Feb 21 2007
Fly By 02/21/07
Quick and to the point this morning. Libby will be acquitted in a very short deliberation.
OK, with that out of the way, let’s turn to John Edward’s continued spiral down the toilet. First he hires, fires, rehires and refires (for – against, for – against, perfect Kerry running mate) liberal bloggers who had no business trying to represent the mainstream of America they regularly insulted like high school gossips talk about their opponents. Now he is out to diss the Jewish base of the democrat party, calling Isreal the greatest threat against world peace. I guess a nuclear armed Islamo Fascist insane asylum which pretends the holocaust never happened and openly claims the end of Isreal is near is not enough of a threat for Edwards. One wonders how he plans to deal with African Americans and ‘Sister Soldjah’ them?
The southern section of Iraq is nearly as peaceful as the Kurdish areas of Iraq, so the UK is drawing down forces in the process of handover to the Iraqis. It will be measured and tested and assured a successful outcome. Of course the media is claiming this is a surrender and should be a model for a US pullout. Fine, when Iraq is as peaceful as the Shia southern regions under British control we should strongly consider pulling our forces out – but not before then. There, the is now debate over. Dems, deal with it.
On the same note, Dick Cheney torpedoes the Democrats by demanding the US withdrawl from Iraq “with honor” (i.e., because of success). Which means the dems want to leave Iraq with dishonor. Hard to argue that point. Something must be showing up in the polls. The Dems tried to surrender too early, too hard. He and Bush are showing amazing confidence in our troops – and that is a serious political price to pay for the Dems to oppose that confidence.
It seems our enemies in war will not be treated with civil legal protections after all (as if they ever have been in our entire history). A federal appeals court has decided those who attack our laws with violent force from outside our country cannot then run and try to receive protection from the very laws they wish to destroy. Duh! War is the absence of law requiring abnormal actions not normally legal.
And a leading Russian claims Berezovsky killed Litvinenko with Po-210. Wonder why he is saying that now? (Possibly more on this later).
Hope everyone has a great day!
And we know Dick Cheney knows all about “honor” because of his distinguished record in the military? If you recall, by the way, Peace with Honor was Nixon/Kissinger’s mantra. Quite a foundation to build on.
Thus directly contravening three (3) Supreme Court decisions: Hamdan, Eisentrager and Rasul. We’ll see what the Supremes do with this decision shortly.
As AJStrata points out, Cheney meant success. Not according to the Nixon / Kissinger mantra.
We already have the law enacted last fall so the Supremes will have to go by the new law or rule it unconstitutional if they agree to listen to these cases.
Exactly so – and it looks like me like a 5-4 decision – mirroring the 5-3 decision in Hamdan (Roberts recused), that the Court of Appeals was wrong, and that the law regarding habeas is unconstitutional – for a number of reasons, including the fact that the law allows the right of habeas to be stripped from US citizens.
Theoretically, if the law stands and Hillary Clinton were elected, she could declare AJ to be aiding and abetting terrorists, seize him, and he would have NO RECOURSE to the court system.
Theoretically??? LOL! THAT is exactly what HIllary Clinton, et al has done/ would do, imho!
“And a leading Russian claims Berezovsky killed Litvinenko with Po-210. Wonder why he is saying that now? (Possibly more on this later)”.
The Russian invaders’ puppet Kadyrov told the same story in December already. He now only repeated his old FSB stuff
Sooth,
“Peace with honor” in Vietnam meant ending hostilities while keeping our promises to the South Vietnamese.
“Peace with honor” in Iraq means the same.
The Dems showed no honor then and show none now.
Learn some history.
Peace with Honor in Vietnam meant that Nixon stalled meaningful talks for partisan political purposes, and secured no more favorable terms in 1973 than were available in 1968, thus increasing the number of names on the Wall by 30,000.
The same would hold for Iraq. We won the war when we deposed Hussein. Every death now is avoidable.
soothie…perhaps it’s you that needs to go brush up on your history. I would recommend non-“alternative” views to start with.
Sooth
Man you always seem to be the first poster here.
Do you sit on the doorstep like Pavolv’s dog waiting for the bell to ring?
Sooth,
The South Vietnamese were unwilling to sign an agreement that left them unprotected. Nixon promised them support if they would sign. They did, the Dem congress reneged and the rest is history.
The newest Viet Nam study can be found in “Triumph Forsaken”, Cambridge University Press, by Mark Moyar
Where did you “learn” your history?
sooth reconizes AJ poses
a danger to her ideology.
AJ –
that story on Cheney’s comments has a Reuters byline
and is spun precisely (headline and excerpted comments)
to echo the exact meme sooth throws out:
nixon,’peace with honor’,vietnam,etc.
none of them get this isn’t vietnam.
but they’ll twist it to fit come hell or highwater
if it suits their purposes.
Strata
The South of Iraq was ceded by the Brits years ago to the anti-American, pro-Iranian Shia militas who quickly veiled the women and closed the Christian liquor shops. This will have to do with
“honor” for you and similar through the balance of Iraq.
I lived thru it and was around at the time.
And spare me the cow manure from Mark Moyar, a neocon U.S. Marine Corps University professor who trumpets his membership in what he calls the “revisionist school†of Vietnam War historians, firmly believing that the war was “a worthy but improperly executed enterprise.â€
The Viet Vets of America refer to Moyar’s book as The Latest in Vietnam War Revisionism.”
Sooth,
“The Viet Vets of America refer to Moyar’s book as The Latest in Vietnam War Revisionism.†” – It is!
Histories of the Viet Nam War are classified as either “orthodox” or “revisionist”. These are technical terms to differentiate the Liberal approach from the Conservative approach.
Your introducing “cow manure” into the discussion is just employing the arsenal of the Left.
Sooth
Admit it you got nothing and you are throwing spitballs.
You and Lass are two peas in a pod and worth about the same amount.
You are so shallow you give new meaning to the term wet.
Actually, A.J. couldn’t be thrown in Guantanamo, because he’s an American citizen. Habeas corpus applies to him. Why habeas corpus, and all other attendant rights, should apply to the denizens of Guantanamo, who are prisoners of war, is something that has not been explained. But the distinction is blurred for no particular reason, except the political.
On second thought that should be damp , wet is too much of a reach.
Well, duh! And in the case of Vietnam histories – revisionist refers to historians who insist that getting involved in a land war in Asia, based upon the thoroughly discredited Domino Theory – was a good idea – and that we would have WON – whatever that means – if we had only stayred there another 10 years and killed another 58,000 troops.
Unfortunately, revisionist historians – like Moyar – are condemned to repeat past mistakes, because they can never take into account the lessons of the Pelopponesian War, courtesy of Thucydides.
Former, and perhaps greatest, Secretary of State George Marshall, critics of Vietnam, and contemporary opponents and supporters alike of George Bush’s elective war in Iraq look back to learn from the people who fought that most awful war so long ago and Thucydides’ history serves as a timeless guide to the waste of life and national treasure in ill-thought adventure.
soothsayer:
I remember Viet nam too. I remember the people there being abandoned to die. I even remember John Kerry going on Dick Cavett and telling America that once we left south east Asia would be peaceful. The man was full of it then as he is now. We pulled support away from the governments of south Viet Nam and Cambodia and millions died. Hundreds of thousands ran away across the seas and tens of thousands were sent to reeducation camps. Nixon was by no means my favorit president, but he did not start the Viet Nam war. As usual the Democrats are rewriting history and trying to evade responsibility for their own actions. That is why I am not a Democrat anymore, people like you drove me from the party.