I admire more John Stuart Mill’s ideas on liberty. He, even being an extremist on that point, did not insist it be complete and unqualified. Surely the government is within its bounds to monitor or suppress the speech of some citizens if it threatens others.

“The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

Sounds like the Chairman is in league with the conspiracy but wishes to stay on the sidelines. At this point, your traitors dont have all the intel, they want it, they want to compare it to what Admin officials spewed before the war and YES, if the facts bear out (that the Admin “misled the Congress, the American people and the UN), let the public in on it.

“SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

“The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives.” [End of Memo Excerpt.]

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.

An important role? Damn understated in my mind, they have an obligation!

Opposition research? What is this data mining and poll-taking. Hannity obviously doesnt care for congressional oversight except when democrats are in the White House.

In support of your theory that they “knew” more than they say: note the reference to “exposing the Admin’s dubious motives” – that does appear like they already know.

I would consider them traitors if they knew and did not tell the people. I have equal distaste for those that choose to ignore all in the name of partisanship.

Blasphemy: Your muslim comrades in Egypt and Pakistan have banned the movie out of mutual respect for the prophet Jesus.

Responded in kind with a cartoon via email.

On wiretapping: You’re turning into quite the Hobbesian.

Congress is far from ignorant about what the Bush administration is doing with Gitmo, Iraq, or the NSA. They are informed, even though it causes great political disadvantage for Bush. Partisan traitors like Reid and Rockefeller pretend they aren’t informed even as they scheme to use the information they’re given to damage a sitting president during war.

How does one define the Left? There are many traits. You don’t have to exhibit them all to be a Leftist. Hillary being a military hawk doesn’t cancel out her rob from the rich collectivism.

Here are two pictures that illustrate the difference between Left and Right by what they fear:

Blasphemy and wire tapping. I’ve picked my side and I’m comfortable with it.

1) This is not about whether to wage war on terror but how. Consistent with other posts, you allude the war on terror will not end in truce, but extermination of Islam and the Koran since ultimately strict accordance to the Koran will conflict with non-Islamic beliefs. We part ways in our definition of the end of war (and in some cases the start).

2) As far as the Constitution under threat, I put far greater support behind the legislative and judicial branches in its interpretation than the president and his atty general. How anyone cannot see the “threat” by a “war-powers” president is mind-boggling. Unfettered powers regardless of the reasons is an affront to the very principles of this nation.

from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html

Clearly, the president’s (and ‘bert’s) interpretation that the Congress authorized (just about everything and anything) actions in the 9/18 war resolution did not give the president unfettered powers – clearly, you deem congressional ignorance (that would be republican controlled ignorance) in the face of this threat as acceptable – I do not.

Left or Right

How does one define left? Opposite of right (ie, ant-Bush; anti-GOP; anti-Christian; Anti-war; Commie; Traitor)? Do you give equal weight to the left-wing spin that the right is Delay, Dukester, Ney, Abramov…

3) Liberalism is anchored in the concept of liberty and change. Conservatism to preserve and improve (in essence improve without need for change). How the hell anyone in the US political arena can corner the market on either term is absurd. Its like determining one’s belief on their voting record. Devil’s in the details.

Rhetoric is the easy, fool-hardy way.