Just how crazy are the Dems? - Los Angeles Times

Oh, come on Jack, I think you're crazy! I think these people (who was the conspiracy queen on the old board) would believe ANYTHING if it was bad about GW or Cheney, period!

You see all the posts. They have, in fact, gone out of their freaking gourds!

Admit it, you must admit it, or you too are out of your freaking gourd!

So what?

Those are not mutually exclusive hypotheses. If Gore had won FL in 2000 and things gone this badly, we'd have the same .... ahem ... AT LEAST the same number of lunatic conspiracists, simply of a different partisan tinge.

When things go really bad, people concoct extremely nutty theories to explain it. This is not politics, it's human nature.

Hearing it from a fruitcake like Jonah Goldberg who got all that "Clinton Body Count" garbage from his mother and Linda Tripp just adds a layer of surreality.

When things go really bad, people concoct extremely nutty theories to explain it.

Jack -
Correction: when people's experience of things goes really bad, they concoct nutty theories.
We all live in the same society; it's just that some among us choose to torment themselves with amplified visions of the negative. Consequently for them, the experience does go really bad. Bizarre theories, as you explain, follow.

I am personally fond of the First Amendment and its penumbras extending outside the government, albeit for reasons apart from the mainstream. People's sense of freedom to express themselves fosters more self-expression, making it all the much easier to separate the innocuous kooks from the truly dangerous.

JonesGirl: Ah, yes, that infamous memo from August 2001.....the one where he was told the FBI was on it...? Where was Clinton looking? No, don't answer that.....just what was it that Sandy shoved down his pants, eh?

Lisa,

Blaming Clinton for 9/11 only makes you look partisan. It took place 9 months, nearly a quarter of the way through his first term. Instead of working, Bush was vacationing, a theme of his presidency.

Bush was warned numerous times and did nothing. Even when the attacks happened, he sat and did nothing for several moments.

Clinton captured and convicted those responsible for the first WTC attack. How's the hunt for Osama going? Oh, that's right, we're locked into an unwinnable occupation of a country that had zippo to do with 9/11.

And your blaming bush makes you just as much a partisan. So what?

My blaming of Bush is based on facts. It is a fact that the incoming admin was warned on numerous occassions by Clinton's team that Osama was a threat and that an attack could be in the offing. The guy you voted for looked the other way--I can see why anyone would prefer to shift the blame, but it rings hollow.

If he is so incompetent that he couldn't do his job 9 months into it, he has no business in that office.

Good point, Mr. Hallo.

You are all bizarre, frankly. This little sentence puts it into context.

Even when the attacks happened, he sat and did nothing for several moments.

What was he supposed to do? This is, over all of the bizarre things, the most bizarre.

Get up and be the CIC? Immediately excuse himself? So he was with kids--he is the president, he should have the ability to be able to stand up and say "sorry, I need to go." That would not have panicked the children.

I don't expect the President to sit and stare vacantly into space for several minutes after an event like 9/11. His reaction is what was bizarre--no emotion, nothing. Almost as if he had an inkling of what happened and wasn't shocked.

Did three minutes really matter? And how do you know what would have spooked the kids?

Your post is, frankly, bizarre and so biased as to be unbelievable. But that is not unusual when GW is discussed.

What, was he supposed to throw up on the floor, in front of the children, go nuts, scream, what was he supposed to do?

Frankly, remaining cool, composed seems a good thing for a CIC, eh?

Fact is that if that was Bill Clinton, you would have said, "see how cool, composed he was. Not letting even the most terrible news affect him, and the kids. What a GREAT president."

And, the amazing stuff I have heard from others, what a "chicken hawk" he was that he didn't go back to the White House, etc., etc., and that cheney was chicken because he was wisked off to a safe location.

LOL, they are the HEADS of our government, they MUST remain safe, period! The Secret Service will make sure of that, whether the president wants it or not.

Bias, it is a terrible thing.

Tell me something, what would you have had him do?

Think about your response. Let us assume he was appropriately warned. I assume he was warned by the outgoing administration, right? By Clinton, right?

Now, that makes it VERY clear that Clinton had the same information. So, what did Clinton do? Did he put up constant air patrols? No. Did he alter the security at airports? No.

He did nothing. Hence, when given that information by the outgoing administration and seeing they did nothing, surely you don't expect that Bush should suddenly do SOMETHING else, do you?

Or are you saying that Clinton had specific knowledge of an incoming attack, but decided to ignore it?

Really, Clinton was right, and so was Bush. Sure, there may have been hypothetical possibilities (Listening to Scimitar by Patrick Robinson now and talk about possibilities!), but to say GW should have done something when the prior president who had the same knowledge did not, is a bit bizarre.

Fact is that no one really thought it would happen.

Saying that the prior president should have done something when he was long out of office strains credulity I think even for the "Clinton did it" crowd.
I don't blame Bush for 9-11 anymore than I blame FDR for Pearl Harbor however I will note that more money was spent investigating Clinton than was spent investigating 9-11 and Bush did oppose even that poor effort.

wmolaw -

I'm referring to the Presidents Daily Briefing (PDB) from early August that talks about Al Qaida, Bin Laden, Hijackings. Hell, the memo was titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike In US." About the only thing it doesn't mention was the date. This wasn't information Clinton ever saw.

You then have the memo from January '01 from Richard Clarke talking about how Al Qaida is a threat and deserves a discussion by the "Principals." Again, this is something Clinton never saw.

Now, I'm not going to even touch the subject about whether or not the President did anything/enough about 9/11 beforehand. My whole point is that if someone was asked "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?" that it is reasonable to interpret the question in such a way that one could answer affirmatively, citing the memo and PDB as references.

The question in the poll was worded poorly and left too much room for individual interpretation, which I feel is what many respondents, and Goldberg as well, are doing here.

First, how do you know Clinton never saw it, or the information that comprised it? Wishful thinking?

Please, I have had enough of conspiracy theorists and those that say GW "should have done something." Fine, I have no problem with him taking the blame, he was pres.

So, to be fair (I really don't expect that), you have to give him credit for the economy as well, right?

After all, his economy has been wonderful despite the largest knocks this Country has ever taken.

wmolaw: Ah, the bush economy - we don't hear much about that at all in the MSM media now do we.....it's the old no news is good news.....nevertheless the 08 dems won't be able to say "it's the economy, stupid!" ---we know it's all iraq 24/7---when the dems do try to talk economy they slip into socialist style themes a la edwards "2 americas"....hillary's "common good", etc etc that don't play well in general elections.

wmolaw -

I'm not talking about Bush, that's completely orthogonal to the discussion. Please remain on topic if you're going to respond.

My whole point is that the way the question in the poll was worded, it's open to a number of different interpretations. Some respondents, who probably didn't have copies of that memo or PDB in front of them when they were asked, probably responded to the question in the affirmative, believing those documents meant that the President knew about the attacks in advance. On the other side, Jonah Goldberg took those responses to mean that 35% of democrats believe that there was a conspiracy, and Bush was in on it.

People believing both of those (that the memos comprised prior knowledge and that there was a conspiracy) would answer "yes" to the poll question. That's why I'm saying it's poorly worded.

Eco:

Okay, we are in agreement. And, as I pointed out to T-Rex, that is the problem with polls, they are imprecise, to say the least.

So, those who are poll driven (can you think of people like that?) are driven by inherently imprecise mechanisms.

What an uninformed, bitter old man you are.

Daniel A. Hallo as a democrat... would be the only person that can define what he believes politically... I mean, I know republicans are big on "things that make sense" but hey... that REALLY makes sense.

that's the problems with polls, T-Rex, you know that, and that is true of ALL polls, and that includes exit polls.

Just how is democracy "very endangered?" If you mean by Islamist fundamentals, I'm with you.

somehow, however, I don't think that is your intent.

Now, tell us, exactly how many constitutional protections has the GW administration taken away from you?

I am afraid your reading of the Second Amendment is quite poor. "States" do not equal "people" in the Constitution, period. The Second Amendment is addressed to the right of "people" not States.

Review the usage of the word "people" and "states" in other amendments and you will quickly see this is true.

As to the utilization of the National Guard, I believe this is statutorily mandated. You must realize that by singling out this issue, you ignore the much more important issue of the Federalization of numerous areas of our lives, such acts having been done, primarily, under prior (and usually democratic) administrations and when Congress was controlled by the democrats. This is a continuing theme of the past fifty years, actually, and is only accelerating, not abating as SCOTUS is unable or unwilling to stop the trend.

There is no doubt but that the executive branch has had its power expanded in the past thirty to fifty years. However, it is NOT GW who has done this, but the democrats and SCOTUS. Essentially, the congress has abdicated its ability to carry out its own pronouncements, instead giving such power to the executive branch.

This has been a purposeful and intentional act by the Congress, so they can avoid any poliltical fall out over the acts they pass. This goes back to the void for vagueness doctrine, which has been gutted, mostly at the hands of the democrats in this Country.

Now, to the point, please note that you have not pointed to one constitutional protection that the current administration has taken from you, not one.

The utilization of the National Guard by the Feds goes back at least to the Korean War, and before. Not a GW action. National Guard served in both the Korean War and the Vietnam war, as well as every "war" since. Much of the current utilization of the Guard is due directly to the scale down of the standing army (almost cut in half) effected by the Clinton administration. I do not say that was "wrong" as standing armies are very, very expensive. But, as with all events, it has had repercussions.

You are also incorrect in assuming that the military would merely sit back and allow a president to act in contravention to the Constitution of this Country.

Here are the current oaths of office for the officers in our military:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, ____— (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of ____— do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

oaths of office

Clearly, you must note that even though in first oath, though they agree to obey the orders of the President, the prior oath, the preeminent oath is to uphold the Constitution of the USA. Thus, if a president is acting contrary to the Constitution, it is incumbent upon our military leaders to NOT obey the president but to, instead, uphold the Constitution of the USA.

So, your basic premises are severely flawed.

Look, you aren't reading! "State" and "People" as used in the Constitution are two, very separate, different things! if you can't understand that, then you cannot discuss this issue.

I have no disagreement with what Ole Tom said, but you are drawing bizarre analogies and assumptions from what he said.

And, just where do you get that the "National Guard are the Militia of the people?" Huh?

You are just way off base here.

You also make the same mistake that so many neophytes who begin to look at this area make,

that the power of the States are also under the will of the people of that state.

That is incorrect. This is NOT, repeat, this Country is NOT a democracy. It is a reprentative democracy. You must first begin to understand that concept before you can go further.

LOL, you are a neophyte, and incorrect to boot.

Fact is that the second amendment does NOT give the right to bear arms to the "militia." It gives the right to bear arms to the "people"

Now, read the other amendments which use the word "people" and tell me how it is used, what it means.

You are having issues with English. It is the PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia.