Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right or has not gone far enough in restricting people’s civil liberties to fight terrorism?

That’s a loaded question. How about asking: Do you think the Bush administration has restricted your civil liberties in order to fight terrorism? If so, in what way?

At least Bill Clinton was man enough to answer it. Of course, Clinton isn’t exactly a liberal, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Thanks for the link Allah.

Although I like ‘Rooster’ Cogburn’s suggestion of forced bungee jumps… as long as the Gitmo ‘detainees’ have no idea what it is before it is done to them.

He cares about executive authority, as does Cheney, but I don’t think that’s why he’s pushing the torture (“tough interrogation” — whatever) issue.

I don’t buy into 1 at all. I’ve never bought into the idea that Bush is evil. I wouldn’t have voted for him if I had. He’s misguided, and has at once both fascist and socialist tendencies — but his intentions are good.

he cares about keeping Republicans in power and this is an issue he can demagogue to that end. Uh, okay, but in that case, is this really his best issue? Wouldn’t a hard line on, say, immigration make his base happier than belly slaps?

I think he’s afraid of losing the Hispanic vote, so immigration might not be the best issue. The threat of terrorism is something that can cut across all sorts of boundaries. The threat is real — obviously, but a little exaggeration and hyping of the threat, when coupled with “tough on terror” measures can really rally people behind him. I think the main reason that he’s not been able to ride that issue to a 60% approval rating is his insistence that Iraq is linked to the war on terror. Iraq has sullied the war on terror more than the war on terror has boosted the war in Iraq. The outlook is too bleak and the casualties are too high. The only real weapon the Republicans have is promoting terrorism as a great, imminent and omnipresent threat to America, and making Republicans out to be the only ones who can combat it.

It goes something like this:

Being tough on terror means “flexible” on civil liberties.
Democrats are strong on civil liberties.
That must mean that they are soft on terror.
Terrorism is the greatest threat to our nation.
Democrats hate America. Q.E.D.

All points but the second one are horribly incorrect*, but it is a story that makes sense to a lot of people.

I also think that Bush thinks torture/toughness has a chance of working… again I don’t think he’s evil enough to torture people purely for political gain.

Of course I also don’t think he’s altruistic enough to do everything needed to combat the threat of terrorism. If he were, we’d be plugging border, ports and student visa holes instead of strip searching senators at the airport and banning the liquid state of matter. A lot of this (the majority, I’d say) is for show, which fits right into your number 3.

*Democrats are actually not very strong on civil liberties if you, like me, consider things like owning a gun and keeping the money you earn to be fundamental aspects of any country that wants to call itself “free” … but in the “civil liberties = ACLU agenda” sense, this is correct.

”I’ll talk, I’ll talk! Get Rosie outta here!”

Puritan1648 on October 26, 2006 at 9:55 PM

You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch.

It suggests that something is as surprising as being suddenly hit in the face.

SilverStar830 on October 26, 2006 at 7:13 PM

Ow! Damn! My eyes! My eyes!

That @#$@ hurts like a mother!@%@^.

Give me panties on my head any day. Much better than belly slapping.

On a related note, I think we should build a bungee tower at Gitmo and push the detainees off the top as an interrogation technique.

…here’s an alternative idea: make them actually spend time with the folks who’re “feeling their pain”. Fly Ramsey Clark and his crew, some of the mushroom-heads from the DU, and as many university professors you can round up, and make the Gitmo-im spend time with ‘em…spend quality time…in their cells…up close…close enough to smell their breath.

While they’re sitting there rubbing leather-patched elbows, make ‘em watch an endless loop of “The View”, “Hardball” and Olberman episodes.

…and get Martha Stewart to decorate their cells….

…then, start putting questions to ‘em…”I’ll talk, I’ll talk! Get Rosie outta here!”

Wouldn’t a hard line on, say, immigration make his base happier than belly slaps?

A hard line on immigration- illegal and legal- would do a lot more to protect Americans. Why should I listen to either side about the security vs. civil liberties issue when mostly all of them are weak on the issue of immigartion? They let anti-Americans, criminals, “reconquistas”, people with no intention of assimilating, and terrorists right into our country!

…the alleged moral certitude with which “Christianists” supposedly see the world.

…”moral certitude”…when I was sprout, my Dad and many of the adults I learned from spoke of “the courage of your convictions”. Then again, I was brought up in the ’60′s…the “other” ’60′s, where your parents would actually raise you, no your friends or the TV.

So, I guess that you’re not supposed to have any convictions, or you’re supposed to question them with each situation you encounter, in which case we’re back to square one, as they wouldn’t be convictions then.

…I can’t help it. I was raised by parents who’d today be jailed for spanking, assaulting my self-esteem, and not buying me a pony. Still, being raised by fascists has proven amazingly useful over the years since….

How could anyone – know matter how BDS-stricken they are – think Bush has “more power than any President in history?”

…good point…if Mr. B was the totalitarian he’s supposed to be, we wouldn’t hear the sort of bilge about him we hear. He’d get about as much negative press as the head of state gets in, say, North Korea. He would need Rove. The election results would be guarenteed. So far, his adminstration’s sweatted through two presidential and is going into their third congressional election…and the Left is still free to spew.

This brings up a point: back before BDS REALLY kicked in and the Democrat Party establishment advocated surrender and supported sedition, there was a lot of Leftist blather about “root causes” for the anger out on the “Arab street”. Consider that ONE cause for this anger among a bunch of people who actually ACT on their anger is that America actually has consderable efforts afoot to allow homosexuals not only to exist peacefully, but to marry; that our entertainment industry establishment, the products of which are flogged worldwide, can’t get their heads ’round the concept of restraint, ridicule any values other than situational and open-end ethics; that our many in our Western academia seems to proselytize an institutional hostility to the nation state; and that many of our opinion leaders — at least the loudest among them — often see everything through the lens of rights, being blind more often than not to the concept of duty.

…in short, they’re p.o.’d at us because we the Democratic Party. Step One in winning the Terror War: outlaw the Democratic Party. Won’t happen, but the irony is delicious.

On a related note, I think we should build a bungee tower at Gitmo and push the detainees off the top as an interrogation technique. (I mean with the cord attached, although yes, it’s tempting.) I think it would work, and I don’t know how the whiny torture bitches could complain when all we’re doing is providing the inmates with recreational services that people pay good money for on the outside. Plus the guards could use it in their off-time, so that would help morale.

Labor camps for MoveOn.org donors replete with mass belly-slappings?

Now there’s an idea………

I don’t believe in God, so I’m basically a liberal. Here’s my thought:….

Insh’allah.

Enrique on October 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM

First, we have some Atheists over on the conservative side. The two are not mutually exclusive. But isn’t being an Athiest and saying “insh’allah” a bit contradictory???

We all know Cheney is an evil sadist, but hey, that’s what’s keeping this country afloat in this sea of PC! He gets extra points for having a daughter that’s, you know… a lesbian./sarc

Are liberals just … uneducated?

Roosevelt anyone? 4-terms, stacked the Supreme Court, built real life concentration camps?

Truman? Nuked Japan?

Nixon?

Wait … Lincoln? Suspended Habeas Corpus?

C’mon. You must be kidding. George Dubwa wouldn’t even make the top half of “most powerful” Presidents.

Which is too bad.

Any ideas? Honora? Anyone? Bueller?

Allah, how dare you mention Honora, and not GregH or Constantine!

33% say Bush is more powerful. 33%. 33%. Everytime it’s 33%. That 33% is the Kos demographic, and as long as that number keeps showing up (and doesn’t grow) the Republicans can hold onto all branches if they really want it.

DaveS on October 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM

Interesting observation DaveS. Whenever I see some poll being reported on Special Report, etc. I always think the same thing. The approx 33% that always take the opposite/liberal response to a poll question seems curiously close to the amound of the country that are self identified liberals.

Read the Communist Manifesto, then Read the Liberal Manifesto and listen closely to what your politicians are saying, especially when they talk of the “common Good”. Understand the nature of what you are about to become, like cattle being led to the …

And, I finally have to ask: What in the world does “gob smacking” mean?

It’s a combination of the English slang “gob”, mouth, and smacked. It means “utterly astonished, astounded”. It’s much stronger than just being surprised. It’s used for something that leaves you speechless, or otherwise stops you dead in your tracks. It suggests that something is as surprising as being suddenly hit in the face.

Consider my gob duly smacked

When I don’t have time to read the thread/s (yet), at a minimum I always look for your one-liners and the one-worders, below the pictures/captions/frames. Wit galore! Sometimes folksy, sometimes intellectual, sometimes just funny. Your American/Italian/Irish clamoring for expression :)

I’ve known about gob-smacked for a long time and looked up today just ‘gob’, though I knew about gobs of money, but only you…so glad we have you and that you let us smack some gobs.

…that feels like I’m letting someone else win.

frankj on October 26, 2006 at 6:22 PM

Proud Frank. Let it go, just a little – it’s much easier – she speeketh from experience, my friend, she does :)

Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President “for torture.” We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

I’m sorry, AP, but I can’t see an admission in that. He admits that he wouldn’t have a problem with it being done. Since he doesn’t precisely attempt to distinguish between waterboarding and torture, you can’t quite conclude that as evidence we’re doing it. I can see how it looks that way initially, but it doesn’t quite pass muster.

On the initial topic, how about the numbers in that graphic? Doesn’t make much sense on the surface, does it? Loosely correlated that would mean that fully 1/3 of the people who voted for Kerry in 2004 (48%) currently believe that President Bush does not hold too much power. Which in turn means they voted for Kerry on issues? Like what? Two years later you still can’t pin him down on the substance of a real issue.