to win before he lost. (or vice versa -- I'm not sure)

Really? Because I heard Sen Burns say it:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15789244.htm

"Burns: Bush has plan to win war in Iraq"

"Burns, at a debate Tuesday night with Democratic challenger Jon Tester, said he believes Bush has a plan to win - but added: "we're not going to tell you what our plan is.""

"ONLY TO ALIENS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS"

You better stop listening to the "ditto"its and ACTUALLY READ THE ACT!

Quote:

"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means – (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."

WHERE DOES IT SAY IT ONLY APPLIES TO ALIENS?

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO 'CONFEDERATES', DOESN'T IT?!?!?!?!?

If you believe otherwise, please quote the pertinent part of the act. . .

And, how would we respond if one of OUR CITIZENS disappeared in another country without a trial, was waterboarded, and did not have habeous corpus rights? As terrible as McVeigh, Nichols, etc were, didn't they deserve a trial? Isn't that what sets up apart from dictatorships and terrorists?

"I've lost count of the number of times you've asked essentially that same question over the last couple days. You said in another thread earlier today that you've studied Bush's plan, but it keeps changing. "

Nobody has ever answered what the Bush Plan is! It's a SECRET, as Sen Burns says. It's like "PeeWee Herman" saying "I meant to do that!" everytime the situation goes from bad to worse. Reporters USED TO be able to interview people on the streets of Iraq, but now they can't even go into Baghdad without military escorts. "Last Throes"?

Since you apparently don't understand, the President has set all sorts of goals, all of which have been accomplished, but we're still there! The last statement he made was "As they stand up, we'll stand down". Based upon the administrations' own estimates, over 300,000 Iraqis have now been trained! That's more than our initial force, yet rather than "Standing Down", we have sent MORE troops and now have about 142,000 in Iraq.

So what is the goal? Can't anyone answer me?

Let me give an example: In Kosovo, the mission was to drive out the Serbs and remove Milosevic from power. We may still have troops there, but the security situation is stable enough for celebrities to tour Kosovo now (and nowhere close to 142,000 troops!). In WWII, the mission was to remove Hitler and the Nazis from power, end their occupation of Europe, and have the Japanese surrender. ALL of this VERY complicated mission was accomplished by FDR in a shorter time period than this Iraq war.

Now, what is the mission in Iraq? When can we leave? And why accuse me of "hate" when I haven't said anything hateful, but simply have a disagreement with the "Bush Policy" (if there is a policy).

What about Josie Padilla? He gave up a life of crime when he converted to Islam. While studying in Pakistan he got mixed up with some radicals. He made his escape from that group to come back to America only to be locked in a cell in solitary confinement for three years with no lawyer or habeus corpus. He is an innocent man who narrowly escaped being taken a hostage and spent three years being tortured by our own government. The person that fingered him as a possible terrorist only did so because he was being tortured and had to give up someone.
Under this Bill, the tortured testimony of a real terrorist can be used as secret evidence against this innocent American citizen.

Retired Spook,

I hate to say you are wrong, but, you are wrong.

The message never entered CF's ears. His/her/it's head is so filled with cement that nothing can enter, nothing can leave.

CF,

"WHERE DOES IT SAY IT ONLY APPLIES TO ALIENS?"

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.'

Need definitions?

`Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS- The term `Geneva Conventions' means the international conventions signed at Geneva on August 12, 1949.

Bottom line, in order to be subject to the Military Commission Act you have to (1) be an "alien"; (2) be an "unlawful enemy combatant".

The message never entered CF's ears. His/her/it's head is so filled with cement that nothing can enter, nothing can leave.

You're SO Funny! Your "debating skills" are almost as good as President Bush's! Just keep repeating, "It's hard, hard work!" and parroting the same talking points over and over. Eventually idiots like yourself will pick up the same memes (Cut and Run, Flip Flop, The stakes are High, etc) and drive them into the ground by repeating ad naseum!

Don't worry, it won't make you look intelligent (God forbid you look educated, that would make you look like a Democrat!). You still don't have to believe in things like facts and science.

Ironic, but it seems that not even Bush knows what his "plan" is. Today he is meeting with the Generals to discuss "cutting and running" (as he defines it when the Democrats discuss setting timetables and goals). I think he's coming to the conclusion that repeating "stay the course" and "we're making progress on the ground" isn't strategy enough. He might even be asking himself what 'winning' means.

I can't blame you guys for not knowing the plan when he obviously doesn't, so I withdraw my question.

coulterfan,

"You still don't have to believe in things like facts and science."

I'm a strong believer in facts and science. The facts are that the Military Commissions Act only applies to "ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS". I' have proven that to you, but you choose to ignore the fact and, in typical liberal fashion, change the subject.

911 JUDGMENT of GOD

Does anyone doubt 911 as the JUDGMENT of GOD upon AMERICA, and the NATIONS of the WORLD? Read on now; writes Ivor Manuel, Branch of the Lord.

Yesterday 10/22/06 Associated Press published the following story: NEW YORK – Searchers found more bones believed to belong to Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack victims Sunday in manholes and utility areas, areas that apparently were overlooked years ago…

Utility and city officials have excavated more than five hundred areas, yielding more than 100 pieces of human remains, since construction workers discovered bones earlier in the week in a manhole excavated as part of work in a transit hub…

The medical examiner’s office said 18 pieces of remains were found Sunday. The bones found thus far range from tiny fragments to recognizable bones from the sculls, torso, feet and hands. Some are as large as whole arms and legs bones…

Now read the WORD of the LORD by Prophet ISAIAH chapter 34: 1, 2, 3, 4. For the LORD shall accomplish His purpose according to the WORD by His prophets; writes Ivor Manuel.

“Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken ye people; let the Earth hear, and all that is therein; the World and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their ARMIES; He hath utterly destroyed them; He has delivered them to the slaughter. THIR SLAIN also SHALL BE CAST OUT, and THEIR STINK SHALL COME UP OUT of their CARCASES, and the MOUNTAINS SHALL BE MELTED (mountains in Afghanistan) with their BLOOD. And all the Host of Heaven shall be dissolved, and the Heavens shall be rolled together as (Tsunami, Earthquakes and Hurricanes) a scroll; and all their entire host (idols of America and the World) shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.”

Now, read the WORD of the LORD given to Ivor Manuel prophet, and published before the Presidential elections of 2004, in his Web Page named www.Aleuzenev.com

End of page 4 and part of page 5 of 22 pages:

Then from there; JESUS the son of man; The MESSIAH SON of GOD; The HIGHEST PRIEST and PROPHET of the prophets; ALEUZENEV; HIS NEW NAME (Revelation 3:12); Our HEAVENLY BROTHER whom is set down with OUR FATHER in HIS THRONE; spoke saying to HIS brother: “Write all that I AM saying in your ears; that MY sheep may read and understand MY FATHER’S WORD, and also hear MY VOICE in their ears; to understand “The COVENANT of PEACE and ETERNAL LIFE.” And HIS prophet opened the LORD’S BOOK of REVELATION given to HIS servant; Saint JOHN THE DIVINE 2:23 and read HIS Written WORDS: “And I will kill her children with death [JEZEBEL’S children, those who idolized their own FREDOM, Statue of Liberty, Goddess of Liberties; worshipers of Baal god of material images from the church of THYATIRA]; and all the churches shall know that I AM He whom searches the rains and the hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your Works.”

Thereon, the prophet recalled December of 1998; after President Clinton had been impeached by the House of Representatives, and before the Senate of the United States would vote on February 12, 1999, Year of Our LORD, to either remove or leave the President in office. The following testimony of JESUS was dictated to HIS brother Ivor Manuel (prodigal son); by HIM; The SPIRIT of PROPHESY. The testimony was published in a tourist magazine named ORIENTATION; and was read by people all over the World visiting Orlando; and few shall know, they were blessed with this knowledge during their visit to Florida. It was titled, “KING and COURT vs. the people;” and it is written: “Raising the consciousness of the planet is the job of the King (Establish Morality and Peace by the WORD of GOD), but the King is a liar (then, President Bill Clinton) and teaches immorality and adultery to the people. The King has broken The Law of the land and that of Heaven. He has lied to his people and murdered his brothers [lies about adultery and bombing of Baghdad during Ramadan] as they prayed. The House has judge the King and found him guilty (Impeachment by the House), but the King and his court (The President and Senators that voted against his Impeachment) believe he is above The Law. The King is arrogant, his court is in darkness and they blind the people with the veil of money and idolatry to the host of impurity. The speaker of the House has shown the way and has asked the King to follow in the way of constriction (resign as President), but the King and his court will not yield to the wisdom of repentance. Therefore the people (common people must raise a voice against the President and the Congress) must raise the consciousness of the King and his court. The people who say: “In GOD we TRUST,” must follow The Consciousness of Light (CHRIST’S CONSCIOUSNESS) and punish the King. If the people fail to fire (Impeached the President) the King, they will bring GREAT CONDEMNATION UPON the LAND of AMERICA.”

It was signed, prophet for the new millennium. Then he (Ivor Manuel prophet) recalled that February 12 of 1999 Year of Our LORD came; which is also his birthday as well. On that day, the Senate voted to leave the President in office. Then on April 20th 1999, the day of the prophet’s 25th wedding anniversary, while US. Jet-fighters where bombing Kosovo; The LORD began to pass through the land of America; Littleton, Chicago, Atlanta, etc; and smite the children of the Christian nation, according to “The WORKS” the leaders of America have Glorified; “THE TEACHINGS of WAR [Kosovo then, now Afghanistan and Iraq] and VIOLENCE”, just as The LORD had prophesized it would happened in HIS BOOK of REVELATION chapter 2: 23; and had told HIS prophet to warn the nation before February 12 of 1999, which he did accordingly. “I pray for you to understand in The LIGHT”, says Ivor Manuel.

Today, October 23, 2006, the WORD of the LORD remains with HIS JUDGMENT and CONDEMNATION upon the LAND of AMERICA; unless the people REPENT and IMPEACHED President George W. Bush; thus says The LORD, and writes His prophet Ivor Manuel.

“And He said unto me, THOU MUST PROPHESY again BEFORE MANY PEOPLES and NATIONS, and TONGUES, and KINGS.” Revelation 10:11
And I praise Him: ALELUYA! AMEN! ALEUZENEV! Vengan mis hermanos Judios (Los Aztecas and all Immigrants) para ALEUZENEV!

Poor CF, he jes' can't win for losing, can he?
So arguing with him is "anti-intellecutal", is it? Oh my, isn't he just the smarty-pants?

Then he plagarizes not only a conservative observation but my very own, about parading ignorance and being proud of it. Too bad, CF, that one is already taken, and for months has been applied to the most likely suspects----you Lefties. But he is kind enough to almost immediately prove MY point about the Left parading their ignorance and being proud of it, by parroting that silly old lie about how ".....(T)here is NO DOUBT that a president could now hold these people indefintely, torture them, deny them the right of a fair and speedy trial, etc."

A-10 has effectively dealt with the alien aspect of not being eligible for habeus corpus, so I will point out the sheer goofiness of clinging so desperately to that "torture" meme. Torture is against the law. The military can't torture. The civilians can't torture. It's been reinforced over and over again. But those silly Lefties just can't let go of it. And they insist on claiming that "torture" has actually been made LEGAL. Bu then why let any actual FACTS get in the way? Ranty Rhodes TOLD them the pres can now legally torture people, so it MUST be true~

Their patent silliness comes shining through though when they are asked to define "torture". I guess it means wearing panties on the head or maybe it has been expanded to include anything that the prisoner might find unpleasant, uncomfortable, or boring. Note that Libs NEVER actually DEFINE "torture" much less acknowledge that it has never been legalized. They can't do that, because that would prove the vacuousnes of their so-called "position". So they just regurgitate the word, over and over again, so smug in their sense of moral righteousness and oblivious of the fact that they are really trivializing one of the most horrible examples of inhumanity ever recorded.

Because torture does exist, and it is despicable and it is horrible and it is unhumane. But to compare it to embarassment, or even fear that something bad might happen, is a brutally callous dismissal of its reality.

I think that braying Lefties like CF, who insist on mouthing inanities with no respect for definitions or fact or truth, should be required to watch some of those torture videos from Iraq before thay are allowed to use the word. I think they should be made to see what true torture is, and not allowed to toss the word around in such a mindless and dismissive manner, AS IF fleeting phsyical discomfort is in any way comparable to having ones' head sawed off with a dull sword, or having dozens of adult men rape a three year old girl while her parents are forced to watch, or any of the many many many examples of true torture we have on tape, recorded FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT of those we toppled from power.

And maybe they could be required to submit a short essay on why, exactly, they believe that these rape and torure rooms would not be operating at full throttle today, if we had not put them out of business.

I can tolerate the mindless prattle of the self-satisfied Loony Left. I can laugh at their delusions of intellectual superiority. I despise their simple lies, such as the ones about how we legalize and then indulge in "torture" but I do consider the source and it's not that big a deal. But I can only respond with total disgust and contempt to their trivialization of the brutality of real torture.

So while CF preens in his smug definition of himself as an intellectual, I simply dismiss him as a moral and intellectual lightweight, and will continue to do so as long as he depends on regurgitating Airhead talking points and defining every interrogation technique as "torture". I have zero tolerance for silliness, especially smirky smug silliness. It's too Alf Rankenish...

As illustrated by this prattle:

"But what about Jewell, what about when the Feds make mistakes? I thought Conservatives were suspicious of the Federal Goverment?"

What ABOUT Jewell? He was a suspect, he was investigated, he was cleared. He was not tortured, not even according to your silly standards---he was not even forced to listen to Barbra Striesand, much less made to eat cold Spaghetti-O's. The worst thing that happened to Jewell was a media feeding frenzy, which embarrassed him. That was handled badly, but that was human errot, not intitutionalized abuse.

And who says Conservatives are "....suspicious of the Federal Government"? Conservatives sre smart enough to know that as long as our representatives have to be taken from the pool that is homo sapiens we will always run the risk of electing some bad leaders as well as some good ones. So we like our Constitution, which is well set up to provide protections against such occurrences, and don't like tinkering with it to accomodate passing fads of social engineering or moral laziness. Suspicious of the Federal Government? No more than of our local government, our bank board of directors, or any other group of human beings subject to the same foibles as the rest of humanity. We just don't need to demonize them, ridicule them, or generate a bunch of emotion-based loathing to justify our prediliction to "trust---but verify".