U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Resigns 1275
andyring writes "In a move that will undoubtedly make many /. readers jump for joy (although perhaps not myself), Attorney General John Ashcroft announced he will resign, according to multiple news sources. While many here dislike him, others have more favorable opinions of him. He became the point man on the USA Patriot Act, which typically ignites harsh opinions on both sides of the aisle."
Reader cnsc1rtr , referring to the AP's version of the story, writes "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'"
There is a GOD. (Score:2, Insightful)
Mission Accomplished (Score:5, Insightful)
At what cost?
Bush's Army (Score:1, Insightful)
And now Bush has his first Nominee (Score:5, Insightful)
Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Compare that to the last AG, Janet Reno. The only thing I remember her doing was frying a whole bunch of fellow citizens down in Texas...and refusiing to prosecute/investigate a bunch of Clintonistas.
We're saved! (Score:5, Insightful)
So they figured out how anthrax from US Army labs was mailed to various members of congress and media outlets, and captured those responsible?
Oh...they haven't done that, eh?
Well, at least gays can't marry.
Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, he did change the FBI. They no longer need search warrents, and they have no respect of our civil liberties. If you ask me, he damaged the USA. We were a more free people before he came to power. And don't forget, Ashcroft was the guy who lost his senate seat because the people of his state elected a dead guy rather than have 6 more years of him.
Re:SAFE! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee (Score:5, Insightful)
Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General (Score:5, Insightful)
Misson Accomplished!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation. Nothing against you, but if you wanted a president who has more involvement in Iraq than your own country, you mind as well turn in your U.S. citizenship. Before you mod me down to -100, I am just fighting for the U.S middle class.
Re:SAFE! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is and example of one thing the Bush administration understands, how to kill discussions. The trick is to say something so outlandish and WRONG that everyone who pays attention will know as wrong and the discussion dies there, while at the the same time, the less observant get the desired impression. The fun part is, if you have a valid argument that is even remotely related (rational or emotional level) against the individual, a lot of people will dismiss you without hearing you thinking 1. you are on the same level as them (that's just how politicians are) or 2. you're a conspiracy nut. (he's just reading too much into this political nonsense).
Really impressive use of the media if you ask me. If you say enough factually wrong soundbites, people will dismis you AND the people who are after you. Those who don't dismis you will think you are amazing.
And by the way.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have an educated, informed population. Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots.
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Rudy Giuliani (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee (Score:2, Insightful)
But what qualifications did he have for this post? Also, he lost an election to a dead guy before Bush appointed him.
It appears that being a "religious right wackjob" is the only qualification needed for this administration. :-/
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
And it all came up empty.
Now Aschroft? Snatched defeat from the claws of victory, and completely let Microsoft walk after it was convicted, fried, toasted by the Reno Justice Department. Dragged his heels on the Enron investigation -- helped Bush run interference as the billions were stolen. Slow-walked the Valerie Plame treason investigation past the election. Didn't investigate massive election interference in both 2000 and now 2004. Let the Pubs walk on using Homeland Security apparatus to interfere in the Texas redistricting. Won't instruct Bush to comply with the Supreme Court's stunning orders to let the concentration camp prisoners have access to a fair trial - they are ignoring the law of the land and performing show trials. He rammed the Patriot act into law, effectively repealing at least three ammendments in the Bill of Rights.
And the FBI was gutted by Freeh, the Clinton appointee who turned for the impeachment elves and committed 50 full time agents to investigating Clinton's sex lives while Al Queda was moving into position. Freeh "reformed" the FBI by eliminating an entire middle level of analysts, and "streamlining" the flow of information from below into the executive offices - ie, him. The warning from field agents were ignored because experienced analysts no longer existed to read the damned reports.
The FBI was "changed around" by Freeh. I doubt much that Ashcroft did didley to restore the analysts back to duty. Waht Bush/Ashcroft are doing, really, is to make every information asset we have responsible to and report to the executive, ie Bush. Not only do we not have the middle level of analysts back, we instead have a pack of political true-believers distilling info for the President's consumption. It's a wreck.
His resignation was rumored for over a year. no surprise. However, his replacement will be much worse.
thank goodness (Score:1, Insightful)
An administration that is pragmatic, wise, free of ideology, and a true tribute to core conservative values: less government, more freedom, and a belief that people should be left to think and act for themselves. A belief that success is its own reward and failure is its own punishment, and that government exists simply to enforce our sacred constitution and protect our borders.
HA HA HA HA HA I had you going there didn't I!! LESS government!! HA HA HA!! FREEDOM?? BWAH AH AH AHHAH *cough*.
Anyway I hope whoever they replace him with 1) isn't such a nutjob and 2) doesn't SCOWL so damn much. I swear, Ashcroft constantly looked like a cross between an angry parent and a KKK member. "Now son, you know daddy's tired, why are you making me burn you on this cross? Why did you have to go and be black?"
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, can I have my rights back, now?
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SAFE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion, Ashcroft is a fascist
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Stalking horse (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats need to watch out for this, and keep up the resistance against anyone on the right wing that Bush tries to put on the Court. We still have 45 seats in the Senate, that's enough for a filibuster. The ability to filibuster is there for a reason -- to stop a President and 51 Senators (or in this case 55) from the same party from putting an extremist on the Supreme Court. The Democrats need to make sure Bush comes up with nominees that are at lease somewhat moderate.
Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme (Score:3, Insightful)
Where they show a particular similarity is on the way they approched dealing with criminals, take them off the streets, throw them in a hole and deny them any sort of due process. Yes, Stalin tended to just kill them, but I'm convinced that Ashcroft would have done the same if he thought he could get away with it. The guy seemed to have a wet dream about the US being a police state. The fact that he is now gone is a good thing for the US.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
This being Slashdot, I'll likely get modded down for expressing heretical opinions, but I approve of Bush's hardline foreign-policy stance. It's his domestic policies I don't like -- cutting taxes while there's a war on, raising (some) trade barriers, and of course, the Patriot Act.
Actually, I should qualify that: I don't even oppose the powers given to the FBI. What I object to in the Patriot Act is the lack of transparency -- specifically, the lack of judicial oversight. If the FBI need certain powers to successfully prosecute the fight against terrorism, fine: but USE THEM IN THE OPEN. This National Security Letter bullshit is just that.
It seems to me that Ashcroft, with his "phantoms of lost liberty" speech, was the driving force behind the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead approach that built the Patriot Act without the necessary democratic safeguards.
I'm heartily glad he's gone.
Now, if Arafat would only hurry up and die...
Five Words for You (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stalking horse (Score:2, Insightful)
LK
Re:Yes, completely out of context! (Score:5, Insightful)
The paragraph:
"The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons."
Wether he actually meant what he said is another thing. Which I don't care about one way or the other. Useless politics...
Yeah, the US is much safer. (Score:5, Insightful)
In one case the damning evidence was a video of the alleged terrorists spending time in Disneyland.
And the only ones the neo-ayatollahs have any hope of "convicting" of any terrorism related activities they have safely guarded them in Guantanamo or Abu Gharib, were confessions can be conviniently extracted at the pleasure of the torturers and kangoroo courts will sentence in accordance to the public, on record wishes of the reelected Orwellian master overlord.
And the poster of the article still has the indecency to find something good to say about this individual.
Re:As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have mod points, but you got my respect.
Re:Yes, completely out of context! (Score:3, Insightful)
Outside the 19 that supposedly died on the planes in newyork (nearly half have turned up alive), how many other have been charged with the crimes relating to the largest terrorist attack on US soil.
100,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war.
1,000 US soldiers.
What is terrorism?
Who were the losers?
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the BEST NEWS EVER! How come he didn't tell us about this before?
For the election we were supposed to be in fear of terror. There is no way Bush could get elected unless we were in fear.
Now that the election is over, we do not have to be in fear any more.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you'll get modded down by attempting to preempt.. (but not by me, obviously)
but I approve of Bush's hardline foreign-policy stance. It's his domestic policies I don't like -- cutting taxes while there's a war on, raising (some) trade barriers, and of course, the Patriot Act.
This isn't K5, the commies haven't yet taken over the asylum.
I'm heartily glad he's gone.
I am as well, largely because I felt his religious enthusiasm created an appearance of nonsecularism in the judiciary leadership, and even though I don't know enough of what he did to see whether or not he ended up weakening secularism the appearance of hostility to secularism is enough to cause concern.
OTOH, I find Spencer Abraham more obnoxious, and him in concert with Cheney have halted any useful conservation, tax, etc policies on energy, which I find stupid and inexplicable.
Now, if Arafat would only hurry up and die...
They _still_ are having difficulty figuring out what brought his illness on.. I wouldn't put it past the Mossad (the CIA is too incompetent IMHO), but yeah, I think Thomas Friedman got it right in his last editorial on Arafat's legacy.
I have issues with Bush and his policies, but I have to say, watching leftists mope, wail and gnash is much more entertaining. I recall rightists during the Teflon Don Juan (Clinton) administration going off the deep end, but I don't think they have the mercurial creative bipolar thing that the more touchy-feely, sensitive leftists have. Also, watching naive college students who really REALLY care get deflated is kind of entertaining in a purely guilty Nelsonian-Schadenfreude way.
Re:Stalking horse (Score:2, Insightful)
<insert-line-about-moral-obligation-of-disobeyin g-unjust-laws/>
Re:Sadly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were offered a drink that was 90% fruit juice and vitamins, and 10% stricnine, I would choose not to drink it.
Your rights shot to hell (Score:5, Insightful)
We have gone insanely overboard in how we handle terrorism. America is founded on the freedom of the people. So much so that these freedoms are written into our founding document - the Constitution. When someone tells me that we need to "protect America" from something that had a negligible statistical effect by taking away my Constitutional rights, I'll rightly tell them they're stupid, crazy, or very ignorant.
1st amendment - "right of the people peaceably to assemble" - except near the Republican National Convention in 2004.
4th amendment - "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" - except when the Patriot Act says it's OK.
5th amendment - "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - except if we can find some way to call them enemy combatants, or we declare they can't be tried publicly due to security considerations.
6th amendment - "accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" - see above.
8th amendment - "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" - except in Abu Ghraib, or (maybe, how can we know?) Guantanamo.
10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." - this one's been shot to hell for ages
If I tried to live by the Constitution, I'd end up shot by federal agents inside of five years.
Re:Ashcroft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Insightful)
What else would you think he meant by saying he wanted to open himself up for new challenging areas?
I thought it was awful that he was the Attourney General.. but I can't hardly fathom him as an SPJ. The country is no longer going to hell in a handbasket.. oh no, its going on a silver platter.
Re:SAFE! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even a strawman, it's literally the fucking Chewbacca defense.
That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.
-dameron
Out of the frying pan... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Several names have emerged as possible successors to Ashcroft. The biggest is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York."
Oh, that's a good idea. Let's let Giuliani do for America what he did for New York City: turn it into a police state in the name of reducing crime.
America's homeless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists be warned -- you will be shown no mercy.
Fuck. I miss Ashcroft already.
Re:your own link disagrees with you (Score:5, Insightful)
Now try to imagine the type of person that reads that definition and says "nope, that's not me at all", or even worse, thinks that word should be used as an insult. And you get an inkling of what's wrong with America.
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Say, John, you ever catch that person(s) who were mailing ANTHRAX all over the country? You know, ANTHRAX, that EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS disease?
Anything at all?
So, they could be roaming about right now, planning their next, even bigger anthrax attack?
Right.
Stupid fucktard.
5 Page Handwritten Letter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SAFE! (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe that and things like electronic voting machines recording 4000 votes for W in a district with 600 registered voters in Ohio of all places. Amazing coincidence out of all 50 states that it should turn up there....
Re:Your rights shot to hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, try looking into what Richard Clarke has to say about the great protection the Bush administration has given us from terrorism. He should know, as a National Security advisor.
I never said that terrorists aren't horrible, evil people - but becoming more like the hyper-conservative religious states that foster terrorism is not a solution to the problem. Our devotion to freedom for everyone who doesn't harm others; our devotion to fair trail, probable cause, and public trial - those are the things that make America great. Those are the things being destroyed as a response to terrorist actions. Terrorists can't destroy America - but we can.
"Normal Americans" are sheep like you who've been led to react like Pavlov's dog to the magic word "terrorism". Normal Americans are unAmerican, and have the gall to tell me that *I* am.
You think about the situation when the Constitution was written, and try to tell me that they didn't have a hundred times the reason to worry about their security. Then think about why they chose to protect their security by securing their liberty. I am ashamed at how we've honored that choice.
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)
In Clinton's last year in office, the national debt actually went *down* (when adjusted for inflation) for the first time in ages... probably my lifetime or even longer. Then, during Bush's first term, it has skyrocketed. It has increased by almost 50% (*not* adjusted for inflation... but inflation isn't anywhere *near* 50% per 4 yrs.)!
Every election season, there's a call to reduce the deficit, and it always seems to fall on deaf ears. I think that most Americans have no idea what it really is, but (because they keep hearing politicians mention it so much), tacitly agree that we need to keep it down. However, I think that their level of conviction to that belief ranks right up there with trying to not consume quite so much saturated fat and salt: "Yeah, yeah... I know... I need to cut down one of these days.".
With this latest election, I think I'm finally giving up. So, this is where I agree with you. I think I'm now going to support any legislation or budget that swells the deficit even further. Up until now, I've been telling people that, if the deficit is left unchecked then, someday, the interest on the debt will be more than our total tax revenue... at which point, there will be no way to stop the meltdown. However, they all seem to look at me as though I'm talking about an asteroid hitting the earth. They've never experienced it happening, so they don't really believe that it *can* happen.
Well.... okay. If it can't happen, then I have no qualms about bringing it about as soon as possible. I'll start moving my assets to a country with a sensible fiscal policy, and then we can start doing what we can to make sure that the national debt swells into a runaway freight train as soon as possible.
And.... to be quite honest, I'm sincerely curious to see what *does* happen. Will the gov't default on all of its loans and have the dollar become worthless overseas, or will our own economy (and gov't, too) implode as well? - Joe
On the contrary... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that Mr. Ashcroft and the rest of the executive branch have forgotten is that we need to be at least as suspicious and limiting of our government as of the people from whom our government is supposedly protecting us. Instead, the executive branch has taken the absurd view that their enemies are "Evil", and thus that their own actions are--definitionally--Good.
This is a dangerous premise. History has taught us that governments very reliably stray from Good. Every single act undertaken by a government must be carefully evaluated with questions like, "Does this make us the bad guys? Is this worse than what we're trying to solve?" And even after such questions have been asked, we need to still assume that they've been answered incorrectly, and place harsh limitations on the fundamental things a government can do.
This is the origin of bans on interdepartmental cooperation, statutes of limitation, limitations on search and siezure, the specificity of of search warrants, and so on. After all, if your government were always the good guys, you wouldn't need any such protections, right?
Re:He's encouraging criminals. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:3, Insightful)
- How could you tell how much of it was lies? It
might be true that the average human being was better
off now than he had been before the Revolution. The only
evidence to the contrary was the mute protest in your own
bones, the instinctive feeling that the conditions you lived in
were intolerable and that at some other time they must have
been different. -- George Orwell "1984"
Really. So constitution democracy includes locking people away without charges, trials, or lawyers? Constitutional democracy allows for the FBI to write themselves a warrant, plant bugs and video cameras in your home, and install a key logger in your keyboard for 6 months without telling you. Constitutional democracy intended for the 'Miami Model' of silencing peaceful demonstrations and public protest?I'll see your free speech suppression and raids on ______ists via the Sedition Act of 1918 and raise you secret searches and the elimination of habeas corpus via the "War on Terror".
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:2, Insightful)
You surely are an idiot, aren't you? If wealth were distributed more evenly ( as the socialists you are taking a shallow shot at argue for ), then there wouldn't be anywhere near as much misery to spread around. And you do realise that the current amount of miserly can be directly attributed to the policies of the neo-conservatives arseholes controlling the Republican party at the moment?
I agree with the grandparent post
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you feel like a jackass after the AC posted this link with Rove regreting using the banner? [msn.com] Quote: "the White House staff had it made by a private vendor"
Then began the reconstruction phase of Iraq in which the military's mission is security and training. But I guess these concepts are too hard for liberal sheep to grasp.
Well, in defense of sheep, liberal or conservative, Bush seems to indicate that things are going as "planned," and if that is the case I don't think their mission has anything to do with security.
Re:Today Ashcroft (Score:3, Insightful)
they are not the same as slamming someone for chosen behaviour. I.E. calling someone a bigot, or a jesus freak is not the same as slamming their race or sexual orientation.
Re:Your rights shot to hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, me and U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins [cnn.com].
Don't be stupid. Laws have been passed and found unconstitutional before. So have parts of this one, already, and I believe that a challenge to certain other parts would be successful as well. Hell, even Amendments [mcwilliams.com] to the Constitution have been repealed when they turned out to be oppressive and wrong. The only way this law would survive a real Supreme Court hearing is if Bush packs the SCOTUS with the ultra-conservative puppets that he so clearly wants to.
Just to set the record straight, that's NOT all you're saying. You're also saying, in so many words, that people who oppose PATRIOT Act are people "who don't think we are in danger from terrorists" and aren't "Normal Americans" and that as a result terrorists have "Americans like you on their side". You are essentially stating that my (and others') opposition to the unconstitutional and oppressive PATRIOT Act makes us unpatriotic, unAmerican, and a danger to America. Just like Goering said.
No, sir, the real danger from America comes from you and your sheep-like ilk. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin. Doesn't get more American than that.
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, with that same reasoning, how can you be sure it will be a life? At such an early stage you have absolutely no guarentee that it will survive. It could very easily have complications, especially if the parent wasnt happy having it (would have considered an abortion) and did foolish things while pregnant.
so unsure of their quote faith that whitnessing others expressing this will shake it
Not at all. Witnessing others express faith doesnt even come close to changint my mind, but its gonna piss me off if I am required to participate. The original poster was referring to school sponsored prayer, not kids praying in school which is not a problem.
Its it bad for someone born to an Atheist family to whitness others practing perhaps enjoinging their faith thus provinging opertunity to understand and perhaps decide personally if it might be for them?
Is it bad for someone born into a christian family to NOT witness atheism because everyone at school is required to participate in the same prayer? Is it bad for someone to be raised from birth with such an ideological faith that they don't believe dinosaurs existed? (I have known several people from different families like this but it seems a little extreme) Is it bad for a administrators with a religious agenda to restrict legitimate sex education on anything besides abstinance to a student body where a majority of them WILL NOT remain abstinate until marriage?
he Constitution starts out "We the people of the United States"
Correct you are. It says "people." It does not say "citizens" or "property owners" or "white males" all of which would have been probable at the time. People applies to everyone.
Oh, and you left out some important parts of the preamble. After you end your quote, it goes "do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america." Combine that with the stuff you cut from the middle of the preamble, and it reads more like "We [the current powerholders] are creating this constitution to establish justice, promote the general welfare, etc. for all people in the united states" not "We are the leaders who get to write this document so we are going to make sure it favors us..."
Re:Yesh... this is transparent (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately until there are harsh consequences directly to the politicians that overspend, there is no forseeable end to this practice.
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad (Score:3, Insightful)
"Revengefully lighting a place on fire?" Where on Earth are you getting this from? G. Gordon Liddy? The Montana Militia? The idea that the FBI would purposely and "revengefully" light fire to a compound containing young children and then gleefully watch it burn to the ground in full view of countless news cameras might sound perfectly plausible to those people, but to those of us with both feet grounded firmly in reality, it is the worst kind of delusional, black-helicoptered paranoia.
I would have no problem with the Waco incident if the police had killed only the men resisting, but they didn't.
The truth is that we will probably never know what caused the Waco fire. I do agree that the official government report (which concluded that the fire was intentionally set by the Davidians) was likely a whitewash. It's far more likely that the fire was started by kerosene lamps that the Davidians were burning inside the compound, but like I said, we'll never know for sure. Incidentally, it bears repeating: The whole reason that there was a 51-day standoff to begin with was that the Branch Davidians murdered 4 law enforcement officers and wounded 20 others. You call this "resisting", but I'm more of an old-fashioned kind of a guy; I say we call murder "murder."
Their actions killed EVERYBODY.
There were nine survivors.
If John Ashcroft had done the same, liberals would be screaming Nazi analogies and for impeachment of Bush himself.
On this we agree. The loony left and the radical right both have their fair share of idiocy.
Re:Ashcroft (Score:3, Insightful)
So come on everybody, the red state voters are not jesis worshipping bigots, they just america that's all.
Re:your own link disagrees with you (Score:3, Insightful)
New York is a very liberal city, and most New Yorkers would describe themselves as liberal, and yet NYC is the home of the free market economy for the country, and the world. Almost every liberal I know is basically a social liberal and economic moderate - it's very rare outside of academia and the fringes of society to find true economic liberals in the United States. Which implies that the entire concept of using "liberal" as a defamatory to mean "socialist" or "communist" is itself a gigantic straw man, since the Republican party leadership knows damned well that the people running for national office don't meet that description.
So I return to my point - when you say that my definition is archaic and wrong because it doesn't represent the way people around YOU in the South or Midwest or whatever shitty part of the country you live in use the word, I suggest you reconsider the context in which you evaluate the English language. To people living on the coasts, it is as strange on the ear to hear liberal used as a synonym for socialist or communist as to hear Canadians or Midwesterners call soda "pop" or "coke".
Furthermore, I am not the one setting up a straw man. You are the one who seems to have intentional chosen an irrelevant definition of conservative, discussing procedures rather than values or political views.
Your general proposition that the dictionary is irrelevant for terms of broad social and political meaning is curious to me - the dictionary represents a common consensus for word meaning, outside of highly specialized areas of human knowledge. I fail to see why the fact that you have chosen to distort the meaning of the word liberal should thereby invalidate the dictionary with respect to an entire area of human thought.
Re:Yesh... this is transparent (Score:3, Insightful)
But I suppose all these good businessmen Republicans who want to run Government like a business (I think that means, suck all the $$$ out of it, pay your employees as little as they will tolerate while working them to the bone while you're "managing" at your vacation home or playing golf) have got it right. Yep.
But farmers aren't businessmen, either. So what do I know?
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Clarence Thomas was a corporate counsel (Score:2, Insightful)
But Ashcroft won't be a Supreme Court nominee. Bush will want a much younger person, so the appointment will have a longer effect on society.
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:2, Insightful)
The soon-to-be-former Attorney General John
Ashcroft made note in his letter of resignation
that no further terrorist attacks have occurred
"on his watch" since the USA Patriot Act (I)
was passed. Unfortunately, history refutes
his claim to little more than bullhockey. The
al-Qaeda terrorist organization took from 1993
to 2001 before attacking the WTC again. Looks
like those bastards were more successful this
time.
When Ashcroft (and DHS's Ridge, and CIA's Tenet)
can come out in public and state that "It is
not a matter of IF the terrorists will strike
in the USA again, but merely of WHEN", they are
leaving a great big backdoor to any/all claims
of success. There are more illegal aliens NOW
that cross our borders than BEFORE 9/11, and
our government has decided that commerce and
free enterprise cannot/should not be hindered
by better seaport and air cargo security. A
Pakistani woman with ties to al-Qaeda swam
across the Rio Grande River about a month ago
from Mexico (while traveling on a South African
passport). The only reason she got caught was
because she decided to fly from Midlands Airport
(TX) to NYC, instead of taking a Greyhound Bus
or arranging private transportation.
So, not better border security and not better
cargo security, but way better encroachment of
American civil liberties. What part of his oath
of office (to uphold the US Constitution and
Bill of Rights) has he NOT BROKEN (not unlike
some of the other GW Bush stormtroopers)?
Ashcroft - "Served Optimally" (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't read the comments yet... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Better the Devil you know."
I'll be praying to Cthulhu for you poor Americans.
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:2, Insightful)
You want a very large, professional, beautifully printed sign to thank the sailors, you go somewhere else.
Sure thing, I just knock on W's door and order one! Did you actually read your post before you pressed "submit"?
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:2, Insightful)
No, what he means is that he regrets creating "convenient symbols" for people to distort for cheap political shots at the President. Maybe you missed this part of the article [msn.com]you quoted:
Personally I think it is pathetic that so many politicains have tried to score cheap points from President Bush's thank you to the sailors in that carrier battle group. I wonder how many of them would jump at the first chance they had to go in front of a camera to say "I support the troops!" I suspect most.
Re:SAFE! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SAFE! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the right to know if the government has peaked at my medical records, or noticed what books I've checked out at the library? Now, I can't prove they have, but no one can prove they have not since I simply don't have the right to know. I would like that right, and I would like the right to not have to think "Anything I check out here can be used against me" while I browse for books.
If the US government wants freedom to be "on the march" shouldn't we, as an example to the nations we wish to make free, be steadfast in preserving our own rights and freedoms? While the death of 4,000 on 9/11 was of course a tragedy and measures need to be taken to make us safer, is sacrificing freedom worth it? About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, yet we don't have a "war on cars" that I am aware of, and I'm pretty sure in every state you can drive before you are legally an adult.
Americans are still very emotional about 9/11, and will likely remain that way for years to come, just as it was with Pearl Harbor. However we can learn from history, and I tend to believe that perhaps half a century from now the PATRIOT Act will be viewed almost as negatively as the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor is viewed today.
Re:SAFE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically (which is what counts in court) he didn't lie. He asked beforehand what the phrase "sexual relations" was defined as, got the answer that it specifically meant intercourse and proceeded to tell the narrowly defined truth: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". He omitted "She did suck my dick once and I did push a cigar up her pussy which I then proceeded to smoke with great pleasure, but y'all didn't ask about that, now did'ya?".
Then again, it's more serious if the President almost lies about if he got a blowjob or not than if he lies to invade a sovereign nation, killing 100,000 ragheads and a few thousand GI Joes in the process.
They just happened to be the ones he was stupid enough to utter under oath.
Clinton is many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He's like a combination of Nixon's slickness, JFK's libido and the fiscal sense of FDR. Bush OTOH has Nixon's malice, no libido, no fiscal sense and Quayle's brainpower.
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure which to comment on: the way you assume that only the US government could make people ignorant, or the way you believe that those who disagree with you are ignorant.
"Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots."
What about the bigots in places like Michigan and Oregon that voted for Kerry on the same ballot on which they supported a "defense of marriage" amendment to their state constitutions? Would you say they were somehow more enlightened than those that voted for Bush?
Look, if you insist on living under a single, large representative government with these people you're going to have to learn how to get along better with them, at least able to think about them in a way that is a little more constructive than "Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots." Part of living under a democracy means having to put up with the will of the majority, whether you happen to be a part of it or not.
Personally, I think we might be able to get along better if we went back to living under 50 smaller representative governments instead of all of us fighting for control of a single large one, but uttering something like "states' rights" tends to get one labelled as a " Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigot."
Re:Your rights shot to hell (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it rather interesting that Americans keep on raving about 3.000 that were killed in 9/11, but nobody in USA gives a damn about the 100.000 civilians killed in Iraq [nytimes.com]. Let's see.... For every American that was killed in 9/11, about 33 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Why aren't you outraged about that? If 9/11 was a "tragedy", what is Iraq then? A catastrophy? Humanitarian disaster?
And what better way of achieving that, than by pissing off few hundred million muslims around the world by rampaging through the Middle-East?
Couldn't you also say that Ashcroft is busy protecting USA from alien invasion? And since aliens have not invaded USA, he's doing a great job!
""Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Re:What a day! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the hell does everyone think Bush is going to replace him with? Michael Moore??
-
Re:SAFE! (Score:4, Insightful)
*cough*EnlightenmentPhilosophersNotPagans*cough*.
You lot took it, along with much of the rest of the founding principles, from the French [bbc.co.uk], specifically Voltaire and Montesquieu. Those gentlemen were informed in turn by Paine, Hume and Locke, none of whom could be called pagans in the sense of a pre-christian heritage.
In the 17th and 18th Centuries, a secular state was a novel, radical concept, not some underlying thought from over a thousand years before (ie the time before Christianity became a state-sponsored religion). And even before that, state religions were standard practise, if only to deify the king/emperor.
REALITY check (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, you say - there was no terrorist attack at Y2K new year. Exactly! When Richard Clarke made the same warnings to Clinton that he made to Bush, Clinton began meeting with him every morning, and they established measures to help hinder terrorists.
What I'm telling you is that Bush did a bad job of preventing the terrorist act that actually happened, that he had advisors telling him to watch out for it, and that the American people rewarded him for his willful ignorance.
See:
Re:Mission Accomplished (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misson Accomplished!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't give in just because some Slashdotters are relentless. Relentless does not equal being correct.
Re:Your rights shot to hell (Score:4, Insightful)
I've already read your statements that PATRIOT Act is in effect. I've read your statements that it was enacted by Congress and signed by the sitting President. I've heard all that. Several times. Yet you feel that if you just say it enough, I and others will realize that it makes everything OK, and PATRIOT is my friend, and if my congressmen voted for it it must be OK...
It doesn't make the bill a good bill. It doesn't make it constitutional. What makes a bill constitutional is for the bill to be compliant with the provisions of the Constitution and its amendments. The way that gets tested is that a Federal court hears a case in which a specific section of the law in question is challenged, and then hands down a decision. This decision can be appealed, by either side, all the way up to the SCOTUS, who can then decide whether or not to hear the appeal. Their decision is final, unless they choose to revisit it. The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the USA, and they have not handed down a SINGLE decision re: PATRIOT Act that I've been able to find.
IOW, krimka, your assertion that PATRIOT has been approved by the SCOTUS will require additional evidence. Repeating the assertion isn't evidence.
Would you like to know why I object to PATRIOT Act? Here's a sample: The Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as conduct that violates state or federal law and is dangerous to human life.
WHAT?
By that definition, you could just as easily say that driving in the rain without your headlights is domestic terrorism. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Of course not. But consider this [sg1archive.com]. The FBI, at the bidding of the MPAA, used the PATRIOT Act to obtain financial records to be used in the prosecution of a website administrator. The charges? That he was distributing old episodes of Stargate SG-1. Now, I don't care HOW much you hate Stargate - that's not terrorism. That's abuse of powers.
Lastly, let's settle this thing about "rude". Every time you question whether someone who opposes PATRIOT Act is truly an American, suggest that they are on the side of the terrorists (whichever terrorists we're pissed about this year), or suggest that their only motivation behind opposition to PATRIOT Act is to garner some sort of "points" in some game, you insult that person most poisonously. Dissenting discourse is about as American as it can get, and the unAmerican way is to try to suppress discourse from the opposition. In the face of that, my telling you NOT to be "stupid" is a fart in a hurricane. I'll retract my suggestion that you have the potential to be stupid the moment you retract your assertion, in every commment you've made attached to this article, that opposition to PATRIOT Act is unAmerican.
Every time you repeat the calumny about "jeopardizing our safety so they can score some political points" and "weak on security", you echo the words of another manipulator of sheep. Since you seem to think that repetition==argument, I'll repeat those words for you again. See if they sound familiar.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Hermann Goering, Nuremburg, 1947
Re:Your rights shot to hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because a law was passed does not make it good. You can say, over and over, it was passed and signed, therefore it's constitutional. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Wishing won't make it so. Neither will repetition. Example: The Communications Decency Act. Passed by Congress, signed by a President, found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, struck down.
And there haven't been ANY Supreme Court rulings on PATRIOT ACT. You keep saying there have been, but there haven't. Show me one documented case, and I'll retract that statement.
FACT: PATRIOT ACT hasn't passed a single SCOTUS test. Not one. Zero.
FACT: The passage of a law by Congress does NOT necessitate Constitutionality of that law. Nor does signing of that law by a President.
FACT: Repeating erroneous statements ad infinitum does NOT make those statements more correct.
You say, repeatedly, that it was passed by Congress. That is true. Having established that, there isn't any need to repeat it.
You say, repeatedly, that President Bush signed it into law. That is also true. Repetition is unnecessary.
You say, repeatedly, that PATRIOT act has survived numerous Supreme Court challenges. That is untrue. Repetition will not make it true. If you have evidence - not rhetoric, evidence - to the contrary, I'm all ears.
You state that PATRIOT act is good, safe, constitutional law. That is not a fact, that is an opinion. Even if the SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of PATRIOT act as a whole, they will refer to it as an "opinion". However, their opinion will count for more than yours or mine.
Stated simply, sir, your comments have all been filled with irrelevant facts, with incorrect statements, and with biased, jingoistic rhetoric. Your arguments are illogical, your opinions are unsupported. Worst of all, you haven't the courage or the honor to admit you are wrong when you are PROVEN wrong.
Accordingly, I shall henceforth ignore you. Good day, sir.
Re:SAFE! (Score:3, Insightful)
From my reading of the situation, the entire line of questioning was improper - the whole ken starr investigation was a giant fishing expedition (link [huppi.com]). The only thing that Ken dug up was a sexual dalliance which, according to the definition provided by the judge, was not sex. Further, the grand jury is supposed to meet in secret, not release tapes to the public. Yes, it looks bad, but it's hard to look good when somebody spends $40M to smear you.