The Obama campaign's hysterical reaction to any mention of Bill Ayers is proof enough that the Obama/Ayers relationship was a lot closer than the candidate would have us believe. If Stanley Kurtz has the facts wrong, why doesn't Team Obama simply set the record straight? Instead they engaged in crude bullying tactics in an attempt to shut him up. If you haven't listened to Milt Rosenburg's radio interview with Kurtz, including the on-air clls from legions of Obama supporters who were alerted and provided scripted talking points by an “Obama Action Wire” email, I urge you to do so--audio stream available here:
It's a chilling example of just how far the Obama campaign is prepared to go to cover up his relationship with an flag-trampling terrorist who only wishes he'd detonated more bombs.Comment Posted By Tom G On 30.08.2008 @ 07:41
I don't agree that the "national security apparatus" is or is becoming "largely unaccountable." It is, in fact, accountable to all three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
It wasn't as if the President authorized these activities covertly, without mentioning them to anyone else. While asserting his right to act unilaterally, he nevertheless saw to it that both members of Congress and the FISA court were briefed on the NSA program. That establishes accountability, does it not?
I certainly agree that the power being claimed by the President in this instance could be abused. But then the same is true of many other presidential powers about which there is no debate.Comment Posted By Tom G On 26.01.2006 @ 08:10
That Democrats imagine they can gain a political advantage from the NSA story shows just how dysfunctional the Democratic Party and its liberal/progressive base have become.Comment Posted By Tom G On 5.01.2006 @ 08:21
This really isn't very complicated.
The United States is at war with a ruthless enemy who will, given the chance, attack us here at home. Imagine the effects--economic, political, social--of a second, perhaps worse, September 11. In that event, what would the American people have to say about measures necessary to secure the homeland? Does anyone imagine that they'd object to measures involving to a serious diminution of civil liberties?
In wartime, you don't make a free gift of sensitive information to your enemy. That is elementary common sense--a commodity in short supply among liberals, progressives and leftists, apparently. They take neither the war nor the security of this country seriously. When the next terrorist attack comes, as surely it will, these people will have a lot to answer for.Comment Posted By Tom G On 4.01.2006 @ 08:11
Since when does the Commander-in-Chief need a judge's permission to repel a foreign attack on the United States?Comment Posted By Tom G On 2.01.2006 @ 22:25
So now it's official: In the view of liberals themselves, liberalism is a suicide pact.
Let's not sign.Comment Posted By Tom G On 22.12.2005 @ 08:00
Ho-hum, when the Left runs out of logic, there's always "Bush lied."
What's funny about this whole business is that it's such a political loser for the Bushitler mob. Not one American in 100 cares that the (nonexistant) civil rights of this country's deadly enemies are being disregarded. The enemies of our country have no rights. Having openly proclaimed their desire to wipe us off the face of the earth, they have no reasonable grounds for complaint if we pre-empt them. And that most certainly includes listening in when they phone back to Trashcanistan--even if they do claim the citizenship of the nation they're so eager to destroy.
As for the so-called progressives who are running around squealing that Bush is a fascist & etc.--their infantile behavior is beneath contempt.Comment Posted By Tom G On 20.12.2005 @ 21:07
Mr. Alter's screed shows that whatever they may say to the contrary, liberals, progressives, leftists, etc., don't really care about protecting this country from Islamofascist terrorism. They're much more itrerested, it would see, in the (nonexistant) civil rights of our enemies. Somehow I doubt that writs, warrants, Miranda warnings & etc. will do much to prevent the next terrorist attack from slaughtering thousands of innocent Americans.
I'm not exactly sure what to call Jonathan Alter. I know what he isn't, though: a patriot. Thank God we don't have to rely on people like him for the defense of our nation.Comment Posted By Tom G On 20.12.2005 @ 08:01
The above comments you just why progressivism is, in fact, a reactionary ideology with no more idea of politics than infantile namecalling. It really is pathetic to see these people knucke-dragging their way through the first decade of the 21st century. Aside from their corrosive hatred of America and George W. Bush, and their seemingly ungovernable desire to celebrate all that is ugly, vulgar and stupid, it's difficult to see what inspires them. Looking over this gallery of ideological freaks, from Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehan, I can only say that President Bush is fortunate indeed in his enemies. They'd make Vlad the Impaler look good.Comment Posted By Tom G On 19.12.2005 @ 21:41
Once again, a representative of the Bushhitler mob, finding himself befret of arguments, falls back on the "Bush lied" moan. How lame.Comment Posted By Tom G On 21.12.2005 @ 18:55
Pages (2) :  2