Kinda makes one wonder what he's got in store for October.

A speech so brilliant it's almost Rovian in nature.

The Democrats are not going to like this one bit. The President has just pushed them against a wall and told them 'put up or shut up'.

It's going to be very interesting. Why do I see Karl Rove's hand in this? Congress has 4 weeks to act before hitting the campaign trail. SCOTUS has already set the framework for legislation by their recent decision, so it's a no-brainer as to what the law has to say.

One of the torturous new techniques OK'd by the army? "interrogators may use the good-cop/bad-cop tact with prisoners" Meanwhile I am led to believe that sawing the head off of living prisoners is still out-of-bounds...at least for our side.

Sorry off topic.Can anyone refute this
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokebushresume.htm

Why is a random right-wing blog suddenly a news source?
This must surely be a joke Google "news"

Just a quick question here:

So, was Bush for the prisons before he was against them?

Well folks,

I guess one could call this a great speech...IF one is gullible enough and lacks the intelligence to see through the empty rhetoric and absolutely dangerous politicizing. When is America going to wake up and realize it has and is being duped? To believe this administration and continue putting up with this charade is going to tear both the country and its relationship with the global community to shreds. No....it's not a left/right wing; republican/democrat thing, it's criminality on a very large scale!

"Make Congress specifically say what is illegal -- and, by their omission, what is legal."

Ok, so by this logic as long as I have a sick and twisted enough imagination to come up with something not on the premade list of banned practices, it's ok to do it?

It would be far safer to white list practices (these are ok to use) than to black list practices (these are not ok to use). Or better yet, use both.

This was a joke, right?

Lorie adds: [snip] ... This is huge and a brilliant move. Classic Bush -- let the Democrats work themselves into a frenzy attacking a man and a policy they think are on the ropes, then *thwack* -- make everything they have said over the past week sound ridiculous in light of the new information and proposal. Will Democrats never learn?

That you would get this wrong too comes as no suprise. You are as out-of-touch with Americans as President Bush, his adminstration, and the Republican Party leadership.

Americans want justice; they want terrorists to be caught - they also want the laws of our country to be followed. For you to think that the President taking action to stay within the law is somehow a big "thwack" to people who have been insisting that he should do precisely that -- only shows has sadly out of touch you (and most Republicans) are with American values and the American people.

The text of the speech is now up at whitehouse.gov. FYI

Nice. Make Congress specifically say what is illegal -- and, by their omission, what is legal.

Why bother? Bush has frequently said he is not bound by Congress (see FISA) when defending the country. To disregard existing law and then call for new laws that you like is hypocritical at best.

Apparently Bush was against complying with Congress's laws before being for it.

This site has become the greatest "TROLL" magnet in existance.

I love the smell of troll blatherings in the afternoon.

heh. you liberals, lee, hugh, jerry are already squirmimg. i love it. please keep commenting, your hilarious.

Making Dems finally take a stand on national security? Why I'd also go bats**t crazy if I didn't have a plan, either.

Definitely a "rope-a-dope" move by Bush and Rove. Again.

Are you using "troll" as a noun or a verb? I suppose you could be using it as both.....a troll trolling so to speak(an alliteration?). That's not nice if you use it as a noun.

"Captain's Quarters and Right Wing Nuthouse are pondering the possibility that the CIA European detention center story may have been a sting designed to identify moles." -Kim

"President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged previously secret CIA prisons around the world."

lol

Kim, you are the best Wizbang writer. Ever.

Bush did what was required of him by law - close down the secret CIA detention camps. This was not an act of brilliance, he simply got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

There were no new ideas in this speech. Only retreads of past ideas that haven't worked very well.

This site has become the greatest "TROLL" magnet in existance.

Not to mention a magnet for vapid comments that effuse unearned smugness while at the same time contribute absolutely nothing to the topic at hand.

Brian

Is not labeling someone a troll a vapid comment in and of itself?

Don't be so uptight, loosen your tie and giggle a little.

I don't think he is from Clearwater, either...

Funny, but I've always been a fan "secret CIA detention camps", especially for such high-value detainees like KSM. These types won't give up information in exchange for milk and cookies and the Koran...

I sometimes wonder why those like Lee and others on this site seem to want to extend our constitutional rights to islamo-fascist terrorists who wish to force their beliefs upon us or kill us. You object when we listen in to their phone calls, granting them 4th amendment rights that Americans died to protect. You wish to protect them from keeping track of their finances and now you wish to grant them due process rights. You are stupid and your leaders are inept. Democrats are incapable of leading this country. Watch the ABC movie on 9/11.

Typical leftist - not one original thought in their minds.

Fill In the Blank, Democrat style.

Bush was for the __________ before he was against the ___________.

Maybe I missed it...when is bin Laden being transferred to Gitmo?..seriously..after five years and we don't have the man who mocked..bragged about 9/11? It is about number one. I know folks who post here, like me follow sports..we know who ends up being ranked number one..
If your favorite team or individual finishes 2nd, third etc.. How great are your bragging rights?

We do not have the "boots" on the ground to get bin Laden because of Iraq...does anyone here really that Saddam was more important than bin Laden? Anyway..keep cheering...

Hypothetical question for Lee & Co.: Let's say the likes of KSM, Binalshibh and Zubaydah are brought to trail, found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. Would you support the immediate, military execution of these men a la Nuremberg?

Let's say the likes of KSM, Binalshibh and Zubaydah are brought to trail, found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. Would you support the immediate, military execution of these men a la Nuremberg?

Oh hell yeah.

Hypothtical question for Peter..if we had not invaded Iraq and had 135,000 troops in Afghanstan...would we have bin Laden? (yes I misspell his name on purpose as a sign of disrespect)

Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News was saying that the tribunals will be "open". That the media will have access to them.

That's got to be the Liberal Nightmare...

Btw Peter I realize that your question is probably meant to be a trap, for if a conviction was the result of confessions obtained under torture or other illegal interrogation, you think one who believes such things are illegal should object to their execution in order to remain consistent. This is in fact true, but I believe that conviction would more likely be base on a wealth of evidence rather than a coerced confession. I will say I would not approve of the execution of detainees where the only evidence against them is coerced confession. I just don't believe that would be the case with the three men you mentioned.

If you didn't mean it as a trap and were just curious, nevermind.

Stop answering a question with a question, Drew. Step up to the plate like mantis did (thank you by the way, mantis).

(In answer to your question: No, it wouldn't matter. Yes, it would be nice to satiate our need for vengence and justice to capture/kill bin Laden just like we did with KSM, Binalshibh, Zubaydah and Zarqawi, but capturing/killing bin Laden does not end the threat of Islamofascism.)

mantis:

Not so much "trap" as bring to the surface and expose. I believe some people would be consistent; that is, maintain their anti-death penalty stance or simply to remain philosophically consistent, no matter what vile piece of humanity stood before them guilty as charged.

I agree that any conviction would be based on a wealth of evidence. I would also sincerely doubt that any detainee executions would occur where the only evidence was a coerced confession. Coerced confessions aren't allowed in civil courts, I can't imagine why a military court would be any different.

I sometimes wonder why those like Lee and others on this site seem to want to extend our constitutional rights to islamo-fascist terrorists.... You object when we listen in to their phone calls.... You wish to protect them from keeping track of their finances and now you wish to grant them due process rights.

I sometimes wonder why those like Zelsdorf and others cannot retain this word in their vocabulary: "unlawful". When someone objects to "unlawful" phone tapping, you say they object to phone tapping. When someone objects to "unlawful" tracking of finances, you say they object to tracking of finances. When someone objects to "unlawful" interrogation, you say they object to interrogation. When someone objects to "unlawful" trials, you say they object to trials. When someone objects to "unlawful" imprisonment, you say they object to imprisonment.

If laws have no meaning, why have them?

Of course, Clinton attempted to get Congress to make it lawful to do these things, but Republicans said no.

The democrats talking heads are already going beserk. Some are screaming they would never want to see an American service member treated like the terrorists. Bad news for the retarded members of the democrats in congress, if any american service member was ever treated that way he would be one happy person. The U.S. and the U.K. are the only two nations in the world that even know the Geneva Convention rules exist. Ask some of the former POW's how they were treated by the enemy. (My brother was a prisoner in Korea and he's still a physical and mental wreck) It won't be a pretty story unless you find another brain washed terrorists supporter like McCain. He would lie his head off in support of any enemy of the U.S. Too bad the communist in North Vietnam didn't kill him instead of indoctornating him in communism. He is the one person that can run on the republican ticket and I not only won't vote for him but will vote for whatever dog the democrats pick.

Would you support the immediate, military execution of these men a la Nuremberg?

After a trial that was carried out according to our laws and treaties? Most Dems would volunteer to pull the trigger themselves.

Too bad the communist in North Vietnam didn't kill him

So you favor a US Senator being treated worse than you claim we treat the terrorists. Nice.

Speaking of Nuremberg, I think this statement from the head prosecutor's closing address at those trials is more than relevant:

Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a Trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man.

We should hold these terrorists accountable, in a court and in public for all to see. And when they have had a chance to speak in their defense, and if/when they are found guilty, we execute them as is just and right.

This will not only show that we are the civilized ones, the ones who value law, order, and fairness, but will will provide a public example for the world to recognize. Here are the terrorists, here is what they say in their defense, and here is how we deal with them, in a civilized way, but with harsh punishment for the guilty.

I note that the non-stop plight of prisoners at Quantanemo media coverage stories took a nosedive as soon as it was Congress (not Bush) holding the keys.

I really feel sorry for all trolls on this site,like a drunk when they wake up in the morning feeling the affects of there escapades.Rove you magnifisant bastard you have their heads exploding again.Look how many showed up to try and change the thread away from the President cleverly laid trap.Buhahahaha lmao.

That, surely, was a coincidence jainphx. :)

Bush got forced the Dems hand again. Nothing on God's earth angers the left more than actually saying "Fine. What do you propose?"
-=Mike

and if/when they are found guilty, we execute them as is just and right.

Mantis do you really believe the United States would put anyone to death if convicted? World opinion would rule the day and the US would cower.

Take my word on it. The liberal elite would get a dreadful case of the vapors and continuously ask, "How could you"? ......and the MSM would be their willing accomplices. Believe it.

Two words, Luke: Timothy McVeigh.

Brilliant, indeed. Like ju-jitsu, he turns the opponents' weight against them.

Take the leftists' reaction here. If you listen closely, you can hear the flying flecks of spittle hitting their screens.

Not only does Bush, with a single stroke, get out from under the burden of the SCOTUS ruling AND from congressional turf-fighting, he practically forces Congress to negate the effects of the Court by granting him specific powers.

At the same time, Democrats are experiencing incontinence. Do they oppose him, and keep the moonbat left and ACLU on their side while risking public retribution at the polls, or do they authorize Bush to conduct these tribunals, alienating their base?

It's Rovian, all right. "Okay, we can't control events and are operating in gray areas - let's hand off to the Congress. If they refuse to act, the President is blameless. If they act, then criticism must accrue to Congress at least equally."

As an added benefit, every Democratic candidate out there running as antiwar or a war critic or whining about NSA surveillance, etc., is back on his heels right now. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.

But I can't help but think of the psychotic chess genius, Bobby Fischer, now living in exile in Iceland. When asked as a young man what he enjoyed most about chess, he explained, "It is that moment when the opponent understands what you've done and knows he is lost. His ego is crushed - you can almost see it happen. I love to watch them squirm."

Know whatcha mean there, Bobby!

:-D

I am watching the replay of the speech on C-Span. I don't think I've ever seen Bush look angrier and I can't blame him. A couple of random thoughts on the speech:

1 - I wonder if most Americans knew that the prisoners at Club Gitmo have the same health care as our US soldiers? While I understand the need not to descend to the level of the enemy, this fact angers me.

2 - It's obvious that we've gotten the info we need from the terrorists in the secret CIA prisons and that is the ONLY reason Bush is revealing this now.

3 - Bush has just handed the GOP a gift issue for this fall's elections. Will they be smart enough to take it and press fora law on this. It would expose the hyprocrisy of the left on so many levels.

Senator John McNoBrain did one of the most damaging things to this country that could possibly have been done, with that stupid no torture bill. First, no one has ever bothered to define torture, and secondly there is no definition of the causes of torture. The best we could do is to define torture as the inflicting of pain for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, and then define the inflicting of pain for the purpose of soliciting information as coerced interogation. Then you could outlaw torture, and set limits on coerced interogation.

Why is it that politicians never bother to think befor they act?

P.S.
Senator McNoBrain can count on me doing everything I can to prevent his ever receiving the Republican nomination for president.

Two words Mantis......Disliked Redneck.

That's what the MSM thought of McVeigh and felt no pity for him. Absolutely every MSM outlet called McVeigh a terrorist, which he was.

Many in the MSM not only call the terrorists insurgents, but actually believe they had a good reason for attacking us.

And then again the MSM will say and do anything to defeat Bush, never realizing he is NOT running in '08.

Ok, Luke, I understand you don't like the evil "MSM". Do you actually believe that the press would collectively try, much less succeed in, stopping the execution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11? Get a grip.

Nothing on God's earth angers the left more than actually saying "Fine. What do you propose?"

Yes, and nothing pleases the left and the American public more than Bush finally doing what has been demanded of him, which is exactly what happened here. The response to "what do you propose?" long ago was "close your secret prisons". And Bush finally did it. It boggles the mind how one can spin that acquiescence into some kind of outmaneuvering on Bush's part.

The response to "what do you propose?" long ago was "close your secret prisons". And Bush finally did it.

OK, now we are safe Brian? No more secret prisons, no more terrorist attacks? Damn, I feel better already.

Do you actually mean to say the entire Democrat plan for fighting the WOT was, "close the secret prisons"? No wonder you folks are laughed at by the majority of Americans.

OK, now we are safe Brian? No more secret prisons, no more terrorist attacks? Damn, I feel better already.

Glad to hear it. It seems that responding to your own invented statements, unrelated to anything posted here, makes you feel good.

Do you actually mean to say the entire Democrat plan for fighting the WOT was, "close the secret prisons"?

Good one! Another invented statement to respond to! You must be feeling extra special now!

No wonder you folks are laughed at by the majority of Americans.

Ummm... "we" are the majority of Americans. Go check a poll. Oh, I forgot... polls are inaccurate and should be ignored, but miniseries are inaccurate and should be shown in every school in the country. Got it.

No, Brian, I don't get it. I'm not sharp enough to get it, you idiot. I only listen to what I'm told by the neocons and don't put any original thought into it at all. That way, I don't get headaches.

Finally, a truthful statement from someone on the right.

The irony is that Bush didn't actually promise to shut 'em down.
-=Mike