Predictions....

[Guest]

Now that we have decided to try the 9/11 folks in NYC ...I predict the following....

1. There will be violence surrounding their trial and imprisonement in NYC !

2. Don't know whether it will succesful, but look for every surprise legally to get them off totally free.

3. Prepare for their dialogue as they will now have the chance to DAILY during the trial get their message in the press and THEY WILL GET SYMPATHY !

[Guest]

Now that we have decided to try the 9/11 folks in NYC ...I predict the following....

1. There will be violence surrounding their trial and imprisonement in NYC !

2. Don't know whether it will succesful, but look for every surprise legally to get them off totally free.

3. Prepare for their dialogue as they will now have the chance to DAILY during the trial get their message in the press and THEY WILL GET SYMPATHY !

Bucco -
I agree totally - insane decision - I think there will be far more than you even predict. Countdown to 2012.
Needless to say, trials will be televised - another disaster.

[Guest]

What the Obama administration has done with this is pure disgraceful. Forget health care and everything else... shame on them.

[Guest]

I MUST AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU
Why we want to do this is beyond me. Before this is all over we will be asking for his forgiveness.

[Guest]

I MUST AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU
Why we want to do this is beyond me. Before this is all over we will be asking for his forgiveness.

Why not ? They dropped all charges against the Black Panthers caught on tape threatening voters in Philly......this entire thing is becoming a joke

[Guest]

They are endangering the lives of the judge, jury and everyone else who works or lives around there. This is the 9/11 mastermind we're talking about here. Eric Holder should be fired... and so should Obama. Absolutely unconscionable.

[Guest]

I think its all about smearing the Bush administration and America.

[Guest]

I think its all about smearing the Bush administration and America.

Does that smart @$$ crack mean you agree with them being tired in NYC Federal Court instead of a military tribunal ?

[Guest]

No, I think they should have a military trial. I think this is a horrible decision. I'm not sure why you interrupted it the way you did.

[Guest]

Why do you think the Liberals who are against the death penalty are promoting it in this case.?

Totally out of character for Liberals.

[Guest]

No, I think they should have a military trial. I think this is a horrible decision. I'm not sure why you interrupted it the way you did.


I apologize if I misinterpeted your post !

Guess just get used to the BUSH statements on here in reponse to just about anything that is wrong !

Sorry again

[Guest]

Apology accepted. After I thought about it I could see how you interrupted the way you did. What I should have said was, I felt that this was another way to smear the Bush administration. I think that is one of the major reasons "they" (Obama administration) are doing this craziness.

[Guest]

We all live in different dimensions, don't we? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm always truly amazed at how different people look at things. It fascinates me.

When I first heard these guys were being tried in New York, my first thought was "Good! Now the families can have some closure!" These guys will be tried as common criminals, not some glorified war heros. Confessions all around, and sure to get the Death Penalty. It seemed so completely right to me.... I honestly believed there would not be any opposition!

My step-son was in Tower 3 and was evacuated before that fell. Thank God. But a dear friend of mine... lost her best friend from childhood in Tower 2. So, yes, our family has felt the impact. We have gone to Ground Zero to pray.

So, I can say in all honesty, I'm glad they're being tried in New York like the common murderers they are. If my step-son had been killed, my husband and I would want to be there sitting front row, center. Also for the executions, which are inevitable.

[Guest]

We all live in different dimensions, don't we? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm always truly amazed at how different people look at things. It fascinates me.

When I first heard these guys were being tried in New York, my first thought was "Good! Now the families can have some closure!" These guys will be tried as common criminals, not some glorified war heros. Confessions all around, and sure to get the Death Penalty. It seemed so completely right to me.... I honestly believed there would not be any opposition!

My step-son was in Tower 3 and was evacuated before that fell. Thank God. But a dear friend of mine... lost her best friend from childhood in Tower 2. So, yes, our family has felt the impact. We have gone to Ground Zero to pray.

So, I can say in all honesty, I'm glad they're being tried in New York like the common murderers they are. If my step-son had been killed, my husband and I would want to be there sitting front row, center. Also for the executions, which are inevitable.


You are right....it is amazing how people see things. Of course we know that whatever this administration does you will agree with so no surprises ever from you !

I might remind you relative to your post.....Zacarias Moussaoui is serving a life sentence instead of being put to death because in our system to execute anyone it must be unamious and there was ONE SINGLE holdout for the death penalty.

Two....and I will certainly stand corrected if we have any lawyers, but I am sure that some smart defense attorney will play the tape of the attorney general of the United States calling these guys guilty and asking for a mistrial which will only be one of the ploys used.

Not sure what you own personal experience here means but this is very tough on all americans and all of those who had someone in the building or knew families, but you call them common criminals so I suppose you have picked up from this administration that they are not combatants...but just criminals.....and what criminals they are...we have the US military in other countries looking for them but they are not enemy combatants..."JUST" criminals.

I sure wish some had the same outrage at the Black Panthers threatening voters in this country on tape and not being prosecuted. I use that example because it is the same man who is making the decision as attorney general !

[Guest]

We all live in different dimensions, don't we? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm always truly amazed at how different people look at things. It fascinates me.

When I first heard these guys were being tried in New York, my first thought was "Good! Now the families can have some closure!" These guys will be tried as common criminals, not some glorified war heros. Confessions all around, and sure to get the Death Penalty. It seemed so completely right to me.... I honestly believed there would not be any opposition!

My step-son was in Tower 3 and was evacuated before that fell. Thank God. But a dear friend of mine... lost her best friend from childhood in Tower 2. So, yes, our family has felt the impact. We have gone to Ground Zero to pray.

So, I can say in all honesty, I'm glad they're being tried in New York like the common murderers they are. If my step-son had been killed, my husband and I would want to be there sitting front row, center. Also for the executions, which are inevitable.

1. They will not be put to death.

2. The trial will be all about Bush and our methods.

3. Many of our secrets Will go to the enemy .

4. There will be an attempt to prosecute Bush etc.

You are not so stupid as to not know these things.

You fool nobody

Yoda

[Guest]

Every terrorist in the world is going to know who the judge and jury are. What about their safety? What about their families safety? What about the safety of the community?

He was arrested as a war criminal, what if all civil procedures weren't followed to the letter because of it? What if a very liberal judge lets him off on a technicality or a mistrial? Don't think it not possible, Obama's Attorney General already pardoned a couple terrorists and we all know this administration is soft on terrorism. Heck, they won't even say the word anymore.

He needs to go before a military tribunal and then taken to the firing squad, quick fast and in a hurry.

[Guest]

Chels, how in the world can you call these guys common criminals? They are enemy combatants. This is a terrible decision. I hope and pray that something can be done to stop it.

[Guest]

Chels, how in the world can you call these guys common criminals? They are enemy combatants. This is a terrible decision. I hope and pray that something can be done to stop it.

Sally for sure these guys are NOT common criminals. Why are we spending any money on this and giving them a large stage where they can get even more publicity? I can see people protesting , screaming for their release.
We need a place like GITMO.

[Guest]

Every terrorist in the world is going to know who the judge and jury are. What about their safety? What about their families safety? What about the safety of the community?

He was arrested as a war criminal, what if all civil procedures weren't followed to the letter because of it? What if a very liberal judge lets him off on a technicality or a mistrial? Don't think it not possible, Obama's Attorney General already pardoned a couple terrorists and we all know this administration is soft on terrorism. Heck, they won't even say the word anymore.

He needs to go before a military tribunal and then taken to the firing squad, quick fast and in a hurry.

DK, I can absolutely see your point on this and understand your fears, although I don't agree with them. Quite frankly, I don't have my heels dug into the ground on this either way. This may sound harsh, but I would just like to see them executed. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but those are my feelings.

[Guest]

Chels, on this we agree 100%. The sooner the better. Unfortunately, I don't wee it happening any time soon.

[Guest]

Chels, on this we agree 100%. The sooner the better. Unfortunately, I don't wee it happening any time soon.

Putting them on trial in our Federal court system rather than a military tribunal will give their attorneys so many cards to play, AND for years they will have an INTERNATIONAL platform to allow them to get their message out !

[Guest]

and then be treated to a confinement that is better living conditions than they have ever had in their life. Then show the permissive American court system will allow them to live the good life for many years. This has to be second best (or maybe even first) to obtaining 40 vestal virgins with suicide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An absolute charade, showing the whole world just how ridiculous some American ways are when it comes to dealing with those who would kill us....without a thought....and now they benefit from one of the most permissive, archaic, slow, agonizing and costly system.......only in America.

btk

[Guest]

This decision by Obama shows again that his style of politics puts the Protection of the Country way down on his list of priorities.

Also it is another step to help Muslims.

[Guest]

Those tactics didn't seem to do Tim McVeigh any good.

I think you underestimate the legal system - granted I can see why. Not everyone is as stupid as an "L.A. O.J. juror"

[Guest]

Are you kidding. If this ends up like OJ and the Obama Administration keeps these terroists in Jail as it seems to be promising then that is the end of our judicial system. Do you thing maybe that is Obama's plan.

[Guest]

Would anyone be surprised if it were?

Yoda

[Guest]

there was a plan. It has not been in the administrations modus operendi to need a plan to do anything....ergo the stimulus bills, the numerous bail outs, the energy independence goal, etc.

Say what they believe needs to be heard in the moment, then move on to the next one. Follow up and deliver? Now that is another subject.

btk

[Guest]

Those tactics didn't seem to do Tim McVeigh any good.

I think you underestimate the legal system - granted I can see why. Not everyone is as stupid as an "L.A. O.J. juror"

The OJ case was unique in that the public was able to see and understand much more than the members of the jury. While I remain sure that he did the acts of which he was accused, we saw a top-flight defense team take on the best that the LA District Attorney had to offer. IMHO, the jury was right - on the basis of evidence presented in court, OJ could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

KSM and the others will have unlimited funds to buy the services of the best defense attorneys in the United States - the team will be even stronger than the one in the OJ case. The prosecutors will be good, but good at civil servant wages, not $1,000 per hour and up.criminal attorneys. With the many procedural holes in the government case, I will not be surprised when a verdict of 'not guilty' is reached. I certainly hope I am wrong, but believe this will be the outcome.

[Guest]

"Jury Nullification" has been successfully attacked over the years since O. J. got off because of it. You can't just tell a jury "maybe this happened instead" and posit a number of equally improbably events these days. I saw EXACTLY that attempted in the civil trial where I was a witness (cop shot deranged man, killing him, family was looking for a payout from the city) and the family got *nothing*.

[Guest]

I've got to agree with Chelsea- if we put these animals on trial as "enemy combatants" then we elevate them to the status of martyrs- just what they want and what we DON'T need.

If we treat them like the slime they are and downgrade their importance, they'll still die- but they won't be any bigger in life due to the trials.

Think about it- David Koresh & Ruby Ridge became martyrs to the right wing- and emboldened Timothy McVeigh to commit this nation's second worst massacre.

Capone was tried on income tax evasion- he still spent his life in jail, even if they couldn't prove murder.

The Iraqis kiled Saddam straight out, without affording him the "status" of a state execution- made it harder for him to become a martyr to the Sunnis or Baathists.

I think keeping these small men small will still result in justice, but without us puffing out our chest in vengeance, and thereby making ourselves targets for the next round of would-be martyrs.


Ultimately, are we looking to punish them for the entire radical Islamic movement, which of course will not go away just because they are executed, or are we looking to punish criminal murderers for the crime(s) they committed on 9/11/01? Your view of this will determine the method in which they will be seen in history.

[Guest]

I've got to agree with Chelsea- if we put these animals on trial as "enemy combatants" then we elevate them to the status of martyrs- just what they want and what we DON'T need.

If we treat them like the slime they are and downgrade their importance, they'll still die- but they won't be any bigger in life due to the trials.

Think about it- David Koresh & Ruby Ridge became martyrs to the right wing- and emboldened Timothy McVeigh to commit this nation's second worst massacre.

Capone was tried on income tax evasion- he still spent his life in jail, even if they couldn't prove murder.

The Iraqis kiled Saddam straight out, without affording him the "status" of a state execution- made it harder for him to become a martyr to the Sunnis or Baathists.

I think keeping these small men small will still result in justice, but without us puffing out our chest in vengeance, and thereby making ourselves targets for the next round of would-be martyrs.


Ultimately, are we looking to punish them for the entire radical Islamic movement, which of course will not go away just because they are executed, or are we looking to punish criminal murderers for the crime(s) they committed on 9/11/01? Your view of this will determine the method in which they will be seen in history.

I personally think the military tribunal would give you what you want...a quick and relativly press free exection.

BUT...this is going to be YEARS AND YEARS of on going legal moves.....and eventually, they will get what they want....to put the USA on trial and at the end we we will go into a political squabble while they laugh and preach !

You are going to be hearing about this for years and years and it WAS a political move totally as this is what the WH wants. I cant prove that for sure, but in my heart it is true. There have been so many outright lies from this administration thus far and this particular story is rampant with lying from all sides...from the atty general not consulting with the President (but the Gov of NY was told this would happen months ago BY the WH )

This atty general and President are pure and simple politicians. They refuse to prosecute over career litigators protests those Black Panthers in Philly who terrorized voters but will use this stage.....

[Guest]

Last night it was another case of "spot the flip flop".

Tonight's "guest" - none other than Rudy Giuliani.

Cutting back and forth from Giuliani 2006, taling about the trial of the "20th hijacker", Zacharaia Moussasoui (sp?) - and then to 2009 about KSM being brought to NY for trial.

Paraphrasing:

Rudy 2006 [on the ZM trial]: This is to show the world that we are a nation of laws and will give this man a fair trial no matter how heinous the crime and how much the desire for vengeance. This robs our enemies from being able to use this for propaganda. This a triumph of the American Way.

Rudy 2009 [on the KSM decision]: This is the worst thing we could have done. This trial will allow him to spout his views, etc, etc.

Does it get any more nakedly partisan than that?

[Guest]

Last night it was another case of "spot the flip flop".

Tonight's "guest" - none other than Rudy Giuliani.

Cutting back and forth from Giuliani 2006, taling about the trial of the "20th hijacker", Zacharaia Moussasoui (sp?) - and then to 2009 about KSM being brought to NY for trial.

Paraphrasing:

Rudy 2006 [on the ZM trial]: This is to show the world that we are a nation of laws and will give this man a fair trial no matter how heinous the crime and how much the desire for vengeance. This robs our enemies from being able to use this for propaganda. This a triumph of the American Way.

Rudy 2009 [on the KSM decision]: This is the worst thing we could have done. This trial will allow him to spout his views, etc, etc.

Does it get any more nakedly partisan than that?


And your point is ? That both parties play politics ? Oh....trust me I am aware of that as are all americans.

This WH is by far...not even close...the most politically motivated WH I have seen in my many many years !!!

[Guest]

I personally think the military tribunal would give you what you want...a quick and relativly press free exection.

BUT...this is going to be YEARS AND YEARS of on going legal moves.....and eventually, they will get what they want....to put the USA on trial and at the end we we will go into a political squabble while they laugh and preach !

You are going to be hearing about this for years and years and it WAS a political move totally as this is what the WH wants. I cant prove that for sure, but in my heart it is true. There have been so many outright lies from this administration thus far and this particular story is rampant with lying from all sides...from the atty general not consulting with the President (but the Gov of NY was told this would happen months ago BY the WH )

This atty general and President are pure and simple politicians. They refuse to prosecute over career litigators protests those Black Panthers in Philly who terrorized voters but will use this stage.....

Bucco: Once again you are correct. Rather than the terrorist being on trial it will turn on our gov . Hey since OBama changed his mind on Gitmo again why not give them a trial there?

[Guest]

Last night it was another case of "spot the flip flop".

Tonight's "guest" - none other than Rudy Giuliani.

Cutting back and forth from Giuliani 2006, taling about the trial of the "20th hijacker", Zacharaia Moussasoui (sp?) - and then to 2009 about KSM being brought to NY for trial.

Paraphrasing:

Rudy 2006 [on the ZM trial]: This is to show the world that we are a nation of laws and will give this man a fair trial no matter how heinous the crime and how much the desire for vengeance. This robs our enemies from being able to use this for propaganda. This a triumph of the American Way.

Rudy 2009 [on the KSM decision]: This is the worst thing we could have done. This trial will allow him to spout his views, etc, etc.

Does it get any more nakedly partisan than that?

Yes, I saw that. Interesting debate between Giuliani and Giuliani, just three years apart!

My opinion of Rudy Giuliani couldn't be lower. I think he's one of the most smarmy individuals to come down the pike. He looked like an ass giggling like a school girl at the RNC about Obama being a community organizer. Now, I giggle every time I think of him having to call that "community organizer "Mr. President." Add to that his family values of marriages X's 3 and his fallout with his children... yep, just the kind of guy you want in the WH! He's a hypocrite and an opportunist. :yuck:

[Guest]

Yes, I saw that. Interesting debate between Giuliani and Giuliani, just three years apart!

My opinion of Rudy Giuliani couldn't be lower. I think he's one of the most smarmy individuals to come down the pike. He looked like an ass giggling like a school girl at the RNC about Obama being a community organizer. Now, I giggle every time I think of him having to call that "community organizer "Mr. President." Add to that his family values of marriages X's 3 and his fallout with his children... yep, just the kind of guy you want in the WH! He's a hypocrite and an opportunist. :yuck:


And your personal attack on someone, while not surprising, has what to do with the trial of the terrorists in NY !

[Guest]

And your point is ? That both parties play politics ? Oh....trust me I am aware of that as are all americans.

This WH is by far...not even close...the most politically motivated WH I have seen in my many many years !!!

Politically motivated? How so? About the best I can come up with is that the trial will highlight the abuses of human rights in keeping him locked up for so long without access to a lawyer, official charges, etc., and the political points could be from pointing out that all this happened under Bush/Ashcroft.

[Guest]

or continue to be an elected official in the US government.......no matter the party.

"...hypocrite and an opportunist..." (borrowed from Chelsea's post).

First objective: get elected
Second objective: do, say or promise what ever we the people want to hear to get re-elected.
Lessor objectives: accountability, responsibility, we the people, honesty....

btk

[Guest]

Trying KSM and the others is entirely different from trying Zacharia Moussaoui. Even Jon Stewart should be intelligent enough to figure that out. The differences between Zacharia Moussaoui and the five Including, most importantly Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are:

Zacharia Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota by the FBI while KSM was captured by the Pakistani ISI in Pakistan and turned over to the US Diplomatic Security Service. Anyone arrested in the United States must be tried in the United States – an enemy combatant captured in another country is properly tried in a military tribunal.

Moussaoui was a throwaway operative intended to commit suicide during an act of terror. KSM was one of al-Qaeda inner circle and a valued leader who could never be considered expendable.

Moussaoui never accomplished a single act of terror for al-Qaeda. KSM, in addition to planning the attacks of 9/11, murdered Daniel Pearl, arranged the Bali Nightclub bombing among many other acts of terror over the years both as a member of Qaeda and other radical groups.

Moussaoui was tried in Alexandria, VA an area not known to be a hotbed of terrorists while KSM is scheduled to be tried in Manhattan, the primary target of terrorism in the United States.

It should be noted that Moussaoui was indicted in December 2001 and not until May 2006 was he transferred to the ‘supermax’ in Colorado, a period of 4 ½ years. If the trial of KSM and the others goes on for even one-third the time (18 months), the needed security will bring lower Manhattan to a halt and destroy many of the businesses located there.

[Guest]

Interestingly, today I saw an interview with Obama in which he claims it was the decision of the Attorney General to try them in our criminal courts. Maybe he's starting to get some bad vibes from public opinion poles and seeks to deflect blame for this idiotic move.:rant-rave:

[Guest]

Politically motivated? How so? About the best I can come up with is that the trial will highlight the abuses of human rights in keeping him locked up for so long without access to a lawyer, official charges, etc., and the political points could be from pointing out that all this happened under Bush/Ashcroft.


READ WHAT YOU TYPED and then tell me again how it is not politically motivated !!!

PS: Your post is ALL political. I am not pro or anti Bush....I could care less about party. I STRONGLY AND WITH ALL MY HEART OPPOSE this Presidents social agenda and have since well before he became the candidate even. I say this so you understand, I am not like you party hacks who think your way is the ONLY WAY and the other party is the devil. ALL your posts are pretty much consistent and not suprised this would be turned around to the previous administration !

Sorry if you take this the wrong way but tired of trying to discuss what is happening now and hear nothing except about the previous administration. Sure, everything is relative and I accept that, however, it cannot be the ONLY justification for any actions.

[Guest]

"AG Eric Holder's Law Firm Represented 18 Gitmo Detainees After Volunteering to Give Them Free Legal Assistance, Filed Endless Lawsuits in US Courts..."

"These lawsuits filed against the American people led to the delay of Bush's military-trials, accounting for the "eight years of delay" the Obama administration has used as justification for the 9/11 plotters being tried in civilian court."

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/ag-eric-holders-law-firm-represented-18-gitmo-detainees-after-volunteering-to-give-them-free-legal-a.html


Just interesting information on this thread subject !!!!

[Guest]

And given the tone of your post, it's like you want to forget that the abuses of the last 8 years ever happened. You ask "why do this" and don't like the answer when it's "because it rights a wrong done by the previous administration".

There's a new President so OF COURSE things are going to be done differently. OF COURSE there are going to be comparisons. OF COURSE some of the justifications are going to be "we don't do things the way 'they' used to".

But there IS one thing that I have to address - where you said, and I quote:


I am not like you party hacks who think your way is the ONLY WAY and the other party is the devil


I am FAR from a "party hack". In the Presidential elections in which I've been eligible to vote, my ballots were cast for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Marrou (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Badnarik (Libertarian), and Obama.

Yeah, I know, it looks strange. Why, might you ask, did I vote for Obama? Because the race was so close that I felt I had to vote the "lesser of two evils" and couldn't afford to "vote my conscience" in case my state (NH) would go for John "I'm not the guy I was in 2000 - now I'm more-of-the-same" McCain and his VERY inappropriate sidekick/VP candidate Sarah Palin.

If my posts "seem consistent" it's because it was Bush (the latter) who turned me off of the Republican Party. They were no longer the 'small government' party - they'd sold out to their own batch of special interests. They invoke "Reagan" on one hand like he's their deity and, on the other hand, pass legislation that would have him spinning like a lathe in his grave.

I would LOVE to reign in the government - but given the evils of 4 years of Obama vs 4 years of whomever it would have been pulling the strings of McCain (as I believe was done to Bush), I chose Obama. Yeah, I held my nose and voted.

[Guest]

And given the tone of your post, it's like you want to forget that the abuses of the last 8 years ever happened. You ask "why do this" and don't like the answer when it's "because it rights a wrong done by the previous administration".

There's a new President so OF COURSE things are going to be done differently. OF COURSE there are going to be comparisons. OF COURSE some of the justifications are going to be "we don't do things the way 'they' used to".

But there IS one thing that I have to address - where you said, and I quote:



I am FAR from a "party hack". In the Presidential elections in which I've been eligible to vote, my ballots were cast for Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Marrou (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Browne (Libertarian), Badnarik (Libertarian), and Obama.

Yeah, I know, it looks strange. Why, might you ask, did I vote for Obama? Because the race was so close that I felt I had to vote the "lesser of two evils" and couldn't afford to "vote my conscience" in case my state (NH) would go for John "I'm not the guy I was in 2000 - now I'm more-of-the-same" McCain and his VERY inappropriate sidekick/VP candidate Sarah Palin.

If my posts "seem consistent" it's because it was Bush (the latter) who turned me off of the Republican Party. They were no longer the 'small government' party - they'd sold out to their own batch of special interests. They invoke "Reagan" on one hand like he's their deity and, on the other hand, pass legislation that would have him spinning like a lathe in his grave.

I would LOVE to reign in the government - but given the evils of 4 years of Obama vs 4 years of whomever it would have been pulling the strings of McCain (as I believe was done to Bush), I chose Obama. Yeah, I held my nose and voted.

Impressed with your post actually !

I voted EXACTLY as you but chose the least evil as McCain because if you read both of Obama's books (amazing two AUTO biographies at such a short age and they even agree on some issues), and looked into ALL of past training and associations, you will see what I saw and what we are seeing JUST THE BEGINNING OF.

Where we disagree is that while I had many many problems with Bush, and agree he sure was not the small government guy he professed to be, he was also NOT the evil doer that folks make him out. That Bush was a figment of the media and MOVEON type in my opinion. Actually this President agrees with much of what Bush did and is maintaining much of what was done relative to Patriot act, etc.

My fear of this current President is real and justifiable. I am reserving judgement as he has done very little in the area of foreign affairs, but I am 100% opposed to all of his social programs. His background is so full of radical friends, associates and training he has only way to go.

I might also add that if you read about his background, he is the opposite of what he and his supporters say...he is SO VERY MUCH POLITICAL..so much more than the guy you folks like to demonize !

I could care less about the party labels....think that generalizing people because of the R or D on their voter registration card is just wrong to do !

[Guest]

Where we disagree is that while I had many many problems with Bush, and agree he sure was not the small government guy he professed to be, he was also NOT the evil doer that folks make him out. That Bush was a figment of the media and MOVEON type in my opinion. Actually this President agrees with much of what Bush did and is maintaining much of what was done relative to Patriot act, etc.


To me, I think Bush eventually got controlled by the people around him. By the end, he seemed quite the puppet.

I used to defend him quite vociferously when they'd call him a moron or worse. You can't learn to fly a fighter jet if you're a moron.

My attitude was "If you don't like Bush, come up with something of SUBSTANCE - not this schoolyard name-calling penny-ante crap"

[Guest]

And back to the subject of the thread.....this editorial is pretty much right on.....

"Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. "After eight years of delay," he intoned, "those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act."

Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts.""

The editorial ends with this....

"Is that the nub? To satisfy the revenge fantasies of American leftists who have lusted to put the Bush administration on trial, the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice logic, justice, national security, and honor?

When KSM's star turn in the courtroom goes viral on the Internet and inspires thousands of new jihadis, the Obamaites can console themselves that at least they stuck it to George W. Bush.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/20/holders_true_motive_99239.html

[Guest]

I have removed a string of seven posts that were the result of one poster's uncivil reference to another poster.

Keep your comments civil, please.

[Guest]

AND AWAY WE GO.....

NEW YORK - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34093721/ns/us_news-security

[Guest]

AND AWAY WE GO.....

NEW YORK - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34093721/ns/us_news-security

Gee who would've guessed?

Do you think that this might be what the Obama admin ans liberals in general wanted all along?

Yoda

[Guest]

Hold these fanatics up to the light. Let the whole world hear their blind hatred. let the world see these people for who they are. We have nothing to fear from their "message".

If they're not going to deny their roles, then they'll be found guilty, most likely, and they'll go to jail.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that our society and our values are so weak and threadbare that they can't stand up to some brainwashed dipstick shouting his crap in handcuffs. Did the publication of the Unabomber's manifesto bring us down? No.

It's like how, in conservative Muslim societies, they think so little of humanity that they believe a man can't see even a woman's OUTLINE wihout turning into an animal. Better to hide anything because they don't have any belief that their convictions can stand on their own.

How terribly insecure.

[Guest]

Hold these fanatics up to the light. Let the whole world hear their blind hatred. let the world see these people for who they are. We have nothing to fear from their "message".

If they're not going to deny their roles, then they'll be found guilty, most likely, and they'll go to jail.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that our society and our values are so weak and threadbare that they can't stand up to some brainwashed dipstick shouting his crap in handcuffs. Did the publication of the Unabomber's manifesto bring us down? No.

It's like how, in conservative Muslim societies, they think so little of humanity that they believe a man can't see even a woman's OUTLINE wihout turning into an animal. Better to hide anything because they don't have any belief that their convictions can stand on their own.

How terribly insecure.

Problem is that there are americans who right after 9/11 blamed this country and now they will have "allies" in the main spot light ! They will join in condemning this country right next door to where it happened.

This has nothing to do with our strength or weakness of values..it IS going to be about politics......you just wait and see...POLITICS !!!

[Guest]

Problem is that there are americans who right after 9/11 blamed this country and now they will have "allies" in the main spot light ! They will join in condemning this country right next door to where it happened.


Yes, and those people were condemned, laughed at and ridiculed. they have just as much right to their misguided, ill-informed, self-serving opinions as anyone else.

Remember, it is unconstitutional for our government to silence someone.

It is not unconstitutional for that same person to open their mouth and be discovered as an idiot.

[Guest]

Yes, and those people were condemned, laughed at and ridiculed. they have just as much right to their misguided, ill-informed, self-serving opinions as anyone else.

Remember, it is unconstitutional for our government to silence someone.

It is not unconstitutional for that same person to open their mouth and be discovered as an idiot.

Cant argue with your words, but will again predict that these guys will find sympathizers among our politicians who will use it to verbally abuse the previous administration and those like Rev Wright who totally agree with them !

[Guest]

Oh they will. There will be sympathizers. Heck, remember Jeanette Rankin? She was the Montana congresswoman who cast the LONE vote AGAINST the Declaration of War that FDR asked for in 1941 after Pearl Harbor.

Her justification? She said that FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4361

[Guest]

Yes, and those people were condemned, laughed at and ridiculed. they have just as much right to their misguided, ill-informed, self-serving opinions as anyone else.

Remember, it is unconstitutional for our government to silence someone.

It is not unconstitutional for that same person to open their mouth and be discovered as an idiot.
\

May I remind you that had not there been a lot of pressure our current President's minister/mentor/pastor for twenty(20) years would be one of those !!!

PS: But of course the President was not attending on those days or even aware that his mentor/pastor and advisor had said it !