Could Bush lose in November?

[Kerberos]

Having read a newspaper article he wrote about 15 years ago that was ridiculously moronic, I'd say he's definitely not the "sharpest knife the the drawer". Mind you, he might just have written deliberate lies in that article to support his political views. I'll see if I can find said article.

I'd be a little cautious characterizing a person as a moron based on a single article he wrote; he could have been having a bad day. I have no problem believing that he could have been lying though. Still it would be interesting if you could find the article.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Latest poll

we have already seen threads trying to associate Kerry with Jane Fonda (surely that is a crime!)

Only in the court of public opinion Tricky!

Hanoi Jane, as you know, is a poster child for the excesses of liberalism. You know, little stuff like treason, sedition, etc....

As one who scored Kerry 100% on the AOL poll, I find it of great interest that he is politically in accord with such a person. No matter how much I like Kerry's ideas....if he's a Fondaesque radical...I'd never vote for him. No matter who he was running against. Personally, I'd like to see him judged on who he is now, and on his policy ideas (many of which I like). But if this is to be the standard, then Bush's own past must be discounted as well.

It's way too early to tell what could happen in Nov....but it's pretty obvious to me that the Repubs have yet to even properly join the political fight. A better yardstick would be to measure the post-convention bounces of both parties....but we still have quite a time till then.

-z

 

[Marc]

...but of course Amendment V allows for the exception bolded above. Perhaps that is why Jose Padilla has found himself in such dire circumstances?

hmm... looking at that I see

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

it would seem to apply to people in the american military, not any old person in times of war. Though with terrorism the war can be very ill defined, and potentially never ending. In any case if Jose Padilla is considered an enemy combatant then he should be treated as any POW. I do not know the legal complexities of "unlawful combatant".

What law? The terrorist protection act has not yet been written, much less passed.

should they be considered criminals? We had no problem prosecuting the original WTC bombers as such. Should they be treated as POW? As most of these guys were captured fighting in another country. You seem to want to put them in a brand new category, one with no standards of conduct and no laws covering it. That is a very bad president to set. When previous presidents bombed or used military actions in other countries without an actual state of war, our soldiers could be labeled terrorists by those countries. And anyone captured could then be kept in the same limbo without any legal ramifications.

You equate the US treatment of the captured terrorist enemy with that of Saddam's tortured, executed, and dumped political prisoner? That is absurd.

That is absured, it is also a strawman. I am not refering to medical experiments, torture, or the like. I am refering to people being imprisoned without a trial, without legal councel, and left to rot in prison.

Wrong group? Are you saying that the intel was wrong on Osama? Is there no vile terrorist group, or inhuman dictator that you do not personally support?

Now an even bigger strawman, ad hominem, appeal to emotive language, and possibly a few other fallacies.

I in no way said our intel on Osama was wrong. I do not support any terrorist group, dictoator, etc.. Now, if someone on Sept. 12 said Hamas was responsible, it would be a fair to ask for evidence that they were invovled. Not that getting rid of that group would be a bad thing, but tearing up Palistine to destroy Hamas would not help bring the real perpetrators down. So how would asking for the evidence that Osama was the guilty party not be reasoable? Would you prefer we target people based on gut feelings? on psychic readings on who was guilty? If not based on evidence, then what would you have us use to find and eliminate for such crimes?

 

[fishbob]

Rik sez:

Okay then, you must be referring to:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cherry Picking! Cherry Picking! I caught Rik cherry picking!

What the Amendment says is

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

In other words, the exception applies to people in military service, and only to people in military service. Not Padilla, and not a bunch of civilians down in Guantanamo.

 

[rikzilla]

hmm... looking at that I see

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

it would seem to apply to people in the american military, not any old person in times of war. Though with terrorism the war can be very ill defined, and potentially never ending. In any case if Jose Padilla is considered an enemy combatant then he should be treated as any POW. I do not know the legal complexities of "unlawful combatant".

As I said before I'm no lawyer....I thought it meant something else, and I guess I can see now that I was wrong.

Idid find this info about the "unlawful combatant" status:

The U.S. Supreme Court defined an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in a World War II case called Ex Parte Quirin. In a 1942 decision, the court confirmed the authority of Congress and the president to try Nazi terrorists operating in the United States by military commissions.

The case centered on eight Nazi saboteurs who had crossed the Atlantic in a German submarine: four Nazi operatives landed on Long Island, New York, and another four at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The FBI arrested both groups and turned them over to the military, which promptly tried them.

In the case, the United States was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed to be prisoners of war but unlawful combatants.

"If someone is a soldier, he is under the rules of war and needs to be treated as such," McGinnis said. But "He [Padilla] is not necessarily a prisoner of war. He's an undeclared combatant , a saboteur ... aiming at civilian targets, and outside the protection of the Geneva Convention."

U.S. officials must still supply evidence showing Padilla at least planned to harm U.S. interests, McGinnis said.

But of course that also requires that evidence be brought forward. Perhaps this is why Mr. Padilla's status is under revision?? I guess we'll see how it all plays out.

should they be considered criminals? We had no problem prosecuting the original WTC bombers as such.

It is patently absurd to threaten suicidal terrorists with a lawsuit. You might as well start arresting corpses of suicide victim for the crime of suicide.

Should they be treated as POW? As most of these guys were captured fighting in another country.

Ununiformed enemy are normally refered to as spies or sabateurs. Either catagory of individual has been in the past subject to a military trial and if found guilty subject to immediate execution. It is my fervent hope that the military will soon try and execute many of these cases @ Gitmo. (but that's just me)

You seem to want to put them in a brand new category, one with no standards of conduct and no laws covering it.

There should be enumerated international laws or treaties describing terrorism, and what should be done with captured terrorists. That there are not is not the fault of the US government. The terrorists have historically used this gray area of international law to their advantage,...but there are two sides to every coin. They cannot expect to exploit loopholes in law, and then cry about the fact that once captured their captors use the same loopholes and gray areas against them. What's good for the Goose....etc....etc...

That is a very bad president to set.

The targeting of civilians for a horrible death based on their religion or nationality is a worse precedent. Since many people say that terrorism is merely a military tactic there can be no meaningful WOT. So what then can be our response?

This is why I have been so overjoyed at having a president such as GWB. A man unafraid to see what needs doing, and then doing it. Had AlGore been in the Oval Office, I shudder to think of the strength Al Qaeda would be gathering as they continued to conduct operations against a "paper tiger". How many would have to die before a Democratic POTUS would actually do anything? The final number is not known, but it's easy to see it would have to be more than the 3,000+ death toll of 9/11.

When previous presidents bombed or used military actions in other countries without an actual state of war, our soldiers could be labeled terrorists by those countries.

Since terrorists are ununiformed and take pains to not be associated with a specific country I'd say that only an idiot or a dishonest person could come to such a conclusion.

And anyone captured could then be kept in the same limbo without any legal ramifications.

Eh? You mean like the POW/MIA's from Vietnam who just "disappeared" in Hanoi??

"Sen. John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, is one of the key figures pushing for normalization. Kerry is currently on a visit to Vietnam where he has been doing two things: (1) praising the Vietnamese effusively for granting access to their war archives and (2) telling the press that there's no believable evidence to back up the stories of live POWs still being held. "Ironically, that very kind of live-POW evidence has been brought to Kerry's own committee on a regular basis over the past year, and he has repeatedly sought to impeach its value. Moreover, Kerry and his allies on the committee - such as Sens. John McCain, Nancy Kassebaum and Tom Daschle - have worked to block much of this evidence from being made public."

I guess even a uniform and an ID card really isn't much protection unless an enemy is complying with the GC,...is it? The fact remains that captured terrorists have been maintained in safety by US forces....whereas the same cannot be said of those captured by terrorists. Case in point; --I edited this link to the Daniel Pearl video as I reviewed it and just realized it is likely a violation of JREF rules to publish a link to so gruesome an image.

That is absured, it is also a strawman. I am not refering to medical experiments, torture, or the like. I am refering to people being imprisoned without a trial, without legal councel, and left to rot in prison.

No, what was absurd were your own words, equating the common treatment of Gitmo detainees with the common treatment of Saddam's "detainees", most of whom have finally been located....in mass graves.

Originally posted by Marc: When people like Saddam have people put into prison where they are never heard from again there comes an outcry from other countries about human rights. Why should we be immune if we do essentially the same thing?

These were your disgusting words I've responded to...not a "strawman".

I in no way said our intel on Osama was wrong. I do not support any terrorist group, dictoator, etc.. Now, if someone on Sept. 12 said Hamas was responsible, it would be a fair to ask for evidence that they were invovled.

Of course, are you saying that people did not? We had to rely on intelligence didn't we? Luckily it was good intel, and we did the right thing by acting on it.

Not that getting rid of that group would be a bad thing, but tearing up Palistine to destroy Hamas would not help bring the real perpetrators down. So how would asking for the evidence that Osama was the guilty party not be reasoable? Would you prefer we target people based on gut feelings? on psychic readings on who was guilty? If not based on evidence, then what would you have us use to find and eliminate for such crimes?

This last is not worth responding to.

-z

 

[Marc]

You keep starting out rational, but seem to devolve into emotional appeals and accusations.

It is patently absurd to threaten suicidal terrorists with a lawsuit. You might as well start arresting corpses of suicide victim for the crime of suicide.

strawman again. I am not talking about threatening lawsuits, I am talking about how to deal with terrorists that have been captured. Should they be treated as criminals, as we have done in the past which can result in imprisonment or even the death penalty, or should we treat them as prisoners of war? What I am against is just letting them sit forever in limbo. Either charge them as criminals and send them to prison or whatever, or make them prisoners of war and do whatever is done with them.

Ununiformed enemy are normally refered to as spies or sabateurs. Either catagory of individual has been in the past subject to a military trial and if found guilty subject to immediate execution. It is my fervent hope that the military will soon try and execute many of these cases @ Gitmo. (but that's just me)

Good! Then they can do that. As I said above it is the limbo they are in that I am not in favor of. If they are considered saboturs then fine, put them on trial, and be done with them.

There should be enumerated international laws or treaties describing terrorism, and what should be done with captured terrorists. That there are not is not the fault of the US government. The terrorists have historically used this gray area of international law to their advantage,...but there are two sides to every coin. They cannot expect to exploit loopholes in law, and then cry about the fact that once captured their captors use the same loopholes and gray areas against them. What's good for the Goose....etc....etc...

Then you are starting to tread into the eye-for-an-eye, ends justifies the means teritory. Any kind of justice or moral superiority goes right out the window. Once we start exploiting loopholes to do whatever we want then on what grounds can we complain when others do the exact same thing?

The targeting of civilians for a horrible death based on their religion or nationality is a worse precedent. Since many people say that terrorism is merely a military tactic there can be no meaningful WOT. So what then can be our response?

again the appeal to emotive language. If you start defending your position with the "what they did is worse" defence, then you are just setting up an excuse to commit just about any crimes. Say someone killed several innocent people, then a group hunts this person down, captures them, and tortures him to death. What the dead murderer did was a 'worse precedent', but does that justify the actions of the vigilantes?

How many would have to die before a Democratic POTUS would actually do anything? The final number is not known, but it's easy to see it would have to be more than the 3,000+ death toll of 9/11.

more emotive language, and appealing to the unkown. We cannot know how things would have been under Gore, perhapes he might have even been able to handle things better than Bush. We can't truly know, so it is an invalid argument.

Since terrorists are ununiformed and take pains to not be associated with a specific country I'd say that only an idiot or a dishonest person could come to such a conclusion.

Why? In some countries we are considered the 'great satan', a bit if hyperbol at the very least. So why wouldn't some nation that we do not have an official state of war with declare troops on their soil terrorist? And then they could take advantage of some of those legal loopholes to treat them as such while the diplomats play word games on the definition of terrorist.

Eh? You mean like the POW/MIA's from Vietnam who just "disappeared" in Hanoi??

Exactly!! If we take prisoners that "disappear" into prisons that prevent any contact with anyone not in the US military, then what right would we have to complain if another country does it with our people?

No, what was absurd were your own words, equating the common treatment of Gitmo detainees with the common treatment of Saddam's "detainees", most of whom have finally been located....in mass graves.

Ok, I used the wrong example. How about this, a US citizen visiting China, or some other country, gets caught with drugs, they go to prison. No contact with their family is allowed, they are not allowed a lawyer, they are not given a trial. If that happens you can bet that the US diplomats would raise hell, or the person's family would if they didn't. So why should we get indignant over that situation if it so resembles some of what we are doing?

These were your disgusting words I've responded to...not a "strawman".

It was, and still is a strawman as you are 1) focusing on something I had not intended to be part of the annalogy, 2) were accusing me of saying our Intel was wrong when I wasn't, and 3) accused me of personally supporting terrorists and dictators. Who's words are disgusting now?

Of course, are you saying that people did not? We had to rely on intelligence didn't we? Luckily it was good intel, and we did the right thing by acting on it.

try reading what I wrote and not what you think I'm saying into it. I did not say anything was wrong with our intel, and I agree that the right thing was acting on it. What I'm saying is there is nothing wrong asking for what evidence we had that Osama was guilty. Try to understand what that question is, it is just simply asking what was the intel we have that he did it!!!! It was a question to see if we had good intel, not an attempt to prevent any needed action.

This last is not worth responding to.

neither was a lot of what you accused me of, but I'm responding anyway.

 

[pleiades61]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

Can anyone truly protect us from evil in whatever form it should appear, whether planes, nukes, bio or chemical weapons?

 

[subgenius]

Back to the tread topic?

Even Robert "the Traitor" Novak feels the answer (to the thread topic question) is yes.

Strike two for Bush

Supporters of the president were surprised that he would ask to be questioned by Tim Russert. What flabbergasted them was the absence of any plan to use this event to stop being the target as the 2004 campaign began.

This failure was Strike Two for President Bush. Strike One was his humdrum State of the Union address. Fortunately for the president, this is not baseball where three strikes are out.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/column.novak.opinion.bush/

 

[epepke]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

Can anyone truly protect us from evil in whatever form it should appear, whether planes, nukes, bio or chemical weapons?

Did Bush protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

 

[Tricky]

Latest poll

Hanoi Jane, as you know, is a poster child for the excesses of liberalism. You know, little stuff like treason, sedition, etc....

I know she is, and I'm not sure why. Her opposition to a war that almost everyone now admits was a terrible mistake shouldn't brand her forever. Besides, now she's a Born Again Christian. How can the Right continue to trash her? What she has always been is an airhead. She could not be part of any tresonous, seditious conspiracy because it would conflict with her hair appointment. Really, pick someone more deserving (like Gore Vidal) as your liberal target. Jane is not worthy.

As one who scored Kerry 100% on the AOL poll, I find it of great interest that he is politically in accord with such a person. No matter how much I like Kerry's ideas....if he's a Fondaesque radical...I'd never vote for him. No matter who he was running against.

Which is why such polls mean nothing. You have your ideas about Kerry and you are not going to let a little thing like his political positions get in the way of them. But in truth, I find those polls to be pretty worthless too. They never ask the right questions. I came out being a Sharpton supporter, but I wouldn't trust him with a pair of blunt scissors. Candidate's official position and their trustworthiness to actually defend that position are greatly different.

I'm not sure I trust Kerry, but I am damn sure I don't trust Bush. I suffered under his governorship for several years, and he is simply a lying tool (examples available upon request). He will say anything his handlers tell him to say. I trust him as much as a five-dollar Rolex.

Personally, I'd like to see him judged on who he is now, and on his policy ideas (many of which I like). But if this is to be the standard, then Bush's own past must be discounted as well.

BZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. There is nothing better you can judge a candidate on than their past. You cannot go on their "positions" (as that poll proved well). All politicians (or at least all successful politicians) take sometimes contrary positions for various political reasons. It goes with the territory. You have to look at the whole of their career to see the real picture. Bush's career includes poor student, poor businessman, poor soldier, poor governer, and poor president. The only area in which he is not poor is in money. I honestly cannot understand what the average non-rich American finds likable in him. But maybe I don't watch enough TV.

It's way too early to tell what could happen in Nov....but it's pretty obvious to me that the Repubs have yet to even properly join the political fight. A better yardstick would be to measure the post-convention bounces of both parties....but we still have quite a time till then.

And a lot will happen. Truly, the election is decided more by the events of the previous 6 months than by the previous four years. We will have to see what happens over those six months. If I were Bush, I would release Saddam and then capture him again. That was great press.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Re: Latest poll

I know she is, and I'm not sure why. Her opposition to a war that almost everyone now admits was a terrible mistake shouldn't brand her forever. Besides, now she's a Born Again Christian. How can the Right continue to trash her? What she has always been is an airhead. She could not be part of any tresonous, seditious conspiracy because it would conflict with her hair appointment. Really, pick someone more deserving (like Gore Vidal) as your liberal target. Jane is not worthy.

You miss the point, Jane is just fun to trash.

BZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. There is nothing better you can judge a candidate on than their past. You cannot go on their "positions" (as that poll proved well). All politicians (or at least all successful politicians) take sometimes contrary positions for various political reasons. It goes with the territory. You have to look at the whole of their career to see the real picture. Bush's career includes poor student, poor businessman, poor soldier, poor governer, and poor president. The only area in which he is not poor is in money. I honestly cannot understand what the average non-rich American finds likable in him. But maybe I don't watch enough TV.

Are you taking a stab at defending Kerry’s flip-flopping on issues?
“Bush's career includes poor student, poor businessman, poor soldier, poor governer, and poor president.”
GW was a C student at Yale; not good enough for you? Or is it his SAT score that bothers you? Wow election 2000 all over again… How many times does it have to be shown that Bush fulfilled his requirements for the National Guard? Since when does being a good soldier matter to you “lefties” anyway? I don’t know about his Governorship; Texas isn't as bad off as California under under Davis by a long shot.

And a lot will happen. Truly, the election is decided more by the events of the previous 6 months than by the previous four years. We will have to see what happens over those six months. If I were Bush, I would release Saddam and then capture him again. That was great press.

It would be even better if a certain government hands over Osama between then and now.
I think this election is a testing ground for the Democrats on liberal spin (just how far can we stretch the truth) and the real race is in 2008. These candidates are just sacrificial lambs.

Baa, baa black sheep,
Have you any pull?
Yes sir, yes sir,
Three States full.
One for my Kerry,
One for my Hillary,
But none for the little Dean,
Who cries in the lane.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

This has been sitting forgotten a few months. Has anyones' opinion changed? If it wasn't for the fact that Kerry is going to oppose George, I'd say Bush will lose for sure.

 

[LFTKBS]

You know what's weird? I didn't see anyone call you out for saying that Oliver North claimed ObL was the biggest threat to the U.S.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

You know what's weird? I didn't see anyone call you out for saying that Oliver North claimed ObL was the biggest threat to the U.S.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm

I got Abu and Osama confused myself. I think it came from being another example of someone we support who turns on us.