© 2001-2009 Perish the Thought Associates. Contents are the property of contributors. If you steal anything, we WILL hunt you down and hurt you.
|
 |
| |
Sunday, December 25, 2005 |
If only it could be true again ....
A Christmas Truce
.... and extended to the New Year
and beyond.
Posted at 10:08 am by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Friday, December 23, 2005 |
 Jason at Generation Why? and folks over at the American Digest dilute the ink on the New York Slimes ... errrr, Whines ... errr, Times.
Sales are sinking. Fast. And not strictly for the NYT.
"Looks like trust in the MSM wasn't the only thing that tanked over the last couple of years. They thought they could "get" George W. Bush and the Republicans by pumping life into dead non-stories and publishing classified information while simultaneously ignoring real stories...
I would subscribe to the MSM papers... but I find Charmin is much softer."
Charmin ain't all that's being squeezed, eh? Love it.
Posted at 07:37 pm by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Thursday, December 22, 2005 |
Posted at 10:29 pm by Rhet
Permalink
In gratitude for our many blessings --
especially for the men and women
who stand watch as we celebrate this holiday season ....
Joyous Chanukah,
and
Happy New Year !
Posted at 08:39 pm by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Sunday, December 18, 2005 |
Civil Liberties, Politics & the Patriot Act
So where were the barking moonbats back in the mid- and late-90's when Clinton's administration "installed" the hush-hush (domestic and international) telecommunications spy programs called Eschelon and Carnivore?
Ever seen the list of keywords that those programs monitored in cyberspace and in domestic communications?
Did it bother you THEN to have email, website visitations, chatroom content and telephone calls monitored?
Don't fall for the hype projected by the MSM and politicrats. Don't let national security be politicized by barking moonbats who've been bashing Bush since he whipped their butts a couple of elections ago.
Just because THIS President has taken national security to heart is NOT a bad thing.
Oh?
You think it's bad?
Why?
Ahhhh .... you don't want big brother watching you?
OK -- try to think of it as watching OUT for you.
Still don't like it?
Tough. (I can't wait to hear you bitch because state governments install similar "monitoring" programs to tax you for items purchased on the net.)
The majority of us DO like it.
Wanna know something else?
For starters, ask surviving friends and families of the 9/11 attack what they would have preferred.
Survey families and communities whose lives/resources were spared because national security provisions (monitored under President Bush's watch) worked.
Find out what Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives ....
Go ahead.
Dare you.
Better still --- break away from that bleating moonbat herd and educate yourself. Read the Patriot Act. Learn what Clinton's administration failed to do following the first terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. Research the Eschelon and Carnivore projects.
If you're still in doubt about what and why GWB has authorized, back up your position with facts -- and not the same old over-generalized bash-Bush bullshit hype.
Go ahead. Sock it to me.
I'd much rather read your words than headlines about another terrorist attack.
Posted at 01:26 pm by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Saturday, December 17, 2005 |
Reporting the Truth & the Right to Know
Remember when news stories contained the who-where-what-why-when early on in the article? If you actually read the New York Opine's entire year-old "breaking" story alleging that President Bush authorizied illegal wiretaps in the war against terrorist, you may have missed the 5-w's. They were buried several paragraphs deep into the article ....
Unless you want to accept opinion and innuendo as "fact."
"What the [National Security] agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.
In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said."
Did the "special collections program" save lives and stave planned terrorist attacks within the US?
You better believe it did.
Check out Iyman Faris' 20 year imprisonment and his al Qaeda role in planned terrorist attacks, for instance. Or ask someone who drives through the NYC tunnels on a regular basis. Ask a family or canvass a community for whom a terrorist plot has been thwarted.
Go ahead. Investigate; draw your own conclusions; make your own decision. The right to know about national security is also one of your liberties.
Posted at 04:05 am by Rhet
Permalink
Gimme a break, Bush-baiters. I, for one, am NOT falling for another line of MSM hype, innuendo or mis-speak. I don't care what you think of Bush. Or Republicans. Or conservatives. Or unaffiliated voters like me. I do care about national security.
Get thee to the federal archives, moonbats. Communications that occur/originate outside the US and which involve a threat to national security are NOT held to the same standards as communications which occur or originate in the United States by US citizens.
It may not matter to Bush-bashers and the desperate-to-distract democrats that several post-9/11 planned terrorist attacks on the US and it's allies were disrupted --- but it sure matters to me.
Is there some correlation with the Senate nonauthorization of certain sections of the Patriot Act to the release of The New York Times story alleging the President authorized the CIA to monitor "domestic communications?"
You gotta be kidding.
The New York Times conspiring with politicians? The New York Opines? The famed revenue-losing, egg-on-its-journalistic-face New York Times? The Notorious Yack Tack? God-faulter of the MSM? Feeding the blame-Bush frenzy? Perish the thought.
Yet .... Why did the NYT wait one year before releasing their misleading story and headline RE: the President authorizing the CIA to monitor "domestic communications?" And why was it released NOW?
Let's see .....
The vote in Iraq seems to be going well (credit President GW Bush -- perish the thought that MSM would ever credit GWB with anything "going well").
The ACLU -- gag alert -- that self-propelled <flapflapflapflap> guardian of constitutionality and social justice needs some good press following another anti-Christmas flop.
And voila! The Senate concurrently delays (no politics there, I'm sure) reauthorization of the Patriot Act to ensure that our civil liberties are protected (uh huh) just in time to give -- you got it -- aspiring Republicats, vengeful democrats, dummer-than-doorknob mootbats and anti-government tin-hats a ready-made politically expedient topic for the holiday circuit of talking-head shows and soapbox-blows.
Is it a coincidence that one of the writers of this "breaking" story just released a new anti-Bush book? Why would you think that?
And what if NONE of the politicos who so desperately seek self-promotion didn't have the venue?
Or better still .... in keeping with a holiday tradition which offers public appearances and audiences of millions -- invite these politicians to speak during half-time at each bowl game.
And give the audience yellow flags, instant replays of past votes and whistles. Oh yeah -- and some newsprint for making those paper airplanes.
Posted at 03:26 am by Rhet
Permalink
How they voted 2001 & 2005
Hummmmmmm .... Someone begin cataloging the holiday comments. Don't make me have to reprint the entire 2001 Patriot Act debate in this blog.
Here's how they voted for the Patriot Act October 2001.
| YEAs ---98 |
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
|
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
|
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
|
| NAYs ---1 |
Feingold (D-WI)
|
|
| Not Voting - 1 |
| Landrieu (D-LA) |
Here's how they voted today, Dec. 16, 2005.
The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the filibuster and a "no" vote was a vote to continue a filibuster.
Voting "yes" were 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans and one independent.
Democrats Yes
Johnson, S.D.; Nelson, Neb.
Democrats No
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.
Democrats Not Voting
Dodd, Conn.
Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.
Republicans No
Craig, Idaho; Frist, Tenn.; Hagel, Neb.; Murkowski, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.
Others No
Jeffords, Vt.
OK. I've found the link to the 200l Congressional Record. I wonder if those who have changed their minds (again) need cue cards?
Posted at 03:16 am by Rhet
Permalink
National Security vs Civil Liberties
Surely -- even if you believe the New York Opines hype -- you aren't going to suggest that what the President is alleged to have done presents a legitimate conflict between MY civil liberties and OUR national security, are you????
Perish the thought.
So other than stopping a few terrorist attacks on Americans (for which I'm grateful -- by the way), if I "believe" in civil liberties, I gotta hop on the ACLU-bandwagon because the President of the United States of America had the unmitigated audacity to authorize tapping/tracing international terrorist phone calls to some of my fellow Americans????
Even though the President has (as did his predecessors, coincidentally) the constitutional authority to do so?
Sounds like a smoke screen to me.
So now we gotta spend umpteen zillion tax dollars on another investigation AND hear talking heads and politicos expound on the proclivities of civil liberties vs national security? Again?
Didn't they do that after 9/11 when the Patriot Act was approved with only one dissenting vote?
Please. No.
If there really IS a Santa -- let Arlen, Teddy, Barbra, Hilliary, John, Nancy, Chuckie, Charles and Joe et al, including Jesse and Pat and Jerry just keep a sock in it during the holiday.
Or at least limit them to local, closed circuit pay-per-view TV.
Thanks, Santa.
Santa?
Posted at 03:03 am by Rhet
Permalink
 Why do I feel there just HAD to be something to detract from recognizing the achievements of the Iraqi people. Better still -- something --anything-- to detract from writing or referencing success and GWB in the same sentence.
Maybe I'm missing something .... Let's see .....
The Senate -- in an end-of-session stand-off, featuring the usual squeaking wheels (i.e., aspiring Republicats, disgruntled democrats, squawking moonbats, ACLU-twiddletats and anti-government tin-hats) -- are now calling for a(nother) investigation to challenge the credibility and/or authority of the President on the basis of an article in the New York Opines?
All in the name of civil liberties?
Right? As in correct?
And on the basis of this "breaking" year old story -- a few provisions of the Patriot Act are now "compromised" by allegations made in a revenue-losing biased bastion of truth?
May I ask a simple question?
Where were all those "outspoken" Senate committee members who knew about these "illegal" Presidential authorizations BEFORE this year-old "breaking" story????
Why have they waited so long to speak out????
They're right. There should be an investigation. The American people deserve better than a political stand-off while politicians jockey for their turn on the soapbox.
Maybe we deserve this. Maybe we didn't learn anything post-9/11.
Makes me wonder what story would have "broken" if the Iraqi elections had NOT been successful ....
Posted at 02:23 am by Rhet
Permalink
|
