Bedwetters

9 Comments

1. 

   Heart of the Rockies on November 13, 2009 at 12:12 pm

   Nothing more to add.  I agree completely.

   • 

     BooMan on November 13, 2009 at 1:20 pm

     Bedwetters:

     “The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people,” Boehner said in a statement. “This decision is further evidence that the White House is reverting to a dangerous pre-9/11 mentality – treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and hoping for the best.”

     NRSC chair John Cornyn had a similar view.

     “Reverting to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism and bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans,” he said in a statement. “Putting political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise is irresponsible.”

     • 

       Heart of the Rockies on November 13, 2009 at 5:51 pm

       That didn’t take long, did it?

   • 

     BooMan on November 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm

     Not a bedwetter:

     Holder will face some of the administration’s Capitol Hill critics when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday. Committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was one of the few lawmakers to release as statement praising the Holder move today.

     “I have always believed that the nation’s federal courts are capable of trying high profile terrorism and national security cases,” he said. “They have proven time and time again to be up to the job.”

     “I hope these cases will move forward promptly,” Leahy added. “By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system – a system respected around the world.”

2. 

   DaveW on November 13, 2009 at 2:07 pm

   Bush, Blair, and others elevated a gang of psycho murderers to the status of near-godly holy warriors whose unearthly powers must overwhelm a prison system that had no problems with McVeigh or the Mafia or its streetgang successors or any number of serial killers.

   The ironies abound. Apparently these killers’ beliefs confer magical abilities on them that is denied to believers in America’s home-grown notions — so perhaps the only way to fight them is for all of us to convert. Seems like a strange thing for the Christianists to admit.

   Seems like a strange thing for the super-patriot teabeggers to admit that America is too weak or stupid to keep a few theocrat psychos behind bars, too.

   So are we a nation of cowards? Hard to say. Certainly the loudest mouths among us fit the bill nicely.

3. 

   corvus on November 13, 2009 at 2:10 pm

   A country that can send young people to die in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan can ask its civilians to accept a small degree of risk to uphold the rule of law.

   I’d argue that a democratic nation that sends soldiers to war can be asked to accept the same amount of risk the soldiers accept. Otherwise, it has no right to send them. One might argue that this would only apply with a conscript army, but even with an all-volunteer army, it certainly applies to supporters of the war.

   • 

     DaveW on November 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm

     We hardly have an all-volunteer army. The National Guard didn’t volunteer to fight criminal wars oversees after signing up to help mitigate disasters in the US.

     • 

       BooMan on November 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm

       unless you read the fine print, that is.

     • 

       corvus on November 13, 2009 at 5:16 pm

       To be fair, I don’t think it was a big secret that the National Guard is a reserve combat force. Its use for disaster relief is a secondary function.

       That said, I’m pretty sure no one in any part of the armed forces signed up to fight wars for Exxon-Mobil.