Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

## Nice buzz words; let's take them one at a time. "Illegal
invasion" - what law was broken?

Same as Korea and Vietnam, only Congress has the power to Declare War.
That didn't happen and I suspect you know damn well.

Under Article II of the Constitution - you do
believe in the supremecy of the Constitution, don't you - the
president has unlimited war-making powers.

Nope, grasshopper, the President does _not_ have "unlimited war-making
powers."

He may wage war on whomever he wants.

Bull****.


You mistake the ability to "Declare" war with the act of "Making" war. I
assert that the president has plenary power to make war against whomever he
wishes and to any degree he wishes. This assertion is born out by the
original debates on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and various
court decisions.

Of court decisions, the first was the "Prize" cases. In every subsequent
court case, the principle that the president has unlimited war making power
has been upheld.

You may not like it, but your betters have found ample reasons to the
contrary.

For example, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president
since FDR (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, and
one other whose name I forget).


torture,

## Again, this is part of the president's war-making power. You may
not like it, but it's his prerogative.

More lies. Not only is torture wrong, not give reliable intelligence,
against the very principles America stands for, a risk to our own
soldiers, but torture violates the Geneva Conventions which we are a
signatory to.

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the subject.
You really should learn before you speak.

As to the other objections you propose, some are correct but can be
over-ridden by exigent circumstances. As to your claim that torture does not
give reliable intelligence, you are right to be skeptical of information
derived from torture. Still, if, as you begin removing entrails, you ask
"Where is the farkin' bomb!" the subject gives a location, it's a simple
matter to look at that location and defuse the bomb, thereby saving the
lives of perhaps millions.

the "Patriot Act",

## Most people have no idea what was in the Patriot Act. For example,
they think it was a law - it wasn't a single law. It was a
collection of some huge number (60 as I recall) modifications to
existing laws, mainly to bring them up to date. For example, roaming
wiretaps to account for cell-phone usage and "letter subpoenas" were
expanded from a handful of businesses (car rental agencies, storage
facilities, banks) to any business.

Most of the "Patriot Act" is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment
therefore illegal.

Get a grip. The Patriot Act cannot be illegal or unconstitutional. Period.
PARTS of it may (and have been) declared so, but the act itself is an
omnibus collection of amendments to a wide variety of existing laws.

That said, and aside from the three provisions struck down, exactly what
provision of the PA do you think is a violation of the 4th Amendment?

Remember, neither you nor I get to decide what is unconstitutional. EVERY
law passed by a legislative body is DEFINED to be constitutional on its
face. It only becomes voided when a competent court decides so.


implementation of a theocracy,

## What theocracy? Are you compelled to attend the National Church?
Are you prevented from attending your own? Is some official set of
sacraments taught at your local school?

More bull****. Bush has stated numerous times that god told him to
invade Iraq. Direct transfers of tax dollars are now going to
churches and even before religionists escaped equal taxation. There
is no exemption in the Constitution for tax exemption to religion.

* I'd rather have God telling our president what to do than many humans.
* Tax dollars don't go to churches for religious purposes.
* There IS an exemption in the Constitution for religious tax exemptions and
deductions. Numerous court decisions have so declared. That you can't see it
means you haven't investigated the penumbras and emanations of the 1st
Amendment.


uncountable dead due to his EO against stem cell research,

## There was no executive order prohibiting stem cell research. The
only restriction the government put on stem cell research was that
the government wouldn't pay for research using new stem cell lines.

As I said, Bush's EO against stem cell research. Who do you think
funds medical research?

As for
uncountable dead, that's not true. The number of dead is zero. There
has been NO stem-cell-based cure for anything. There may never be
one.

You are wrong again. Diabetes and Parkinsons have been successfully
treated already, even with the depressed, and suppressed, stem cell
research programs hobbled by underfunding.

I'll correct myself on one thing: Bush did not prohibit funding of all stem
cell research, only research dealing with FETAL stem cells. I'll also
correct you on two things: Neither Diabetes nor Parkinson's Disease is
fatal. No one ever died directly from either. So my original claim of "the
number of dead is zero" still essentially stands.

Some treatments of the two diseases using stem-cell technology is
promising - but the treatment does not involve FETAL stem cells.

No, the presidental ban on funding fetal stem-cell research is a red
herring.



## I hate to be the one to tell you, but killing or capturing bin
Laden was never a goal of the United States

You're lying again:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W.
Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that
said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

These were initial gut reactions to the events that happened less than a
week before. Sober analysis and reflections generated more pragmatic
approaches. No one in the administration has put forth the 'capture or kill'
doctrine as a strategy.

This is NOT the case for the progressives. They tend to view bin Laden as a
criminal to be captured, tried, and rehabilitated (possibly in a half-way
house in a Republican district). Their view is that, with sufficient dialog,
bin Laden can be persuaded of the error of his ways and we can find mutually
acceptable compromises.



- I refer you to Douglas Feith's
[Undersecretary of Defense for Policy] book, "War and Decision." The
single strategy pursued with absolute dedication was/is to prevent
another attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To
achieve this goal, tactics were put in place to disrupt or destroy
terrorist communications, funding, training, movement, and
recruiting. If bin Laden were captured during any of these
endeavors, that would be a plus, but killing or capturing bin Laden
was never any kind of goal.

In the decade preceding 9-11, there were about one or two attacks on
the U.S. per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassy bombings, diplomat
kidnappings, etc. Since the above policy was implemented, there has
not been a single terrorist incident involving U.S. civilian
interests, either at home or abroad.

Most people know that correlation is not proof.

Agreed.


destruction of the American reputation worldwide, etc.

## So what? Responsible people don't give a fig about reputation.

Apparently you don't know any.

We do what we do that's in our own best interests. We do not curry
favor with the world. Our sense of self-worth is not dependent on
the majority vote or approbation of the "world."

Spoken like a real Texan. Foolish too.

Here's one simple question: "Why do you care what other people think?"
Actually, that's the title of a book by Richard Feynman. Here's an example
of Feynman's thinking (paraphrased).

Ring-ring
"Hello"
"Is this Dr. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr Richard P. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr. Feynman, my name is Joe Blow. I am the United States Ambassador to the
court of King Gustav VI of Sweden. It is my distinct pleasure to inform you
that you have been awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics."
"Do you have any idea what the hell time it is in California?"
"I beg your pardon?"
"It is three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call me back after nine!"
click

It's a simple concept: if your self-worth is dependent on the approbation of
others, if your well-being is influenced by whether you're loved, if your
reason for existence is to be praised by the crowd, if your life's goal is
to do that which will garner praise, your entire life is but a balloon -
large when blown by the hot air of others, but essentially empty.




Either you've been living in a cave without tv or internet or are
lying.

Maybe both. But at least I don't live in a theocracy - and neither do
you.

Ok, you're lying.