News-Record.com

I may post again on this later after I wake up, but for now a few random observations.

Congressional, judicial and public oversight are needed, no question. To give the executive branch carte blanc power to initiate any policy it sees fit would indeed be dangerous under ANY administration.

However, when viewed in the historical concept and compared to the activities of the Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Nixon administrations in times of war I can't be sold on the idea that the Bush presidency is somehow representative of the ultimate threat to our constitutional liberties that it is so often portrayed to be.

I'm neither a Bush supporter or apologist, but I think his "lack of respect for the current law" is more of a typical executive branch reaction than a well planned and organized attack upon our constitutional rights.

I think it's possible to rein him in and at the same time gather the intelligence necesssary for the protection of the American people, but it won't be done by either a blind adherrence or opposition to the current policies of his administration.

With the current "rubberstamp" Republican Congress, I don't trust this President for a minute. He does what he wants to do, knowing he will not have to answer to anyone. It is a sad state. As JDR has said, we NEED divided government.

Deacon,

I'm sorry if I came across as trying to upstage you guys in reference to the Colonial Ice House posts a couple of days ago, that wasn't my intent. Reading the sentimental references to the bags they used made me realize that you two must have come along after pretty much everybody had cars, which of course would have a direct affect on your packaging sentiments.

Besides, I didn't have that far to carry the damn things in that I always left the tracks and aimed for the grass shortly after crossing over the Summit Avenue bridge.

Gotta' admit I kinda' miss that walk. :-)

It's true that the ACLU was able to judge shop and find a liberal activist judge that ruled the wiretap as unconstitutional. Of course, that wasn't too hard with the current state of our judicial system.

Mr. Sheldon's letter got in the newspaper one day too late, though, as the appeals court has placed a stay on the ruling and allowed the program to continue during appeal. It is far from assurred that this liberal activist judge's ruling will stand on appeal.

At any rate, I find letters such as this, which is one of hundreds published by this newspaper, troubling. They, along with some regular posters here, fear Bush more than the reality of a hostile world. Our country faces some enemies that want to do more than just physical harm to us, they want to bury us. I know because they have said so. Preserving the foundation of our country is important, but protecting the lives of our citizens is supreme in my mind. If we have to infringe upon the privacy rights of those that would try to kill us in order to defeat them, then I fully support that. I do not understand those that value playing politics above protection of our citizens' lives.

ORR,
You hit the nail on the head about one thing! Many of us fear George W. Bush more than we do the terrorists in Iraq! Why? Because there were no terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush took us there.
The word "IMCOMPETENCE" seems to define the administration, but running a close second is the word "DECEPTION". If the President and his lackeys in Congress would level with the American people instead of peeing in our faces and telling us it's raining, they might have more credibility. For now, we SHOULD fear a President that seeks to make us become terrorists through torture.

"Because there were no terrorist in Iraq until George W. Bush took us there"

Nit Nit Pick Pick

The Dems don't care about wiretapping anymore, they and the MSM are so involved in Foleygate that wiretapping, Iraq, George Allen, nothing else is on the radar. Poor Bob Woodward can't even plug his book because no one is listening.

"However, when viewed in the historical concept and compared to the activities of the Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Nixon administrations in times of war ...."

Maybe - 'cept Cheney is on Record that the President should as a standard have MORE power ...

I do not begrudge Bush(s) "lack of respect for the current law" ... but it needs to be pointed out so we do not assume the new standard is the historical standard. On that note - I am going to reready 1984 again ... one party rule, the never ending war ... etc.

seems the only thing we're hearing about anything is foley and the efforts to get the speaker changed. not surveilance, not iraq, not even global warming.
the lte writer thinks bush is more of a threat than obl. his right to his opinion. however, if i was obl, having watched the total lack of unity on any aspect of this war,i would be poised to strike. and strike hard.
the democrats want a "new direction" for the country, maybe obl will help them out.just like he did in spain.
pray for peace
prepare for war.

Janherman, the difference is that congress has not issued a declaration of war for this invasion.

Oak Ridge Runner, the dems have been clear in that they support all measures to find terrorists. Their problem with the current "spy on Americans" program is that the Bush Admin never got the proper auhorization from FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This is the crux of the Dems ourtrage and the ruling. As a nation of laws, we must be able to depend on the checks and balances of the 3 branches of our government. When one branch says it has the final say in interpreting a law, then we drift away from those checks and balances.

lilbean, you miss the point, but as of September of this year, Bush said that "Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’"

Nice to see a new voice, MoMo.

True, lil. The media is focusing on Foley...little mention of the 13 soldiers who died in Iraq this week. I find it interesting to see the comments about Foley. Both sides are behaving like morons, IMO. Smokescreens to avoid the real issues of the day.

Issues? there are Issues? Carol?

In a style reminiscent of Edward R. Murrow, Keith Olbermann did a Special Commentary at the end of his countdown tonight about President Bush saying "Democrats want us to be attacked again". Olbermann said what many of us feel, and I would encourage each of you to go to the MSNBC website and watch the video of his Special Comment.

Murrow = Olbermann. Hang on.....wait....whoa....I'm....almost up, er, off...here I go.......momento por favor....whew...ok one more time......that's better........ok I'm off the floor now....damn I need a drink. Thanks for the laugh DD, don't do that again, it's hard to get off the floor after busting out with laughter with such comparisons.

As Lloyd Benson might have said, Olbermann is no Murrow ... on the other hand, Murrow might not have been silent about the "entertainment" many confuse as news which comes from other mouths - and you know who I mean.

Okay class, time to grade your papers.

James, I did not state or imply that Bush's policies were justified under a "historical standard", only that it is typical for the executive branch to react in a similar manner during times of war. The historical commonality of an event in no way serves to make it either just or proper, and as I stated, it is my firm opinion that he does need to be "reigned in". As to Cheney, being a member of the executive branch it would be surprising if he had any other attitude. You still get an "A" for applying rational thought to the issues addressed.

Momo, in the examples I cited there was no Congressional declaration of war during either the Johnson or Nixon Administrations and both Wilson and FDR expanded executive authority prior to such a declaration during their tenures. In that respect your initial point was invalid, but inasmuch as you stressed the importance of checks and balances later in your post I still think you deserve a high "B".

Now you know why I never considered teaching after receiving my doctorate.

I'd have been damn lousy at it.

:-)

James,
It is obvious that some who post here (Dan) get all of their news from "infotainment" sources. Real shame is they don't even realize it. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, could portray the baby Jesus as a Fascist and they would swear it was the truth. You cannot argue with ignorance.

For any who would like to actually read the commentary before watching the FOXNews "cartoons", here it is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/

DAN,

From His Bio:

"Olbermann also received an Edward R. Murrow Award for his coverage of the events of 9/11.

In addition to his extensive broadcasting experience, Olbermann has written for dozens of publications, including The New York Times, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, Sports Illustrated and Playboy. His first book, “The Major League Coaches,” was published when he was 14. Olbermann received a bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University."

I know Cornell is no UNCG, but I last time I checked it was an Ivy League institution. As I have admonished you before--start reading!

"I know Cornell is no UNCG, but I last time I checked it was an Ivy League institution."

I know Yale (where your buddy GWB got a degree) is no UNCG, but the last time I checked it was an Ivy League institution.

So Olbermann went to Cornell? So what? You compare the sniping liberal "infotainment" (to use your words) host Olbermann to Murrow? Ok I'm back in my chair now. Thanks again for the laugh.

Yes I will read more DD, please excuse my ignorance in not having known that Olbermann went to Cornell. I'm going to a party in Charlotte this weekend, I'll try to drop in the fact I know that Olbermann is a Cornell grad to a few guests so they will know how erudite I be.

Dan,

I'm leaving town later today myself, so despite the fact that it is in reponse to a prior commitment I guess I'll be accused of cutting and running from the discussion - and I couldn't care less.

As a general rule I enjoy Deacon's posts, not necessarily out of any sense of agreement with his opinions but more from an appreciation of his energetic presentations to cause.

Being a political independent I can allow myself that luxury.

On the other hand I will admit to being more and more put off by his habitually rude and belittling assumption that anyone not in agreement with his own political philosophy is somehow either completely ignorant or totally lacking in the necessary gray matter to reach a divergent conclusion.

He accuses conservatives of parroting opinions that have been handed to them by others, then insults anyone who doesn't parrot his own.

Such a hypocritical stance erodes the rational validity of his own arguments and lately I find myself disdainfull of his approach even on those occasions when I agree with his basic premise.

If he reads this and attacks me, fine, but I felt that I in an odd sort of way needed to apologize to you for the Deacon's too often "over the top" treatment of your own expressions of opinion.

Being retired, well armed, financially solvent and secure in knowing I'm loved by my children he can insult me all he wants. :-)

Jan, as a general rule I enjoy DD's posts too. Not because I agree with them rather because they are entertaining and epitomize the anger of far left state of mind.

As for his rude and belittling assumptions that those who do not agree with his viewpoints are simply ignorant, that's just the icing on the cake. Add to it the insults such as calling me an a**hole, a tin horn flag waver, a woman hater, etc. etc. and then the leopard truly shows his spots.

As my dad always told me, don't try to make a fool out of someone who can do it for themself.

Dan,
As usual, you miss the ENTIRE point.

Olbermann is an EDWARD R. MURROW AWARD WINNER !!

Again, do you read?

***************
I think we all know what Denzzien meant about you avoiding issues.

janherman,
Don't ever feel obligated to apologize for me. Never have I attacked you, because I love your intellect, and self deprecating humor.

It is the folks like Dan, who, while riding high on the moral horse, are quite lost when confronted with chinks in the armor of their moral certitude.

He scoffed at any hint of an Olbermann/Murrow connection, and when his ego was bruised, couldn't even focus on his ignorance of the facts. So, as he pouts about, I will continue to point out ANY and ALL of the hypocrisy of the right wing moralists. Oh, that's right, Dan does NOT support Bush on immigration....so he's no "YES" man. How could I have forgotten! Darn!

Deacon,

Don't misunderstand, I'm not angry at you, I've just reached the point where I feel like you're hurting your own cause by tossing around too many personal insults.

I know you're intelligent enough to see how that could happen, and for that reason can't understand why you continue to do it.

Dan,
To further drive the point, you seem to focus on, here's a comparison:

Sean Hannity--"attended college" but never graduated. (Wikipedia)

Rush Limbaugh--"attended Southeast Missouri State" but never graduated. (Wikipedia)

One can complete a rigorous program of study, but two can't even hang in to graduate. Two rail about "work ethics" and one actually has one.

As your hero, Bill O'Reilly, would say, "Dan, you are in the NO-SPIN ZONE". Actually, as Colbert would say, "The seat of Heat"!

LOL!

OH MY GOD!

I'm starting to sound like a grandfather!

"Olbermann is an EDWARD R. MURROW AWARD WINNER"

So what? Does that equate him with Murrow as you so believe?

I do read DD, Neocon just lent me last months copy of Popular Mechanics.

BTW even mild mannered Jan is seeing you for who you are.

DD, if a presigious college education equals success in your book then support Yale grad GWB. Just using your logic.

Rush and Hannity didn't complete college, but they have been wildly successful in their careers. An Ivy League diploma doesn't define success except for the ivory tower elitist crowd to which you are a card carrying member.

It is time to cut and run. Come down to Spencer, NC to see me and visit Thomas the Train DD. Hint: I'll be with my wife and kids.

"...Sports Illustrated and Playboy"

Did he write to Penthouse Forum too? Popular Mechanics is starting to sound okay now.

Seriously, though, if the problem is really a problem of one branch of government having too much power, then why is predominantly one party (democrats) who are making such a stink out of something that their own party has done in the past? I'm just wondering why the problem is only a problem when it is the Bush administration doing it?

And seriously, seriously, it may really BE a problem and an invasion of privacy. Whether or not that is the case, the partisan nature of when it is and isn't a problem is troubling.

One more thing I feel like rambling about.

What's all this fuss I always hear about Fox News? I understand that their commentators often lean more to the right than their contemporaries, but bias in those shows is to be expected.

As far as the news itself, I really have a hard time telling any difference. I generally get my national news updates from cnn.com. Occasionally, I'll veer over to foxnews.com or abcnews.com just to get a different angle on a story or hoping they may have something more recently updated.

Nearly 100% of the time, the news that is reported is the same. I just don't see the big difference.

Dan,
You should have starred in dodgeball!

THE EDWARD R. MURROW AWARD!!!

Can you understand that?

Dan,
You obviously DON'T read, as it is HUGH who relies on Popular Mechanics for his "News" and not neoCON. We are still wondering if neocon CAN read.
Guess I hit a nerve with the educational notes on your infotainers. Sorry.

Nit,
Someone told me that Playboy has pictures, but I always read the articles.

DD,

Ah, yes, the articles. Seriously, though, my guess is that many men who read Playboy do read it for the articles. After all, in terms of porn, Playboy is pretty tame. Of course, it's been many years since I've seen a Playboy.

DD, I don't care if Olbermann won a high school debate award, went to whatever college, or slept with Faith Hill. He is a whiny pissy infotainer who hates the fact that O'Reilly's program is more popular. Just suffers from a king of the hill syndrome.

BTW, looks like Mr. High Flutin Olbermann, in addition to being an Edward R. Murrow award winner, is also an accomplished author.

http://www.amazon.com/Worst-Person-World-Strong-Contenders/dp/product-description/0470044950

"The Worst Person in the World and 200 Strong Contenders". On the cover are photos O'Reilly, Rummy, and Ann Coulter.

Gee I wonder who is #1? O'Reilly, nahhhhhhh couldn't be. Why are Bush and the Pope not pictured?

Never mind OBL, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Castro, and a host of others, hell they probably relate to Olbermann and enjoy his show. The fact that Olbermann has photos of these three with his title speaks for itself. A spiteful pu**y.

Dan,
You calling ANYTHING infotainment is laughable. You are a FOXNews groupie, claiming to be "Hannitized", and you expect anyone to take you seriously?? Loved O'Reilly's show where he had Mark Foley as a Democrat!! Laugh OUT Loud funny!

Here's a great website for you to take a gander at. Its name says it all, but it cites actual transcripts and those are the real hoots! I bought the book in the DFW airport and it is hilarious.

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

Now if you still think O'Reilly is a great broadcaster, then look at this! Of course, knowing you do not look at ANYTHING that might threaten your hardened views, I will leave it to others to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE

Dan,
You calling ANYTHING infotainment is laughable. You are a FOXNews groupie, claiming to be "Hannitized", and you expect anyone to take you seriously?? Loved O'Reilly's show where he had Mark Foley as a Democrat!! Laugh OUT Loud funny!

Here's a great website for you to take a gander at. Its name says it all, but it cites actual transcripts and those are the real hoots! I bought the book in the DFW airport and it is hilarious.

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

Now if you still think O'Reilly is a great broadcaster, then look at this! Of course, knowing you do not look at ANYTHING that might threaten your hardened views, I will leave it to others to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE