Somebody Shut Marshall Whitman The Hell Up

[RPankn]

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Listen Up, Democrats

Dr. Moose offers some tough love for the donkey. [Note how he obnoxiously refers to himself in the third person.]

There is only one force that can save the Republican Party and it is called the Democratic Party. [Why should the Democrats save the Republicans?] The truth of that axiom has been reinforced over the past three weeks. [This is an axiom? Pretentious much?] When the President was plummeting in the polls, the Democratic cavalry came riding to the rescue. Rather than calling for a success strategy in Iraq, the donkey opted for pessimism and defeatism. The Democrats overreached and now the President is rebounding.

Perhaps, Karl Rove will send Leader Pelosi, Chairman Dean and Leader Reid delicate and finely-crafted Christmas ornaments. Gratitude demands it.

And now, some in the party, incredibly including the Senate Minority Leader are making it inhospitable for their former Vice Presidential standard bearer, Joe Lieberman. Here's some news for them - they are not only telling Joe that the Democratic Party does not have room for his views, they are also communicating to millions of Americans who might support this war or not, but find defeat unacceptable, that they are not welcome in this exclusive political club. [So typical for the DLC: complain that the Democratic Party must be a 'big tent' while keeping theirs small.] There are some progressive hawks in this country, but it is unlikely that they will pull the Democratic lever with the message that it is being sent by the leaders of the party. [What the hell is a 'progressive hawk'?]

Here's another insight for Reid, Pelosi and Dean - you are the minority party. You control nothing in this town. And it is unlikely that you ever will or should control anything as long as you apply a litmus test on prominent elected officials. Get used to the smaller offices with the poor view.

But, there is irony and mirth in all of this. In a week that the Chairman of the Party played into the hands of the GOP by suggesting that we could not win in Iraq, his brother launched a crusade of criticism against Joe Lieberman. It appears that the entire Dean clan is committed to ensuring that the Democrats remain in the minority. What a scream!

So, listen up Democrats, you do not enjoy the luxury of contracting your ranks. If you want to expand the party, a purge is not what the doctor ordered.
-- Posted at 7:23 AM

www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/12/listen-up-democrats.html

[This must be Whitman's kiss to Bush.]
Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Unreasonable

The Moose asks that we come and reason together,

During the Clinton years, a motley crew of Republican libertarians attempted to obstruct Clinton supported anti-terrorist provisions to "tag explosives." They fancied themselves as Second Amendment "absolutists" who feared that this measure was the first step down the slippery slope to prohibit gun ownership. Those Republicans were as wrong about "tagging" of explosives and the Second Amendment just as some liberals are wrong about the Bush Administration eavesdropping and the Fourth Amendment.

It was not an "unreasonable" search and seizure for the NSA to detect international phone calls of terrorist suspects. [Well Marshall, the thing is, Bush wasn't spying on "terrorist suspects," but his political enemies and anti-war and peace activists.] The key factor is that we are at war against a foe that is seeking to kill us. Congress passed a force resolution authorizing the President to defend the nation against Al Qaeda. Agility and speed was essential to exploit the information that was obtained from intelligence sources. It is now clear that the FISA law was an anachronism that was intended for Cold War espionage - far different from the post 9/11 era. [No Marshall, the question is why Bush was circumventing the judicial system, when the FISA court gives carte blanche on surveillance warrants. This crap you wrote could have been authored by Sharon or Likud.]

In retrospect, perhaps FISA should have been amended. However, it is not clear how the law could have been modified to handle the immediate necessity to detect cell phone calls. Maybe authorization can be accomplished retroactively - but that hardly will appease the critics. However, this was not a secret "Nixonian Plumbers" type operation. Members of Congress were notified as were FISA judges.

If a Senator thought that the Constitution was being violated, a mild protest through a single letter is not persuasive. It seems that it would have been his/her obligation to call the Senate into secret session and legislatively stop the violation of our founding document As a matter of fact, the Moose recalls that the Democratic leader recently involved that secret session option.

The President made a judgment - maybe it was not the best one. But he was clearly attempting to defend America against Jihadists. He was not attempting to nail or harass political enemies. He was not attempting to strengthen his hold on power. It might have been the wrong decision, but it was certainly not a venal one.

In an era of terrorism, there will always be a tension between privacy and security. The Moose was subjected to a warrant-less search just a few weeks ago when a TSA worker randomly took him out of a line at the Austin Airport and subjected to a rather intimate and invasive (but polite and professional) search by a security official. He did not object because he understood that security was the prevailing good. [Seig Heil!! I bet you enjoyed the pat down too Marshall.] That search was likely far more intrusive than the NSA detection of the foreign phone calls.

If only the country could experience a reasonable discussion about this issue. [We should all submit to fascism!] In the nineties, the right was infected with Clinton rage. Every evil motive for every issue was ascribed to Bill Clinton. Today, the left is inflamed by Bush rage. Consequently, the left cannot view President Bush's action as right or wrong, but rather it is fundamentally evil and even impeachable.

Given their history, it is entirely likely that a pantheon of great liberal Presidents including FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ would have acted no differently on national security than did President Bush. (And evidently the Clinton Justice Department argued that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.") [This seems to be their default argument for everything they know is immoral and illegal: but FDR and Kennedy would have done it!]

The Moose will not join this festival of Bush rage. While he has profound differences over W's domestic policies, winning the war against terror and preventing future attacks are far more critical than scoring partisan points. In the nineties, the Moose defended the Clinton ordered attacks on Al Qaeda, Iraq and the Balkans when some of his conservative colleagues suggested that it was just a "wag the dog" attempt to divert attention from his personal problems. He was no more a shill for Clinton then than he is an apologist for Bush today.

If that makes the Moose a "Republican plant" in the eyes of some puerile cyber-commissars, so be it. If the Moose offends the reader's liberal or libertarian sensibilities, please, please do us both a favor and don't bookmark this, don't read this and don't link to this. Moosketeers are a rare and hearty breed. [This is a breed of animal I'd like to see exterminated.]

The Moose has no desire to win the acclaim or favor of the fever swamps of the right or the left. It is far, far more important to defend America against Jihadist terrorists who seek to do us harm than to slime a President.

The Moose feels much better after getting that off his chest. And that is the point of blogging. [What a douchebag.]

-- Posted at 8:16 AM

www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/12/unreasonable.html

[RPankn]

More foolishness from the former Christian Coalition/DLC policy wonk/neocon douchebag. Reads like a Likud editorial in Haaretz.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Big Brother W.?

The Moose doesn't think it's 1984.

The latest imbroglio over the revelation that the government eavesdropped into the international phone calls of U.S. citizens does not set the Moose's antlers on fire. The Administration is going to have to offer a better explanation for why they failed to go to court to get authorization. And we should also have an inquiry into a leak that might have endangered national security.

In the aftermath of 9/11, America learned that it was ill-prepared for this new threat. Old laws dealing with new technologies were an anachronism. The "FISA" process, if not the authorization, was often burdensome and slow with a relatively high standard of proof. The Administration perhaps should have moved to alter those laws if they were obstacles to national security. [Basically, idiot has just said the Bill of Rights is an 'anachronism'.]

However, as of yet, there is no clear evidence that they broke the law. Lawyers will endlessly debate the legitimacy of the Administration's citing of the Al Quaeda force resolution for authorization. Moreover, there was a legitimate concern that an open debate about modifications in the FISA law could have alerted our enemies that their calls were detected. And does anyone seriously believe that the targets of these calls were anyone else than potential security threats? There is absolutely no evidence that this was a "Nixonian" enemies list witch hunt. [Does anyone seriously believe the neocons aren't Israel-first, totalitarian fascisti?]

Now that the controversy is out in the open, Democrats and Republicans should work together to improve and clarify the law rather than seeking retribution for past misunderstandings. The bottom line should be strengthening our national security while maintaining our liberties to the fullest extent possible.

What we do know is that we have not suffered another attack on the Homeland since 9/11. That is a miraculous fact. And President Bush should be applauded for protecting the country rather than excoriated, to say nothing of impeachment which is on the lips of some Democrats. [Sieg heil!

We also know that, while there have been excesses here and there, our fundamental freedoms have not been infringed since the first massive assault on the homeland by foreign enemies since the War of 1812. Certainly, we have not suffered an abrogation of our liberties anything near the scale of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus or FDR's relocation camps. [Ummmm, Congress is eliminating habeas corpus for "detainees" and I don't know what you would call secret prisions overseas, but those are relocation camps to me.]

We are at war with a Jihadist enemy who wants us and our families dead. It is not clear that some of our elites recognize that fact or care any more. And some on the left fear that President Bush is a greater threat to our nation's security and liberties than the Jihadists.

If the ACLU is upset about the Patriot Act, fine, It is their job to push the outside of the envelope. [Defending civil liberties is 'pushing outside the envelope'?] But it is another thing when a Party almost unanimously obstructs its reauthorization over minor objections after significant compromises have been achieved. And it does not provide any solace that Larry Craig and John Sununu were on the Democrats' side.

When it comes to the War Against Terror, there is no room for right wing or left wing libertarianism. Of course, we should guard our freedoms and be vigilant for excesses. But, our robust democracy is not endangered. If international phone calls by terrorist suspects were monitored, good and fine. What is in question is whether some of our elites continue to believe that we are actually at war with a devious foe. Memories of 9/11 are fading and many act as if the threat has gone away. [When neocons start speaking like this, you know they have something planned.]

On the political front, in the past month, there has been a systematic effort at self-branding by the Democratic Party, and it is not good. From the defeatist Iraq talk to the obstruction on the Patriot Act, the donkey is effectively "rebranding' and "framing" itself as weak on national security. George Lakoff should be proud! Rather than the 2006 election being about the GOP' s weak ethics, it may be about the Democrat's anemic defense credentials.

We live in a period that is similar to the Cold War in that there is an over-riding national security threat. The fundamental political and policy question is which party will the American people trust to defend the country and their families?

-- Posted at 8:15 AM


www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/12/big-brother-w.html

[Moses]

Who is this Moose Turd?