Luckovich cartoon changes address!
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.
The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.
Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:
Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2005 > December > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USi wish i could say all this in a cartoon
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not ROBERT STEINBACK rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn’t win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden’s attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution — and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it — I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat — and expect America to be pleased by this — I would have thought our nation’s sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation’s leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas — and call such procedures necessary for the nation’s security — I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president’s staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy — and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy — I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That’s no America I know, I would have argued. We’re too strong, and we’ve been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ”Happy Holidays” could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America’s character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke — speaking metaphorically now — mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we’d follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation — which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty — would cower behind anyone just for promising to “protect us.”
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he’ll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president — or is that king? — has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America’s highest goal — preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, “What’s wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?”
Bush would have us excuse his administration’s excesses in deference to the ”war on terror” — a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn’t know where tomorrow’s first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection — even when it’s beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It’s time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack — any attack, of any sort — is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn’t understand or respect that. Do we? email thisprint this
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
Good Lord ml, not only aren’t you scribbling now you’re copying Midori.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy. Wow.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
City of Sault Ste. Marie
I wonder if these folks become veterans of the Marie Corps
By Brian Curtis
December 27, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Another good reminder that there’s no excuse for considering the President above the law.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Only Mike would find this funny: By Midori
December 21, 2005 09:34 PM | Link to this
Your name suggests that you are ml and if you are I have one question. How many times have you heard this : to the bat cave batman or beetlejuice, beetlejuice,beetlejuice?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m in tears, here!!!!
By Semper Fi
December 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
I am just confused as to whom is the bigger idot, The author for writing it or ML for posting his crap..
By Waldo
December 27, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Ultimately, our best defense against attack — any attack, of any sort — is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
No Mike, the best defense against attack is to find those who would attack us and kill them before they have the chance to do so, by any means necessary. Your borderline irrational hatred of Bush has clouded your judgement. Perhaps you need to go back and look at your post-9/11 cartoon, the terrorist act reflected the eyes of the Statue of Liberty, to recall just what our enemies are capable of. Fear is justified, it can happen again here, the President is doing everything he can to prevent it.
By Brian Curtis
December 27, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
And if he’s willing to break the law?
Should he get a pass because he’s “defending the country”?
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Let’s give this a try. Picture a cemetery filled with the graves of brave American soldiers adorned with American flags. A group of mourners stand over a tombstone which reads “Here lies our civil liberties”. A squad of infantrymen pass by unnoticed. One turns to another and asks: “Do you think our presence is distracting?” The other replies “Nah, they’ve got less important things on their mind.”
By getalife
December 27, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
Are our government agencies to stop the enemy from attacking so bad that we have to spy on our citizens?
By Semper Fi
December 27, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
IF IF IF IF, there is a lot of this going around, mainly by people who don’t think IF, since that would carry some doubt.
We are a country of laws and a country at war. Let the check and balance system work. Legal authorities will resolve the IF. Meantime, support the troops and their commander.
I am more concerned IF GW is raising the White house toliet seat, before he takes a leak. Actually, I am more worried about our new eminent domain law, which must be revoked. Alito, hopefully will fix it..
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Getalife: No wiggle, no jiggle. If average citizens were seen as a threat to this administration, then some would be mysteriously missing from this site and the New York Times reporters would not have been allowed to leave the oval office.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
OO, Sounds like something Saddam would do.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Getalife: Do you mean eavesdrop or make people mysteriously disappear, or both?
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn’t win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack — any attack, of any sort — is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
So if this genius is to be believed we could not have been attacked on or before Sept.11, 2001. I beg to differ
By getalife
December 27, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
OO, A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
I agree with this statement.
By sherry
December 27, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
Sometimes it truly is harder to take the high road, and although you may not like ML, his thoughts and ideas move everyone to the higher grounds where you must meet him for the debate. The people of this nation know more about useless information and hollywood events than about who is in control of our nation. The “dumbing down” of the nation is not only going on in the school systems, but in the average home. Step back and look at what Mike says. The facts are behind him and anyone who says he is not a patriot for challenging the system is a coward. You are the sheep that have helped this nation stray away from the true course of advancement.
And you bitterness was probably not as strong when he was poking fun of Clinton. I bet you laughed then!
By Andy
December 27, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
You probably could put “all this into a cartoon” if you weren’t taking the Christmas holiday off.
Speaking of which, Merry Christmas!
By getalife
December 27, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Oh Sherry, /hat tip to Journey.
In times like these, you have to laugh.
By Semper Fi
December 27, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
We are a Proud Confident republic. We also locked up Japaneese, Italians and Germans that were American citizens during WWII. We win the war first, like in WWII, and then we apologize to those that had their liberties violated.
Some act like Bush is a dictator. If that were true, the wiretapping story would not have been published, since the two NY Times reps would, not have left the White House alive and surely a dictator wouldn’t need the Patriot Act. Come on people, get with the program..
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
I get so tired of reading this stuff. If these people want to write their doom, gloom and depression, I wish they would do it somewhere else. Luckovich is supposed to be a cartoonist, not a propaganda puppet and pusher. I was looking for a new cartoon but I get this load of bunk instead. A little skimming was more than enough so don’t ask me why I read it. Fortunately , we have a few bloggers with good sense. Even a few with a sense of humor. Thank goodness.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Sherry,
i wish i could say all this in a cartoon
That is the sum total of ml’s thoughts here.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
If I had good sense, I would smoke it. Call it “dumbing down” and laugh at the sheep.
By finch
December 27, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this
Dusty…
It’s Mark Warner who IMO would be a great Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008.
About the only things that he and John Warner share are a last name and a state.
Robert Steinback is entirely correct in his column. Americans who should be more concerned about drunk drivers, bird flu and heterosexual child rapists now cower in fear at the mere mention of the word “terrorist”.
Their only bigger concern appears to be “The War on Christmas”.
The Founding Fathers would be stunned.
Happy New Year.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 05:35 PM | Link to this
Dusty: Read “Napkin Notes: On The Art Of Living” by Gary Michael Durst, Ph.D.. It will alleviate your frustration level, or, at least subdue it. I read it every couple of months to regenerate.
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 05:38 PM | Link to this
Right, finch, it is Mark Warner, gov of Va, ivy leaguer, likeable and probably has a little blond wife and children as cute as John Kennedy’s. Oh, the good old days when Democrats were popular. You still remember, don’t you?
Well, your friends may be cowering in fear but not one of mine is cringing and cowering. My friends do think previous knowledge of terrorists’ intentions is the best way to fight them. Not after they blow us up. But you have the latest information on how to cower. If not, it can be ordered from Dem Party headquarters under the title “Cowards, ‘crats and Commies”.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 05:47 PM | Link to this
Schumer, Clinton Earmark Funds For Contributors
WASHINGTON-Senators Clinton and Schumer are asking the Pentagon to spend $123 million of its wartime budget for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn’t ask for - but that in many cases are linked to the senators’ campaign contributors. (You have to go to the NY Sun site for the full accounting of this crime, cartoon boy doesn’t allow the truth to be spoken here.)
Will she get indicted like all the Republicans? BWaaaHahahahahhah, yeah right.
By finch
December 27, 2005 05:50 PM | Link to this
Dusty, I prefer the link on the GOP web page to “Fear Mongers”.
And there’s that second link. The one to “Imperial Presidency”
And don’t forget to check under the bed. No, not for hidden microphones, silly.. for terrorists!
By getalife
December 27, 2005 05:54 PM | Link to this
Oh Sherry,
You are the sheep that have helped this nation stray away from the true course of advancement.
Wow.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 06:10 PM | Link to this
Michael Barone scores some points:
To be sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s bar of “unreasonable” searches and seizures limits the president’s power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn’t apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, “The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.” The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote,”The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information….We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.”
By Marion of Texas
December 27, 2005 06:11 PM | Link to this
Thanks for posting this commentary. I would hope that readers would actually read it and think about it before jumping on the attack to defend this indefensible administration. But Bush (actually Rove) figured how to tap into the brain-stem reactions of the populace. Anything he does is apparently o.k. with these people so long as he tells them he’s doing it all to keep them safe. Don’t read between the lines of what Bush has done and is doing to our country, just march in lock-step with him and the sycophants who surround him. Sheesh.
Robert Steinback is a brilliant and perceptive commentator, and I applaud you for posting his insightful and true article.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 06:43 PM | Link to this
When we can all complete this test within 5 seconds, we should all be of one mind, and the fun of debate will end.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 06:50 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
How are we supposed to check out over 4 million sexy singles in 5 seconds?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 06:56 PM | Link to this
What test?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 07:02 PM | Link to this
This should be fun in the morning
By getalife
December 27, 2005 07:08 PM | Link to this
OO, I am shocked at your link of Paris screwing
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 07:21 PM | Link to this
Getalife: I don’t know what you are talking about Paris “screwing”. That’s all they do over there, and THEY love to be taped.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 07:37 PM | Link to this
The link looks fine from my vantage point. There is a “sexy singles” site at the top. I don’t think either of you would have problems checking them out in under 5 seconds. Scroll down, but now it has lost its’ impact. Neverrrrrrr Mind. OO leaves deflated and dejected.
By Brian Curtis
December 27, 2005 07:51 PM | Link to this
Is there anyone left who can still support this criminal administration? I know if a Democrat had been in office through all this, the neocons wouldn’t be able to open their mouths without screaming “traitor.”
It seems like the only supporters Bush has left are the real diehards: the zealots, the fascists, and the cowards. If you’re still “behind the C-in-C,” tell us—which are you?
By Semper Fi
December 27, 2005 07:55 PM | Link to this
It seems like all the Democrats have left are the real cry baby losers. Put your thumb back in your mouth and shut up..
By getalife
December 27, 2005 07:57 PM | Link to this
Who wrote this : I was escorted out shortly after that, as if he had more important things to do. Sheesh.
And
Don’t read between the lines of what Bush has done and is doing to our country, just march in lock-step with him and the sycophants who surround him. Sheesh.
Marion of Texas
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 08:06 PM | Link to this
Gee! Do you think the fans will see him as a “traitor”? It did sound like he was moving pretty fast to keep up.
By Marion of Texas
December 27, 2005 08:43 PM | Link to this
To Semper Fi: “Put your thumb back in your mouth and shut up.” Oh, please forgive me, I was just quoting you back to yourself. Why don’t you take the words you want to say and direct them towards yourself before you go insulting the posters on this board who may be Democrats and/or to oppose the actions of the current administration (we may be independents or apolitical persons before Bush and his draft-dodging cabinet went on the war-path in Iraq)? Try this: THINK about it.
By Midori
December 27, 2005 08:49 PM | Link to this
Semper Fi,
Hi.
Are you related to Andy?
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 08:56 PM | Link to this
Well, Finch, I am not surprised that you read all the links to political parties, even GOP. How else would you know how to make political decisions and proper propaganda. But the mind is a terrible thing to waste when it is stuffed with dubious political portions. The result is bitter political strife from fallacies.
Fortunately , we have a strong president with foresight. The fighting with terrorists is far from us. I go to sleep at night not worrying about who is lurking in the darkness. We are so fortunate.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 09:05 PM | Link to this
Marion of Texas,
Did you bother to read the post right above “Semper Fi’s”?
Midori,
Do you scribble ml’s cartoons for him, too?
By Semper Fi
December 27, 2005 09:06 PM | Link to this
Nope, only in spirit and dedication at fighting moonbats.. RW is our General and Ricky is the XO.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 09:13 PM | Link to this
There is a whole lot of “zeal” behind the posts from both sides. Brian, would it be safe to say we are all zealots? Looks that way to me. Could that be a good thing?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:19 PM | Link to this
Midori: Why do I always get dragged into it?
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 09:31 PM | Link to this
Andy,
You know “Midori” has the hots for you. What do you expect?
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 09:40 PM | Link to this
A sense of humor is needed armour. Joy in one’s heart and some laughter on one’s lips is a sign that the person, down deep, has a pretty good grasp of life. (Hugh Sidey)
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 09:41 PM | Link to this
ml has gotten tired of making his own press releases and copying assorted moonbats articles and has finally scribbled a new toon.
By david
December 27, 2005 09:45 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe you read the same paper I do. Your misunderstanding of who was wire tapped and why is sad to see. Was Sadam a criminal or not?? Kills his own people with weapons of mass distruction, wars with Iran, invades Kuwait, and ready to invade Saudi Arabia…thank God for Bush
By to the mean people
December 28, 2005 04:23 AM | Link to this
The lack of moderation on this blog allows the indiscriminate combination of legitimate discussion and ad hominem attack. a significant number of these posts would be stricken from any other political blog, whether left, right, or center, or moderated down out of existence. similarly, a number of the posters here would long ago have been banned for such behavior.
it’s a shame that this vitrol sullies the site. i want to thank everyone who avoids the personal attacks (or similarly ridiculous generic attacks on a political party), and also thank those that respond thoughtfully to them. i also want to publicly deride a few egregious examples of (ahem) discourse:
“I am just confused as to whom is the bigger idot, The author for writing it or ML for posting his crap.”
“you are the sheep that have helped this nation stray away from the true course of advancement”
“It seems like all the Democrats have left are the real cry baby losers. Put your thumb back in your mouth and shut up..”
“you have the latest information on how to cower. If not, it can be ordered from Dem Party headquarters under the title “Cowards, ‘crats and Commiesâ€?.”
Wow. i’ll have to write these zingers down, they’re just so effective. yeeeeeaaaaaaaa.
finally, i want to point out the, err…. coincidence…. that every single one of these attacks came from someone on the right. i’ll leave it the the reader to conclude whatever they want to from this. My hypothesis is that they devolve down to this because they are losing the legitimate debate. We’d all almost certainly agree that major media (e.g., ML, who is certainly a major media presence) is expressing it as such.
fire away.
By geechee
December 28, 2005 04:28 AM | Link to this
I noticed on the front page that Tori Spelling is engaged. Is that good news or bad news?
By Andy
December 28, 2005 06:58 AM | Link to this
to the mean people: Let me see if I have this straight. If you don’t like or agree with some of the things you hear, instead of debating or disputing them, you think they should be banished from here and this blog should have democrat party music playing in the background and subliminal pinko slogans flashing on message? Nice. And cartoon boy thinks that Bush lives in a bubble?
I guess the libs are so much more sophisticated, though-
By god
December 28, 2005 06:01 AM | Link to this
Andy,
No, actually, you’re America’s greatest enemy. And you’re an idiot.
Love, God
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 07:18 AM | Link to this
To the Mean People: “every single one of these attacks came from someone on the right”. You are obviously not reading the same blog as me. Right and left seem to be equally vitriolic in their expressions here. Personally I like the uncensored nature of thei blog. Name-calling simply gives me another measure to judge the potential worth of the words posted. Mean people eventually correct themselves when they are no longer listened to with any respect.
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
Let’s see. Over 31,000 reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq. Did the President say that we were “protecting” the Iraqi people? Are these the same 2,000+ Iraqis who are today protesting the “freely Democratic” parlimentary elections? We have certainly given Iraq an accurate American role model to follow. American bigots disenfranchised blacks here until the 1960’s, now they can practice exclusion of the Sunni minority in Irag since they can’t freely practice their kind of KKK fun here in America anymore.
By Andy
December 28, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
Name-calling simply gives me another measure to judge the potential worth of the words posted.
American bigots disenfranchised blacks here until the 1960’s, now they can practice exclusion of the Sunni minority in Irag since they can’t freely practice their kind of KKK fun here in America anymore.
AntiRadical, how many of the 31,000 you reckon were killed by suicide bombers and how many do you think were killed by the “fun loving” Americans?
Mean people eventually correct themselves when they are no longer listened to with any respect.
The same could be said for stupid people..
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
Andy: How many of the 31,000 would not be dead (by whatever means) if America hadn’t invaded a non-agressor. How many of the 2,000+ American troops? Problem is that with invasion comes responsibility for the ensuing loss of order. The Bush administration has failed miserably in that responsibility. PS- We are now, also, responsible for rebuilding and protecting our “ally” now. This is nothing more than “military welfare”.
By Andy
December 28, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
AntiRadical: Non aggressor? Human rights experts say Hussein may have killed as many as 300,000 Iraqi Shiite Muslims after the uprising.
Since you taken the deaths of 31,000 squarely on the shoulders of your country, who would be responsible for 300,000? Are they our fault for not invading sooner?
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
No Andy. The 300,000 are Hussein’s victims. The 31,000 are ours. I guess your logic is that it was bad for Saddam to be a tyrrant but it’s ok for us cause we’re God’s favorite chilluns’, right?
By Andy
December 28, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
AntiRadical: If the US had killed the 31,000, like you are insanely claiming, we could continue this discussion. I’m not saying there hasn’t been accidental casualties but 31,000? Some “patriot” and “supporter of the troops” you are.
By di
December 28, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this
I am afraid that we are seen to be unpatriotic if we critiize the administration and that makes me sad, for our country and for the young people who are dying everyday and for the 30,000 innocent Iraqi citizens who have died because we have opened a focal point for the insurgents who hate us to come to. Terriorists are with us for the duration of my lifetime abd we have to fight them butwe dont need to lose sight of what we are fighting for our civil liberities and freedom of expression that out ancestors fought for also. We are becoming ourselves what we say that we hate in the terriorists
By Andy
December 28, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
di: 300,000 were killed under Saddam’s reign and it’s no big deal to you? How many did we save by stopping him? Do they not count? You libs are a trip.
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
Andy: Source of 31,000= (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/). We took over the country, remember. We are responsible for deaths attributable to our inability to police after occupation. Let’s see, Saddam killed 300,000. Since he was in power from ‘79 to ‘03 (24 years), that puts his body count at 12,500/yr. In two years we have done in 31,000 (15,000/yr) so I guess we are making progress in Iraq. We have made the tyranny there much more efficient it seems!
By Andy
December 28, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this
AntiRadical: So who’s responsible for the 3000 dead on 9/11, I guess it was us with our “inability to police?” You libs are a trip.
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
No Andy. The radical religious organization, “Al Queda” claimed responsiblity for 9/11, these were neither victims of Saddam or us. Our inability to police a country that we have occupied really hasn’t anything to do with our inability to police our own borders. That’s yet another failure of the current administration. As Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here” (referring to the Imperial Presidential responsibility that goes with Imperial Presidential authority). NeoCons are so very adept at skirting responsibility! (probably too much “tripping” in their irresponsible youth).
By Mandy Hannah
December 28, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Finally! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. It’s about time that the American people really open their ears and eyes to see what the Bush administration is doing. Not only have they lied about 99.9% of the “war on terror” and our reasons for being there, they’ve admitted it, yet the American people still think the war is a good thing. This administration is going to be the downfall of the America we as a society know and love. Good Luck to all!
By di
December 28, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
andy, so , you still think as a true Bushite that Hussein was resposible for 9/11 even though your hero Cheney said he did not think so?
By Andy
December 28, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
AntiRadical: So Al Qaeda in America is responsible for the 3000 deaths on 9/11 but Al Qaeda in Iraq is not responsible for any deaths in Iraq, it’s all America’s fault. Great.
di: No, Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. I have never said that.
By AntiRadical
December 28, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Andy: Of course Al Qaeda responsible for most Iraqi civilian deaths. So are we. We occupied a country in which we have never been able or willing to provide the neccessary troops and equipment to protect the civilian population from the radicals and terrorists that have been drawn there to fight American Imperialism (at least that’s how they see it). We gave the gooney birds a “rallying cry” and have failed to protect the population that we were supposedly liberating.
By Robert Steinback (the author of the column above)
December 28, 2005 08:25 PM | Link to this
Allow me first to thank Mike for posting my column and provoking this discussion — even if it has strayed into some rather childish name-calling at times. It seems to me that many conservatives are annoyed that a debate is under way at all — they so often seem indignant that anyone would even dare to question the commander-in-chief. As I see it, the issue at hand divides between those who believe the president should be bound by the law he swore at his inauguration to uphold, and those who feel he should be free to do as he pleases while fighting this “war” on a tactic (terrorism). Wouldn’t this latter view make us just like the old Soviet Union, where a person arrested was as good as guilty, the government was free to spy on any citizen, and send anyone off to Siberia on the mere suspicion of subversion — but where security happened to be quite excellent? It almost sounds as if some conservatives pine for such an environment. If you folks can stay on point, I’d like to reiterate my question posed in the column: Are there any principles of law and liberty more important than “protecting us from terrorism?”
By RW-(the original)
December 28, 2005 08:49 PM | Link to this
Robert Steinback (the author of the column above),
Don’t flatter yourself, the same debate takes place here daily with or without your contradictory thesis as a lead in.
By Andy
December 28, 2005 09:05 PM | Link to this
Robert Steinback: I’ve never even heard of this guy, he must be a pinko. Anyway, that’s a ridiculous question, nuance this all you want but what good are civil liberties if you’re dead? We have to do what it takes to win this war, period. This isn’t some insulated college campus debate, these people have picked a number of 4 million Americans to be killed to settle their “score.”
This really isn’t even about “civil liberties.” This is just another chance to get Bush. If not, then where was the outrage when Clinton was engaged in domestic spying?
By Objective Observer
December 28, 2005 09:23 PM | Link to this
Does he recognize all the name calling, or just some? I’ll bet Mike is sooooo very honored that he visited. He’ll probably mention it in his interview.
By RW-(the original)
December 28, 2005 09:35 PM | Link to this
Robert Steinback (the author of the column above),
If you folks can stay on point, I’d like to reiterate my question posed in the column: Are there any principles of law and liberty more important than “protecting us from terrorism?�
Here are the nine questions from your conviction without trial of the President.
What is there to say now?
His justification?
He, as president — or is that king?
Is that America’s highest goal — preventing another terrorist attack?
Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this?
Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, “What’s wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?�
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever?
Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Do we?
One can only assume that you have combined questions 4 and 5 to form the question in your post. Is there a reason you chose less loaded wording in the blog post?
Let’s take question four, I’ll go with Andy’s answer on that one. People that chose to jump to their death rather than go through a live cremation probably wish Moussaoui’s computer had been searched.
Now if you want to move on to the second half of your question (question 5), there is a large body of legal knowledge that says that what the President is doing now is power given to him in Article II of the Constitution. A law passed by Congress cannot take that away, only an amendment can do that.
By Dusty
December 28, 2005 10:10 PM | Link to this
RW,
That was a great response to Miami Herald writer Steinback. “Conviction without trial of the President” was an accurate description of Steinback’s efforts. . Liberals keep piling on pointless accusations. Thank you for laying out honest information. I hope Luckovich will stop dumping these liberal hacks on us. AJC has enough already.
By Marion of Texas
December 29, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
To Mike Luckovich: Thank you again for posting Robert Steinback’s excellent commentary.
To Robert Steinback: Thank you for your thoughtful comment on this blog.
To “To All the Mean People”: Well said!
To unnamed others: Get some counseling. You need help with your mean-spirited, small-minded attitudes. And please stop calling anyone who disagrees with you names. That is childish and non-productive. And quit expecting bullying to bring people over to the “right” way of thinking. It isn’t going to happen.
Happy Holidays!
By TM
December 30, 2005 08:18 PM | Link to this
Beautifully said and unfortunately true.