I think I understand

Tuesday, January 17, 2006
There are two types of Democrats. Type A believe Islamic terrorism is a threat, they're just not sure how much of a threat, but they accept there is one. Type B believe there's no threat at all.

Both Type A and Type B Dems hate Bush.

Type B can easily bitch about the NSA surveillance because there is no reason for it anyway, as far as they're concerned. (Hell, Gore wants to stop using even the Patriot Act.)

Type A has more of a problem. There is a threat and we need to keep track of these guys, but Bush is the one doing it so it's illegal and a pure power grab!

That's how we get, in the middle of a rant re the illegality of Bush's 'Domestic Spying' program, a statement such as this:

" I feel quite sure, regardless of the politics, the legality and the opinion of the American people, George Bush will continue to do exactly what he wants. " *

See? Bush is so bad he'll keep us safe anyway! So we can rant and rave and it won't hurt anything except Bush!

That's a Type A Dem for sure.

Type A's are merely dishonest. Type B's are consistent in their delusions.

----

*[Snipped from comments at Gay Patriot's Delicious Gore rant.]

49 comments:

terrye said...

Syl:

Well there is that rare Repbulican, let us call him Type Z...so rare is he...who looks at the Constitution with the literal fervor of a snake handler speaking of scripture. This type of civil libertarian of the right believes that if it ain't in there, it ain't in there. We all respect and revere the Constitution, but these folks go a step beyond.

I was reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods, [he is no lefty and he does not talk about this particular program]...but he does not believe the President even as the authority for foreign policy. That is the the territory of the Congress. This explains why Bush is using his position as Commander in Chief as well as the Force resolution. But then again some libertarians do not believe that was Constitutional either because Congress was giving away its authority and it can not do that.

Needless to say this is complicated.

So there is some of this division on the right on this issue as well but it is nothing like the gaping wound in the Democratic Party.

I thought it was interesting that Gore would refer to WW2, is he under the impression that locking up the Japanese Americans was constitutional?

Peter UK said...

" I feel quite sure, regardless of the politics, the legality and the opinion of the American people, George Bush will continue to do exactly what he wants. "

This begs the question,why Bush would bother,much easier to take the Clintonian way out declare the WoT is down to "nuisance level" and is simply a law and order problem.Then he can spend the rest of his presidency trottiing round the globe,meeting and greeting and pressing the flesh.
At the end of his term,Bush could retire,write his memoires "How al Qaeda was beaten" picking up some loose change on the lecture circuit.
So why is President Bush courting all the vilification by taking the most difficult route.
Answer came there none.

Doug said...

2.
Your argument seems to hang on the fact that Al Gore didn’t go to law school. He went to journalism school. Big deal. If you have to be a lawyer to know what’s legal and what isn’t, where does that leave the rest of us? I’m not a lawyer, but I think I understand the principles of the 4th Amendment and can figure out what’s legal and what isn’t. You also contend that Bush beat Gore in 2000. In fact, Bush stole that election, and journalists and historians in Florida have proven that. Gore was enough of a patriot to resist the urge to tear the country apart by conceding defeat, but Florida’s electoral votes should have gone to Gore. Had Bush’s brother not been governor of Florida, and had the Supreme Court not voted along strict partisan lines, Gore would have been president.

Comment by Ed Deluzain — January 16, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - January 16, 2006

3. Uh, excuse me, Ed Deluzional,...

Syl said...

terrye

That is truly creepy. Seems to me people are making up their own Constitutions everywhere you look.

We already have a constitution and the 4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure. But, nooooo, these folks would never consider that good enough for their consitutions. Nothing is reasonable. But their greater fear is of a strong executive. As if he/she is never elected.

Everyone head over to Gateway Pundit for his post on Hillary who was racebaiting in Harlem yesterday. Sheeeeeeesh. Hope someone has video and audio.

Buddy Larsen said...

...never forget Moynihan:

'You have a right to your own opinions--but not your own facts.'

Buddy Larsen said...

The Ed Delusionals--like the Markg8s--know they're throwing horsesh*t.

The ideas is to say it and say it and sayitsayitsayit until a few percent of the least-informed voters form a mental question mark.

It's such a low-down dirty tactic.

The only reason we accept it is because it has already gone so far that even folks who recognize it are no longer shocked.

We're all "conditioned"--we don't 'see' political crimes being committed, we just see the Democrats doing their "politics".

MeaninglessHotAir said...

PeterUK,

Correction. At the very end of his term, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day, he could issue a blanket pardon to all the crooks and criminals who donated large amounts to his campaigns and to his party, knowing full well that the public would quickly forgive and forget.

markg8 said...

Nah you don't get it syl. Let me post my answer and maybe this time whoever deletes these things will let it stand.

Islamic terrorism is a real and serious threat.

That doesn't excuse shortshrifting urban areas that would be prime targets for attacks on Homeland Security money and letting chemical plant security slide because chemical companies don't want to pay for it and their lobbyists shovel money at Republican reps.

It doesn't excuse grandstanding terror alerts for domestic political advantage by pointlessly scaring people over old threats and leaking the cover of a double agent in the process.

It doesn't excuse letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora or meekly putting up with diplomatic protests when we try to get his minions from a tinhorn dictator who coddled the Taliban and would be dead in a ditch tomorrow if we withdrew our support.

It doesn't excuse bogging our army down in a country that had nothing to with 9/11, trashing our reputation, torture, illegal spying on Americans, alienating the rest of the world, dividing the country and then blaming others for his problems after he's wasted all the goodwill he had after 9/11 and painted our foreign policy into a corner.

That's why we hate Bush. It's not because we mindlessly, reflexively, have a partisan hatred for him. It's because virtually every move he makes is wrong.

Buddy Larsen said...

Ah, MHA, you forget "El Standardismo Dooblay", under which one party is expected to do these things wholesale, and so does so perforce, and without triggering so much as a twitch in the eye of 300 million beholders.

The other party, tho, should a few dumbasses taste the forbidden froot, suddenly is creating across the land something called a "kultcha o' kruption".

Doug said...

FBI files?
No, I'm sorry, I have no idea how they got there.
Maybe they fell out of Bergler's Pants?
I'm sorry, I don't recall.

Buddy Larsen said...

"I was standin' by my stove, wearing my pink sweater and baking cookies at the time."

Peter UK said...

MHA,But,but....that would make him a...Democrat.

Peter UK said...

Buy one double agent ,get one free!

Syl said...

Yep, Mark lives under not only a different Constitution than the rest of us do, he has a different Presdient too.

Peter UK said...

Syl,
Markg8 also lives on a different planet.If you look at the picture in the bin Laden link,it is obvious that cornering bin Laden at Tora Bora is not the same as cornering a robber in a liquor store.

Buddy Larsen said...

Those are the fricken Himalayas in the NE quad of Afghanistan.

Thousands of mountains bigger than anything in N & S America, the highest, roughest wildest country on the planet, a map sized equal to a usa medium state, and ironed out flat probably three times the map area.

All approaches are highly visible, and a hundred thousand could hide up there until the end of time, with hardly a trace.

The 'catch bin Laden, nothing to it' crowd is confusing words with terrain.

Peter UK said...

Yes,you can spend days walking down and days walking back up,all you have achieved is the next ridge.That is if the particular valley is not a gorge with a raging river at the bottom,in which case,it is a case of traversing the obstacle,always a joy under fire, or diverting miles out of the way,slowing progress and allowing the opposition to slip away.

The issue of helicopters will be raised,which presmes there is an airbase close enough for tanker planes for refueling.This ignores the fact that helicopters do not function well at high altitude and lastly are highly vulnerabilty to elevated fire from relatively light weapons.

The terrain is such that even the mountain divisions had not trained in such conditions,they needed to acclimatise themselves to operating at that altitude.

But in the virtual would of the bin Laden escape committee,none of this matters.

markg8 said...

Pathtetic excuses. Instead of just looking at pictures read the article.
We sent the 10th Mountain Div. to Afghanistan for exactly this eventuality. Our troops still fight in the mountains today.

Instead of taking Bin Laden and his 300 men out we bribed Afghans who'd already been bribed.by Bin Laden to go do the job. They didn't.

And where was Tommy Franks? Planning the invasion of Iraq.

Peter UK said...

It is a fact that the 10th Mountain Division had to acclimatise to the altitude,since there is nothing that high in the US.
Acclimatisation is imperative for troops transfered from different climates and altitude,otherwise more troops are lost to heatstroke,oxygen starvation or cold than enemy action.To armies, disease is the biggest enemy

Now it is important to read the geographical realities and not just a journalists stories,military action is all about logistics,the art of getting just the right amount of troops and materiel in the right place at the right time

Just a simple question,what is the ratio of troop superiority need to attack an entrenched position?

Buddy Larsen said...

Oh, I forgot--we use the Alexander the Great model of military leadership--no thousands of young ambitious dedicated high-energy genius-level academy-grads on the Central-Command staff to aid Gen Franks, who was swamped out in the shop greasing Abrams bogie wheels trying to prep for Iraq.

Mark--try to understand--there's more (a LOT more!) to real-world reality than your rhetorical devices.

Buddy Larsen said...

"pathetic excuses" are stimulated by "pathetic questions". If ytou dislike geography lessons, quit talking like an idiot.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Let someone who knows have the last word
The 10th Mountain Division is stationed at Vermont some of the altitudes they were required to fight at ar 13,000 to 20,000 feet,thus the need for acclimatisation.

markg8 said...

From the article:

Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them.

"The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."

Buddy Larsen said...

Great, Mark believes Pir Baksh Bardiwal over Tommy Franks and the Pentagon.

No wonder his party is having trouble electing dogcatchers.

Buddy Larsen said...

One of the great military campaigns is history--one that the lefties swore we could never pull off--now judged a failure by Mr. Asphalt who can't understand that mountain men on foot will go where they want, absent a multi-million-man shoulder-cordon across every foot of borderland, or ridgeline, or valley, or hidey hole in the western Himalayas.

The Comanches in Texas used to avoid capture by trailing a day BEHIND the US Cavalry chasing them.

Peter UK said...

This is the Pakistanis who can't find bin Laden either,the same Pakistanis who do not control the border provinces with Afghanistan,the same Pakistanis who will not allow US troops on their soil,the Pakistanis who shelter Taleban fighters,the Pakistanis whose ISI supports elements of AQ and the Taleban Markg8?


The same Pakistanis whose fruitless operation in the tribal territories took place some months ago.
It's all words Markg8 not reality.

Peter UK said...

Buddy,
What commander would want to place a blocking force at the foot of mountains with its back to the Tribal territories?

Buddy Larsen said...

Not without certainty of the rear area--violates force-protection, gets your men killed. Loses wars.

Buddy Larsen said...

unless of course, you delete enemy capabilities with your keyboard.

Peter UK said...

Unless of course you believe the line on the map is there on the ground,a bit like double yellow lines,or should that be streaks in this case?

markg8 said...

Sorry fellas as usual you're just wrong.

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader.

With the collapse of the Afghan cordon around Tora Bora, and the decision to hold back U.S. troops from the Army's 10th Mountain Division, Pakistan stepped in. The government of President Pervez Musharraf moved thousands of troops to his border with Afghanistan and intercepted about 300 of the estimated 1,000 al Qaeda fighters who escaped Tora Bora.

Those successes included none of the top al Qaeda leaders at Tora Bora, officials acknowledged.

But some policymakers and operational officers spoke in frustrated and even profane terms of what they called an opportunity missed.

"We [messed] up by not getting into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work," said a senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. "Clearly a decision point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb, because that's when he escaped. . . . We didn't put U.S. forces on the ground, despite all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then."

Peter UK said...

This presumes,that if troops had been committed,and bin Laden had been there,he would have been captured or killed,that the operation would have been successful.
The left would have course screamed quagmire.
Now who is the " senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism",that, the WAPO quotes without attribution,another anonymous source.

Markg8 you left out the definitely,perhaps maybe,from the article,
"I don't think you can ever say with certainty, but we did conclude he was there, and that conclusion has strengthened with time," said another official, giving an authoritative account of the intelligence consensus. "We have high confidence that he was there, and also high confidence, but not as high, that he got out".

Buddy Larsen said...

OF COURSE the command staff is pissed off at themselves--that's part of the gig--perfection is the goal, and Type A folks never quite get there. You should be lauding their honesty, Mr. Ingrate!

My point--and Peter's I surmise, still stands--with unlimited resources, the coalition would've by definition captured bin Laden.

The point of engagement here among the three of us is that two of us practice conjecture with real-world factors such as "limited resources", while your criteria are--as always--completely blue-sky, politically-skewed, and convenient.

markg8 said...

Limited resources because we didn't commit the resources. Your contentions
that helicopters can't fly high enough, it was too icky cold and forbidding terrain for US mountain troops but not for a bunch of effing Arabs for God's sake is laughably ridiculous. You've yet to do anything but just make sh*t up. But keep trying. I'm entertained.

Peter UK said...

If you read the article Markg8 you will see that helicopters have diminishing lift at higher altitudes.It also makes clear that mountain warfare needs specialised training,combined operations,none of which the US army is trained to do.

"A bunch of Arabs" a bit racist Markg8,but you mean Arabs, just like the ones you say are winning in Iraq?
Make your mind up kid,put them in a desert and they are invincible,put them in a mountain stronghold with a maze of caves where they have been fighting the Russians for years and suddenly they are a pushover.

markg8 said...

Chickenhawk the 10th MOUNTAIN Div. is trained to operate in the MOUNTAINS. Even snowy ones ya putz. In those mountains we had SF soldiers laser spotting the caves for targetting. The enemy? Arabs who had it pretty easy by Afghani standards living the good life in their terrorist camps on the plains near Kandahar. Keep trying.

BTW there's positions open in the 10th Mountain Div. for people with your obvious mountaineering knowledge and experience Sir Edmund. Sign up and grab this limited opportunity - well actually the opportunity will probably be there for years to come the way things are going - to kill islamofacists today!
What's that you say? You're not acclimated? LOL

Buddy Larsen said...

Mark, you're so stupid you're not really not worth the time. if the name of the unit is all you need to cover the name of the territority, why couldn't we just name one soldier 'Superman" and let him win all our wars everywhere, all alone?

Tell ya what, look into the WWII Italian campaign--look at the NUMBER of DIVISIONS it takes to clear ONE mid-sized mountain--and how long it took, and how difficult it was to keep covered ground clear on infiltration.

But if you want to believe there is a conspiracy to not catch bin Laden--go ahead. Army is doing a good job of keeping it mum, but go ahead, believe whatever idiotic horsesh*t you want. Trust the Muzzies one this issue, distrust 'em on that, lionize 'em here, laugh at 'em there, just freak your way along thru life sputtering insane nonsense until the merciful Lord takes you back.

markg8 said...

Quick Peety come look! He made a typo teeheehee!

And I'm stupid? I know how hard it is for you Republicans to ever admit you're wrong but get over yourselves.

They blew the operation at Tora Bora and a big part of the reason is Franks and his staff were tasked with drawing up a whole new plan to invade Iraq by Rumsfeld. The kicker is Rummy initially wanted to use only 25,000 troops to do it and gave him til the end of the year to present it. Franks gave it to Bush on Dec. 28.

Peter UK said...

Markg8,
The Mountain Division does not train at 13,000 feet and they are stationed at Vermont,"U.S. Army Mountain Warfare School instructors are topnotch mountaineers. However, most do not have actual mountain-combat experience. (44) Posting officers who served in Afghanistan to the Mountain Warfare School might address this problem."

" Basic mountaineering and high-altitude skills are vital for soldiers to develop confidence and survive in mountainous environments and essential in combat. As mountain height increases, so does the required skill level. At altitudes below 13,000 feet, it might be enough for soldiers to understand climbing techniques, navigation, route selection, the use of ropes, and procedures to avoid landslides and snow avalanches, but at high altitudes, soldiers must learn more complex techniques, such as those required for mountain expeditions. (8)

Because it is not always possible to transport material by helicopter, troops are often required to carry awkward loads, including kerosene oilcans, rations, and building materials for bunkers. The Soviets learned this lesson while fighting in difficult terrain in Afghanistan. "

Peter UK said...

"He made a typo teeheehee!" Teeheehee, Markg8,How old are you shit for brains?

Peter UK said...

Another question for you,,you bragged about your families service how does it feel to be the first craven coward?

Peter UK said...

By the way markg8 "You're not acclimated?" the word is acclimatised,you ignoramus.

Buddy Larsen said...

OEF was a tremendous success, OIF will be; 55 million serfs are free, and a global death cult is back on its heels, watching Araby turn slowly toward modernity and liberalism. The world may've been saved a major world-war over oil, now that all nations know it will be fair-allocated by open-market.

Mark, you can go thru all the office trash cans you want, scrutinize wadded-up memos 'til your eyes fall out, but you can't change the truth.

Peter UK said...

But Buddy,General Franks didn't grapple hand to hand with Osama bin Laden in the mountain snows of the Tora Bora,it happens in every movie.

markg8 said...

Jesus Buddy are you ever in for a rude awakening if you really believe the stuff you wrote. Chickenhawk it'll just go right over your head.

Peter UK said...

Markg8,you really cannot get a handle on making a point,you seem to think that as long as your gob is flapping that it is a debate.
If you hadn't dropped out of college dodging the draft you might have learned something.
Still I can understand you must find it difficult thinking with those white feathers stuck up your arse.

markg8 said...

Oooh aren't you a tough lil scout. Look mummy, I won again! LOL

Peter UK said...

Why Markg8,what did you ever win? Fifty and over the hill you poor sad little old man.