Comments Posted By Nick D.
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 23 Comments
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
Rick,
Gonzales ain't leaving.
This hyperventilating DBM "crisis/scandal/story" has so few "regular Americans" care about its diversion as to have the whole thing be laughably irrelevant going forward.
But I did like, with the exception of your cynical prediction wrt impeachment, your latest post about the "imminent war" with Iran.
The casus belli with Iran has already been established, many times over. It's now the CiC's call as to how to best accellerate changing the totalitarian Iranian regime that Projects "Death to America!".
When better, and who better than President Bush to begin the endgame with a nation that has been at war with America since at least 1979?
Highest respect always...
Keep up the good work.
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 25.03.2007 @ 17:14
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ACU AND CPAC
Sheesh!
Off to re-education camp with her, eh Rick? ;- )
QFE:
"If you never tell a lie, then you never have to play dumb." -- Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Storm in a Teacup"
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 6.03.2007 @ 00:40
WAPO SLAMS MURTHA'S "SLOW BLEED THE TROOPS" PLAN
Joe Helgerson wrote:
“I guess the WP is just a 'liberal rag' until they rip a democrat.â€
Poster Helgerson conveniently/selectively seems to have misapprehended the context of the [left-leaning] WaPo’s current Murtha criticism/ostracism.
Murtha has now, for the radical anti-American war 'true-believers', uncomfortably fashioned (exposed) their message in apostasy to the modern liberal "forked-tounge" dialectic, in that he has implicated his rhetoric as to be considered ONLY in terms of being right or wrong/cut-and-run/black-and-white, leaving no dialectical room, in this case, for plausibly deniable “nuanceâ€.
So the WaPo, in non-to-subtle Murtha purge, now throws him under the bus.
More "interesting times" ahead. :- )
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 18.02.2007 @ 19:56
I, for one, am still (exercise in futility) waiting to see the Democrat party leadership/faithful coherently articulate how (in what practical sense) they "support the troops".
~~~
Can't shake this comparison:
"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."
Which echoes, in my view:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/jun05/leszek.htm
"It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way." — Marx to Engels, 1857
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/jun05/leszek.htm
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 18.02.2007 @ 18:01
THE STATE OF OUR NATION: LOOKS LIKE 1982
I'll remain optimistic regardless the impression naysayers take away from tonight's SOTU speech.
America has had far worse obstacles in the past to overcome than we now face, IMO.
YMMV.
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 23.01.2007 @ 18:58
WIRETAP JURISDICTION: WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG? (UPDATED)
"The president’s job is to faithfully execute his office and to enforce the laws..."
I appreciate your vigilance.
However,
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution [Presidential oath of office]:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The President is, in my view, duty bound to preserve protect and defend the Constitution above all else... he is *not* duty bound to enforce what he might reasonably deem unconstitutional laws that encroach on the Executive's Power e.g., FISA, the Boland Amendment.
Does such unenforcement carry political/legal risk? Yes indeed.
But, the American People elect their Presidents to lead and make leadership decisions, while retaining (of course) the power to impeach/remove/prosecute any President or government official should there be the reason/will to do so.
(*Cough* Sandy 'Burglar' *Cough, Cough*)... pardon me. ;- )
**
"What Hamilton thought matters not."
Thank you for your opinion.
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 20.01.2007 @ 10:58
Rick wrote:
"[T]here is no doubt that executive power had been curtailed drastically in the 25 years since Watergate – and not always to the advantage of the government or the country."
Agreed.
It is the Executive's constitutional responsibility [duty] to check the powers of the other two branches overreach with such things as the Church Committe & FISA?
**
[T]he struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson was not between bad and good, vice and virtue, or darkness and light, but between responsibility and vigilance, two virtues necessary to sustain republican government...
"In the current debate over presidential powers in the war on terror, Hamilton would come down on the side of those who argue that Congress can pass no law that restricts the president's inherent constitutional power. He would also reject the idea that a judge has the authority to render the president — the constitutional officer responsible for security — powerless.
But even good institutions are not always enough to ensure safety. Leaders must also possess the will and courage to use them when they believe the situation requires it..." -- Mackubin Thomas Owens
Jan. 13, 2006http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/owens/owens200601131053.asp
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 18.01.2007 @ 16:57
AJ Strata writes:
"If Bush had not received what he wanted, he would not have ‘ended’ the TSP...
"If we want to do something about potential terrorists here in country we need the FIS Court to authorize the search and monitor warrants - otherwise the FBI and other law enforcement agents will not risk their personal freedom (staying out of jail) to run down all these leads. So Bush still needs the FIS Court to cooperate so they will let warrants that allow these potential terrorists in country to be fully investigated and monitored and searched and picked up - if need be.
Bush would have to go to something extreme like suspending Habius Corpus if he wanted to go around the courts. But since he HAS their cooperation in this and he is free now to continue the monitoring and the following up of leads from that monitoring, that is the perfect solution."http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3252
***
"This is a good move. It moots the cases, preventing further revelations about the eavesdropping program (the discovery process would ensure those details got out). At the same time, it gets the program moving on a continuing basis. And, if necessary, there is always the option of issuing another Executive Order allowing for NSA to tip off the FBI or other agencies." -- Left by Harold C. Hutchison on January 18th, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/355b5j
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 18.01.2007 @ 13:11
WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND
"American forces raided the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq just hours after the President’s speech..."
QFE:
"In the end, Bush will be judged by the totality of his Presidency not by the Six Sigma analyses that pass for serious critiques by the Presidents detractors. In fact, they are not serious at all. They represent a political tactic that seeks to undermine rather than improve. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves." -- Rick Moran, 3/9/06
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/03/the_myth_of_incompetence.html
Just a reminder... I found it 'germane'. ;- )
Keep up the great work Rick, your site rocks!
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 11.01.2007 @ 23:32
PLANS FOR IRAQ OFFENSIVE CO-OPTS THE ISG
"Too little. Too late... a noble undertaking, botched from the start, incompetently prosecuted, and in the end, a failure."
And again, too soon to draw that ["Myth of Incompetence"] conclusion Rick.
AJ Strata writes:
"[T]he Iraqis and the US military, the ones there day in and day out, are not sending signals all is lost. In fact just the opposite.[...]
"... the zone of violence in Iraq is shrinking (much of the country is already under Iraqi control), and those remaining zones are being flooded with resources and being worked with Iraqis to ferret out the insurgents."
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2976
Comment Posted By Nick D. On 20.11.2006 @ 16:36
