Cheerleaders for the Empire - the Mindset of the Convervatives

[deedee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Well the internet is a double-edged sword. Look at 9/11 and all the wacky theories out there on it... But I will take the good changes with the bad. Atleast we aren't stuck with CBS, NBC and ABC as the prime source of news with the cheerleader section of the NY Times and such propogating thier views with no alternative for the rest of the story.

I know! pffff.

I think it's funny how MIchael Moore in his 911 Movie would 'slam' Halliburton, when this dude owns shares! haha! Talk about a true capitalist that he is. He is the king at conspiracy theories when it comes to getting people all hyped up at his gain.

[RickSp]

Deedee, when Bush stood before the American people and claimed that Saddam was buying yellow cake from Niger months after he had been told that this claim was untrue, what was he doing? He was knowingly telling an untruth. I say he was lying.

When various Bush Administration officials claimed that intercepted aluminum tubes were intended to be used in nuclear centrifuges and were proof positive that Saddam had restarted his nuclear program, they already knew that experts had determined the tubes were unsuitable as centrifuges and were probably intended as missle components. What were they doing? I call that another lie.

The biggest and most frequently recurring lie told by the Bush administration is that Iraq was allied with AlQaeda and was involved with 9/11.

The administration tried to bolster its case by making a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, which implied a connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," Mr. Bush said in a October 2002, speech, his first major prime-time talk to help build public backing for a still unannounced war. The new information came from a captured al Qaeda operative named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. But eight months before President Bush made that speech, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report saying that information from Al-Libi could not to be trusted. Other informants were also ultimately discredited.

Prewar Iraq Intelligence: A Look at the Facts

Cheney also continued to make the long discredited claim that AlQaeda was tied to Saddam and that a 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Praque. Long after these claims were debunked Cheney continued to lie about the Saddam-AlQaeda connection. Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

The evidence is clear - the Bush administration mounted a concerted campaign to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq and were willing to knowingly lie to do it. You may claim that they were merely misinformed all you want. The documentation says otherwise. They lied and continue to lie as more Americans die in this needless war.

[brien]

Quote by: xyzer RickSP This may in fact be resolved in the courts. It is a knotty problem..Do Congressional Statutes trump the Constitution. Does 4th Amendment apply in communications in war by a known enemy? Normally 4th applies to criiminal behavior in peacetime! What are the powers of the Commander under Article Article 2.in wartime? The Congress authorized the Iraq War and have funded it for the last few years. The President as Commander and Chief of the Armed forces authorised to conduct the war in Article 2 of the Constitution has allowed electronic surveillance of phone calls coming from known enemy to contacts in the USA. A rational move to try to prevent further attacks and determine and deter those treasonously supporting(or communicating with) known enemies. The Congress set a precedent for such surveillance by the FISA statute Bush has carried it one step farther. Personally I don't have a problem with it. I don't feel threatened because I don't have any reason, or need, to converse with terrorists. I'm sure that applies to the vast majority of us. I also feel we should root out the enemy within this country and this seems like a good way to do it and help deter the enemy!

I examine the following:


What are the powers of the Commander under Article Article 2.in wartime?

. The President as Commander and Chief of the Armed forces authorised to conduct the war in Article 2 of the Constitution has allowed electronic surveillance of phone calls coming from known enemy to contacts in the USA

I write:

I cannot locate any powers granted to the President in Wartime under Article II. The closest anything comes to this is section 2 but no where in Section 2 does the President have any power to conduct war. It merely appoints him as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and the militias of several states. Also in section1 , the only thing that comes even remotely close to what we are examining here is the Oath of Affirmation which is merely an oath. Not a power granted to the President.

So, if some one can show me otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any powers granted to the President in Article II of the US Constitution, for the President to conduct war.

Article II merely grants the President the appointment of "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and militias of several states". It does not give the President the power to conduct war. This is reserved for Congress and Congress alone in Section 8 of Article 1.

Now on to this:..Do Congressional Statutes trump the Constitution?

I say this is the major problem we have in America today. Elitist legislators are trying legislate their way around the Constitution. The Bill of Rghts, Void where prohibited by Law? This is what it is coming down to these days and it has to cease.

[m5lange1]

Here is the tale of two conservatives who have taken different paths under Bush's rule.
Mr V. is one of the die hards. A republican through and through.
Certainly more of a Republican than either a patriot OR a conservative.

I am a conservative but have left the Republican party for the very reasons pointed out above.

True conservatives do recognize the corruption and loss of freedom and do NOT abandon the principles that make up conservatism and patriotism just because they feel their first loyalty should be to a particular party.

As a conservative I was outraged when Clinton lied. Not because he was a Dem. but because he was a liar. No matter how the Dems wanted to spin it... when he said "....I never had sexual relations with that woman..." he was lying and it was embarassingly futile for the Dems to deny it.

As a conservative I am outraged when Bush lied. In may of 2004 in Pittsburgh when Bush said "....It's not like we would wire-tap without a warrant, that would be against the Constitution...." he was lying and it is embarassingly futile for the Reps. to deny it.

Where is the outrage that was so righteous when it was on the other side.

When did the Conservatives start to supporrt government wire-taps and all the additional camera placements. Conservatives, like myself, still oppose more government involvement. Republicans seem to be supporting it.

And what are the two big arguments they keep trotting out?
1. It is really not infringing on your rights. As a conservative I say Bull$#IT. It allows government to hold and maintain too much power. How comfortable will the Reps feel if these infringements are still there or accelerated if (heaven forbid) Hillary is our president some day. Do you really trust her not to spy on political opponants?
and
2. The ole' scare tactics. "If ya don't let Bush do whatever he wants you are asking for another 9/11/ I suppose scaring Libs into giving up their freedoms might be a viable tactic but it sure as hell will not work on conservatives.
Our cray was "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" not "Keep me safe at all costs.
I, for one, still value my freedom and liberty more than I hate or fear my enemies.

And since when have Conservatives rushed to defend their own corruption? I remember a day when Republicans were harder on internal corruption than they were on the 'expected' corruption across the isle. Today they start right out with blanket denial, followed by trying to rationalize, followed by "oh yea? well they were doin it too". This is not the conservative, this is desperation.

I do not believe that the current Republican Kool-Aid crowd hold the true values of conservatives.
Conservatives should be:
The first to defend the American tradition of freedom and liberty.
The last to be freightened into compromising those principles.
The first to distance ourselves from corruption.
The last to defend corruption because because it is our corruption.
The first to call for accountability for ALL of our leaders.
The last to call that accountability a "blame game" when it is in our court.

So Please,,,
While I agree (sadly) with Cheerleaders for the Empire as the mindset of many Republicans,
please understand the difference between the Kool-aid drinkers and thinking Conservatives.

[Mr.Vicchio]

So what's your alternative? I see you completely ignored my post, and btw, the Niger Urnaium link, was proven, they did try to buy Yellow Cake from them. Quit listening to Joe and you might know this.

[Milton Bradley]

I think the biggest problem is the fact that significant numbers of Americans (I'm talking to you Vicchio) still take politicians (Republicans, or Democrats) at their word. The simple fact that you give their words credibility by suspending disbelief makes the problem a perpetual one.


How many lies are you going to have to figure out before you start to question these peoples motives in all of this?


Perhaps instead of the detractors attempting to villify your ideals, you could show us where your representatives have actually done anything that they have claimed they would. (No tax breaks, because the incentive is too clear.)


What, besides the investment portfolios of the rich, is actually better about our situation since the Republicans have gained control?

[underbear1]

I'm waiting for traditional Republicans, fiscally responsible, with the aim of a smaller more efficient government to re-take their Party, from the radical Theocrats, Crooked lobbiests, World Dominating Neo-Cons, and pandering Cronies. But I ain't holding my breath.

[brien]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Can you please show me Milton where the "two party" lock is some sort of united front? a nefarious plot by some greater power? Reality check, it's two competeing powers that want to keep other parties from entering into power, nothing more. Also boetie, you are wrong. Sorry to hit you up with this, but if you're getting or making phone calls to terrorist that places YOU under the catagory of "enemy" I.E. legal protections for war time enemies do not apply. Thus no need for warrents. Perhaps if you understood the Constitution you would know this, instead of reapeting the claims of the DNC talking heads.

Let's take a look at what Mr Vicchio writes here:

Thus no need for warrents. Perhaps if you understood the Constitution you would know this,


Now now, Mr Vicchio: Let's not get carried away here. Can YOU show us in the Constitution precisely WHERE the President has the POWER to conduct warrantless searches? And please name the Article and Section, or the Amendment, because I would like to see this with my own eyes. I mean its not that I don't trust you, but I would rather see for myself. Maybe my copy of the Contitution is different than yours in which case, one of us needs to get the real copy.

Perhaps your version is missing the 4th Amendment?

[Mr.Vicchio]

In his appearance before the institute, Mr. Cheney defended the program as proper and legal in every respect. "The entire program undergoes a thorough review within the executive branch every 45 days," Mr. Cheney said. "After each review, the president determines once again whether or not to reauthorize the program. He has done so more than 30 times since Sept. 11, and he has indicated his intent to do so as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related organizations." The president authorized the program after the Sept. 11 attacks, allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials. Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/po...gewanted=print

That is the justification. It's called foriegn intelligence. Read it, and then respond.

[m5lange1]

Underbear1 I'm waiting for traditional Republicans, fiscally responsible, with the aim of a smaller more efficient government to re-take their Party, from the radical Theocrats, Crooked lobbiests, World Dominating Neo-Cons, and pandering Cronies. But I ain't holding my breath.

Not sure if you read my post or not. It is a couple of posts above yours Underbear. I think we are on the same wavelength here.

[Mr.Vicchio]

m5Lange1, you are one that has given up on the GOP, I believe it can be changed from the inside.

If you think I believe, every action by the GOP is right, good and cheer it on, you are dead wrong.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer The President as Commander and Chief of the Armed forces authorised to conduct the war in Article 2 of the Constitution has allowed electronic surveillance of phone calls coming from known enemy to contacts in the USA.

Now that's a damned lie, one I assume you're telling deliberately. Phone calls monitored by NSA don't all originate with "known enemy". NSA monitors as much phone, internet, and email traffic as they can, and uses dictionaries set up to screen for certain words and phrases. You can attract attention simply by sending something that includes a suspect word. There's absolutely no restriction that limits surveillance to "known enemy", just attracting attention is all it takes.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio m5Lange1, you are one that has given up on the GOP, I believe it can be changed from the inside.

at least you admit the need for change I see your coming around what about the price of Rice in China en garde!

The Clarence

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio So what's your alternative? I see you completely ignored my post, and btw, the Niger Urnaium link, was proven, they did try to buy Yellow Cake from them. Quit listening to Joe and you might know this.

This is one of the most asinine claims. Why would Iraq even be trying to buy yellowcake when they had not a single facility to do anything with it? There hasn't been any evidence shown at all that they had the means to process any of it into something useable.

[brien]

[quote=Mr.Vicchio]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/po...gewanted=print

You wrote: That is the justification. It's called foriegn intelligence. Read it, and then respond.[/QUOTE

No where do I see the "justification" in the Constitution.

You wrote to bowtie: Thus no need for warrents. Perhaps if you understood the Constitution you would know this

You still FAIL to show us WHERE in the CONSTITUTION you have found that the President has the power to conduct Warrantless searches.

I will use your own words: "Perhaps if you understood the Constitution you would know this"

You made reference to the Constitution, as if you know what you are talking about, and I take you at your word, so I ask again:

Where, where, where? Repeat after me Article # ? Section #? or Amendment #?

We're waiting.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Absurd? Zee do you know how much Yellow Cake uranium was found in Iraq after the invasion?

How many tons? I put a thread up witha vote, but only one person seems to have voted...

Yeah, I figure you haven't a clue, but hey it's fun to watch you try to explain the answer.

[m5lange1]

But Mr. V. You are defending the very things that need to be changed.
I may come back to the GOP but Underbear1's hope will have to prove true first.
The truly moral conservatives will have to come back to party dominance, not the excuse makers and desperate defenders.

Herman Goering "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

These are not conservative tactics. These are despotic tactics and americans smell them a mile away.

Let me hear Republicans recognizing a danger in blind faith to any leader.

Let me hear Republicans stop the ludicrous denial that Bush has lied.

Let me hear Republicans condemn (or at least not deny>justify>claim the dems did it too) the obvious corruption that does exist.

Let me hear Republicans outrage at the loss of liberty.

Let me hear Republican wrath at constitutional subversion (And I do not recognize the House, the Senate, nor any other body's authority of bypassing the constitution without an amendment or Martial law being declared).

Let me hear the Republicans objecting to forfiture of liberty instead of defending it.

I never owed anything to the GOP. Neither do you. We choose parties based on their conformity to our beliefs. Once that party no longer represents those beliefs it ceases to represent us.

I respected the GOP. I believed in the Regan conservatism. The one who said during his inagural event that "Governement never solves the problem, government is the problem."

If you still do feel loyalty to the GOP you should spend more time on those changes and less time on defending the faults.
Its not just me. There are Millions of disillusioned conservatives.

And the center (where elections are truly decided)? They see the obvious.

The smart ones recognize desperate partasan defense of the indefensable.

The sheep know Bush said weapons were there but they weren't, and that Bush said "Mission accomplished" and the bodies still pile up, and they know that there are dirty politicians in the party and that Republicans are still refusing to accept any accountability when they should be in the forfronnt of criticism.

The conservatives do not want the government breathing down their necks and are embarrassed at the lack of attempts to effect those changes you refer to because everyone is too busy justifying misdeeds.

No, the GOP has given up on the conservatives and until responsible conservatives stand up and start cleaning house instead of trying to paint it over, the GOP will not be there to give up on.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Absurd? Zee do you know how much Yellow Cake uranium was found in Iraq after the invasion? How many tons? I put a thread up witha vote, but only one person seems to have voted... Yeah, I figure you haven't a clue, but hey it's fun to watch you try to explain the answer.

If Iraq already had tons of yellowcake (and that's been known all along) that they couldn't even begin to process, why would they be trying to but more? And furthermore, with no means to do anything with what they already had, why would bush use that as a rationale to start a war?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Why would they have tons of uranium if they weren't planning on using it?

Hmm? You want more because uranium yellow cake must be refined, into weapons grade materrial. 2 tons can be roughly converted into 1 bombs worth of nuclear material. Yellow cake would also make a great tool for a RDD.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: RickSp I was struck by a comment made by Bob Herbert in his column in this morning's NY Times. "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution? He wrote:I am struck by how surreal it is for so many who call themselves "conservatives" to have ended up as cheerleaders for the empire, in a complete violation of the principles that one would call "conservative." When Bill Clinton shook his finger at the camera and lied, I was angry. I don't like being lied to especially by the President. The big difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Clinton lied, nobody died, as the saying goes. ( The lies I am referring to specifically are the the Bush statements about Saddam's nuclear program and to Saddam's alleged AlQaeda ties. The Bush administration had more than ample documentation that the claims they made in the run up to the war were untrue.) I fail to understand why the so called conservatives aren't angry about being lied into a war. Traditional those who call themselves conservatives has been opposed to "Big Government" yet they cheer on Bush who has created massive deficits and out of control spending. Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with protecting the Constitution yet completely ignore Bush's trampling on the right of habeas corpus and virtually the entire Bill of Rights. I suppose to a certain conservative mindset, when the country is at war, almost any thing can be justified, even a war based on lies. Wave the flag, but trample the Constitution. Still strikes me as odd.

I think what we're dealing with here is a cross between a cult and extreme ideologues who have hijacked conservatism... in name only. I know plenty of Conservatives who are furious at Bush, one specifically that has hung up his Right Wing ranting and decided to get out of politics.

I don't think it's a mindset within conservatism itself, the Buckley, Jr. school of thought from the 60s. Although they did support Nam and beating down protestors. I may be wrong, but I can't imagine any sane, true, traditional Conservative supporting unitary power, for instance.

When Bush first ran I was baffled by comments I heard from some that they were going to vote for him because his name was Bush. I remember that FOX camera waiting, waiting, waiting for George to show up long after 9/11, on site.. with all the gushing rhetoric. I'm really not sure how anyone can treat W as Jesus/Waco David and Jim Jones
combined, but certainly such folks have consumed way too much Kool-Aid.

BTW, for the more Right Wing posters, while I understood it more, I felt the somewhat the same during Kennedy's administration. The swooning was a bit much, IMO.