Monday, July 24, 2006

Why the Censure of Richard Durbin is Imperative : Part I.

durbin


[As the founder of the Republican Assembly of Illinois, a grassroots organization not tied to Combine Republicans, I feel this project launched by Jim Leahy, its executive director, is very important. In this the first of several articles, let me tell you why. This Blog now installs www.censuredurbin as a permanent link. ]

As one who has studied the role of Congress as Congressional staffer, member of the executive branch, a foreign service officer and as a John F. Kennedy Fellow at Harvard, I have long been engrossed in the question of what limits of debate should be applied during time of war—especially when our nation has been attacked.

First, the United States was attacked wantonly and cruelly in major degree for the first time since the Civil War. The Congress responded immediately by giving the president the sanction of girding our defenses so that at no future time would such so many lives be taken as were on September 11. Senator Durbin supported this action. But from the outset, in his special role as Senate Democratic Whip, he has involved himself in strenuously opposing all major actions by the President as Commander-in-Chief while engaging in a masterly subterfuge. The bill of particulars will be detailed here at a future time. Suffice it to say for now the question is: Given our respect for dissent by elected members of Congress, is it possible for one to commit sedition and serve as an obstructive force to conduct of the war?

U. S.. historical tradition has been exceedingly lenient with those who criticize presidents on their war plans. Congressman Abraham Lincoln for one was a great critic of President James Polk’s wish to enter the Mexican War. He served one term, declined to seek reelection and was far from a leader of the then Whig party. His criticism was marked but he supported appropriations to continue the army in the field and in no way could be said to have given aid and comfort to the enemy. His opposition was well within the circumscribed boundaries of responsible debate.

In my own lifetime, Republicans have criticized both the intentions of presidents to go to war and/or the decisions of a president to go to war. Ohio Senator Robert Taft, regarded as a Republican leader from the first day he joined the Senate, whom I supported for president in 1952, was a critic of our joining Britain in World War II if there would be no overriding action to commit us to the conflict. Taft, along with almost all Republican Senators of the period—including Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan—followed the same policy which can be described as supporting a build-up of our defenses, aiding Britain in all steps short of war: the same position advocated by both President Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie in the presidential campaign of 1940.

Taft voted for all appropriations for the military services as well as the Lend-Lease Act, supporting an increase in the number of aircraft to 6,000, supported the National Defense bill, the bill to establish a reserve of strategic and critical materials, the bill to create a two ocean navy, legislation increasing the Army to 375,000 when FDR didn’t recommend an increase beyond 225,000. While he expressed hope that diplomacy would not draw us into war, Taft’s position was clear as a supporter of a strong national defense and an ally of Britain in all ways short of direct involvement. Likewise with the leading Republican foreign policy lawmaker in the pre-war period, Senator Vandenberg.

Assuredly there were Senators and Congressmen in both parties (Sen. Burton K. Wheeler, D-Montana, Sen. Gerald P. Nye, R-N.D. and Sen. C. Wayland Brooks, R-IL among them) who harshly criticized FDR on a personal basis charging that he was leading the nation to war. None were in the leadership of their parties and none hurled attacks on soldiers in wartime; none ever remotely spoke of comparing our troops to troops of harsh, repressive dictators. Sen. Durbin is the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate and, as is widely known, used an anonymous source in the FBI to compare our soldiers guarding prisoners at Guantanamo, Cuba with the vilest torturers in world history.

Obviously there have been Senators who have so exceeded the bounds of civility that they have been censured by their fellows. The most recent case was that of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.). While latter-day revisionists now say that McCarthy was right in his estimate that some persons high in the federal government were active, conscious and articulate instruments of Communist conspiracy (as the Venona Papers now attest) there is no doubt that in many specifics he was reckless and in certain cases in total disregard of civil liberties. Sen. McCarthy, a subcommittee chairman not an elected leader of his party, was censured and died of acute alcoholism: in all, his period of influence did not exceed five years.

There can be little doubt that Sen. Richard Durbin as the second ranking member of the Senate minority has been given one of the highest posts within the power of his party to confer. By listening to him and watching the visual on the Blog www.censuredurbin.org you can hardly equate his highly inflammatory charge…a charge which has caused him to apologize to the Senate not once but twice…a charge that earned him criticism from Mayor Richard M. Daley among others…a charge that so cruelly misrepresented the work of our soldier-guards as to give active aid and comfort to our enemies.

As this nation and all the world, sadly, knows, he likened American interrogators of the vilest terrorists, quarantined from society to protect this nation from assault, to “Nazis, Sovietsd in their gulags or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings.” His vicious language which stunned even liberals in his party dominated the news cycle for days. Then Durbin hastened to the floor to do the usual explanation without accepting blame, declaring that he regretted any misunderstanding over his remarks. That failed to quell the furor. He returned to the Senate floor and issues an emotional non-apology, complete with tears which said “if” he had offended any, he apologized.

For this alone—a totally unpatriotic tirade that the dispassionate Almanac of American Politics says was extreme—censure should be applied. But there is more. Earlier, in July 2003, he took to the Senate floor to declare that the Bush administration was trying to push him off the Intelligence committee—but it is open speculation and far more than rumor that Durbin leaked classified information to the detriment of the United States and its troops. To try to defend his unpatriotic misrepresentations as just par for the course in a nation which values dissent…ignoring that we are in a war for our survival where all of us should watch our language…would be the height of incredulity.

It is safe to say that no one in the modern history of the Senate—and perhaps none in the entire history of that body—has been so identified with actions that are deleterious to conduct of war in which our survival is at stake. His abject, slash and burn partisanship is the scourge of the Senate. He voted against the Gulf War authorization in January, 1991 and voted against t he Iraq War authorization in 2002—but he did vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, in February, 1998. The late Steve Neal, the liberal Sun-Times political columnist dismissed him as “a hustler.” Always twisting and turning remarks with a masterly legerdemain, Durbin is probably the nation’s most obvious national security risk: completely at variance with the liberal tradition of Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy, both of whom were patriots and neither of whom were security risks.

In my lifetime, it was a former American hero, Col. Charles Lindbergh, who came the closest to Sen. Durbin in his assaults on those who were empowered to defend this country. Lindbergh was a private citizen, was unelected but in a series of town hall meetings inflamed the country although we were not at war. As a rebuke to Lindbergh, FDR held a news conference in the Oval Office. The president reached over and picked up a Nazi Iron Cross which had been sent to him by one (not Lindbergh) who was returning the decoration out of disgust for the Nazi criminals running Germany. Noting that Lindbergh had received high decorations from Hermann Goering, Roosevelt said that for Lindbergh’s service to Nazi Germany, the flier deserved the Iron Cross. Even the press corps gasped.

The differences between Lindbergh and Sen. Durbin are several. As earlier stated, Lindbergh was a private citizen and did not represent the government of the United States—Durbin is a high member of the Democratic minority in the Senate. Lindbergh was up to that point one of the nation’s foremost heroes for being the first to fly the Atlantic: Durbin has not compiled any record aside from his lifelong careerist status of politics. Lindbergh never apologized (in a sense, Durbin has not either, having used the old dodge that “if” he offended anyone, he was sorry). Lindbergh offered to enlist in the Army Air Corps even at middle age. His offer was understandably turned down. Then Lindbergh went to the South Pacific as a private citizen and, as history records, in an aerial encounter with several Japanese Zero aircraft shot down several of them. Even this has not rehabilitated Lindbergh but did serve to make the point that, however benighted, he was a patriotic citizen. Unfortunately the book on Durbin’s support of this war effort ends with his insult to American troops, an insult that presents doubt that he is interested in anything higher than his own and his party’s left-wing factional partisan ends.

Thus the record shows clearly that Senator Durbin’s irascible and viciously partisan behavior threatens the lives of American troops is unparalleled for a Senate leader in American history. Should the Senate receive 250,000 signatures calling for censure, one would hope it would take the matter under advisement. The idea, expressed by some, that to consider censuring Durbin would be a waste of the Senate’s time, is fallacious. Just as Joseph Welch told an arrogant Senator McCarthy “at long last, sir, have you no decency?”—a statement that caused many Americans to insist on a limit to vituperation—the censure of Richard Durbin would show that the tolerance of the American people with unreasoning demagoguery that puts our troops and this nation in grave danger--a far worse offense than Joe McCarthy committed in his most excessive hour--is not unlimited.

29 comments:

  1. i apologize for the contentious tone, but you are completely ridiculous. Durbin is harming our troops? Durbin is comforting and aiding the enemy? My god, you really believe this, don't you?Meanwhile, the bush corporation has implemented a foreign policy that has increased terrorist recruitment for many generations to come. This blog is partisan hackery at its' finest.Why don't you try waking up and being an american instead of a bush backer?Disgusted with the right because you are so wrongloveadam

    ReplyDelete
  2. And still be right on this issue and others every great once in a while.

    What is wrong with being outraged at what happened at Abu Graib and the lack of accountability? What is wrong with being appalled at the high numbers of suspicious deaths at US holding facilities? What about the hundreds the administration released from Guantanamo, apparently not guilty? What about the 90% held at Abu Graib who are estimated to be guilty of no crime? Is it American to treat innocents this way?

    Of course not. Durbin was right on this issue. I personally know of several military members who agree and salute the courage it took to make his original speech.

    If you don't think any of this is torture or murder, ask yourself, how would you feel is any of these things happened to your son or daughter?

    If any of the scumbags in Leavenworth had laid a hand on any of my kids, I would do everything in my power to personally ensure they didn't complete their sentence. I'm sure that surviving family members of those in Abu Graib and Gitmo feel the same way. Say hello to hundreds of new terrorists. So much for winning the hearts and minds.

    Face it--Bush was slapped around by the Supreme Court for its, shall we say, un-American actions at Gitmo. The administration has even changed its procedures.

    So Durbin may be the worst we expect from a political animal--but he was still right on this issue.

    And, Tom & Jim, you'll look very foolish defending policies the Supreme COurt has condemned and the administration has abandoned, and pursuing your petition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So-Called "Austin Mayor"July 24, 2006 at 6:33 AM

    It is safe to say that no one in the modern history of the Senate-and perhaps none in the entire history of that body-has been so identified with actions that are deleterious to conduct of war in which our survival is at stake. His abject, slash and burn partisanship is the scourge of the Senate. He voted against the Gulf War authorization in January, 1991 and voted against t he Iraq War authorization in 2002-but he did vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, in February, 1998. The late Steve Neal, the liberal Sun-Times political columnist dismissed him as "a hustler." Always twisting and turning remarks with a masterly legerdemain, Durbin is probably the nation's most obvious national security risk: completely at variance with the liberal tradition of Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy, both of whom were patriots and neither of whom were security risks.

    I think it's time to see your doctor about adjusting your dosage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am terribly sorry for all the ignorant hacks that feel the need to ruin your blog and censure petition drive. The drivel contained in just three posts was almost more than I could stomach.

    Thank you for your efforts. I do have two questions:
    1. Where were you 13 months ago?
    2. Where can I read the petition prior to signing?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You must have struck a nerve. The Loony Left has arrived with all their hyperbole and exageration. Sad that they can't even understand the basics of a SCOTUS decision. No wonder they found the FL butterfly ballot so "confusing".

    While latter-day revisionists now say that McCarthy was right in his estimate that some persons high in the federal government were active, conscious and articulate instruments of Communist conspiracy

    Might want to fix that. People who unspin the propaganda and lies of the Left are hardly revisionists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. to Tom's conservative bash list:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml

    Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

    In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

    "If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2006/07/18/transformations_toll

    The national, ethnic and religious dynamics of the Middle East are opaque to most people, but to The Weekly Standard -- voice of a spectacularly misnamed radicalism, ``neoconservativism'' -- everything is crystal clear: Iran is the key to everything.

    ``No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria ... '' You get the drift.

    ReplyDelete
  7. which is what Log Cabin RNC chairmen Ken Mehlman declared last week:

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164

    Lawrence Kudlow stated, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."

    But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at the Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

    Sorry but our president and the 294 million Americans who are not Jewish are supposed to be Americans who follow the US Constitution - not the demands and security needs of the State of Israel. Apparently $140 billion in aid over the years is not enough).

    The never ending "war" continues - at least through early 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  8. a large number of Jewish-Americans also think this a blank check and unlimited troops and war is not a good option and that our government should focus on the needs of America and Americans.

    It is one thing to help Israel and help negotiate in the Middle East and be an honest broker of peace (something I think both the Democrats under Clinton and Republicans under Bush have failed at). Giving unquestioned support and unlimited numbers of troops, dollars and no limit on the number of wars we enter is quite another.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Three typically irrational posts by "Jason A" an anti-Semitic smear and slander machine. My name is Matt Nelson. "Jason A" what is yours? Punk.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Three typically irrational posts by "Jason A" an anti-Semitic smear and slander machine.

    Forgive my ignorance, but where was there "anti-Semitism" in any of those posts?

    If you would be so kind, please define "anti-Semitism" so the rest of us know what you are talking about.

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tom:
    Can't agree with all your points on this one, but I'm no fan of Durbin's, either. I've been disappointed with him ever since he joined the Democrats' leadership in the Senate.

    On another point, it seems like some of the ding dongs that hang out at Rich Miller's site have found their way to your blog. Ever since Rich posted your comments about Sen. Obama, the postings here have become strange and hostile.

    You must be hitting the right buttons. When they attack you and not your observations, you're doing something right.

    Keep up the good work, Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  12. anyone who dares criticize any policy of Israel or demand made by the State of Israel on the United States of America of course.

    Matt - calling people an "anti Semite" and your "punk" name calling is pathetic. You obviously cannot address the issues at hand raised by people such as William Buckley, George Will and others.

    A neocon is a misnomer. Their ideas are not new (Wilsonian worldwide intervention) or conservative (third larges socialist scheme ever (Meidcare RX), largest government spending - both domestic and defensive - ever).

    Hopefully Tom will have the decency to censure your comments and allow an open civilized debate on his board, even though he does support the Weekly Standard over all other publications / viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Liam -- When there is a post that says "Sorry but our president and the 294 million Americans who are not Jewish are supposed to be Americans who follow the US Constitution - not the demands and security needs of the State of Israel" that typical loony toon anti-semitic phrases. BTW "Jason A" if you have evidence that Ken Mehlman is gay why don't you give it to us? Or is smearing people the only thing you know how to do?

    ReplyDelete
  14. You can make up phony titles Matt, as phony as the WMDs and lies given to the American people for your war but they will continue to be exposed.

    You "quote" "Jews are not Americans" is a BS lie if you are trying to pawn that off as a statement of mine.

    Many of the 6 million Jewish Americans here also oppose the war in Iraq, oppose many of the actions of the State of Israel and of President Bush. You can try to smear both Christians and Jewish people who criticize the 3 1/2 year debacle because have nothing to offer as far as analysis or the issues - only defamation and lies. Then again when your position is indefensible you really have no other options.

    Maybe Ken Mehlman will tell you his sexual orientation - he refuses to answer the question on the record. Sort of hypocritical for someone pimping family values for votes while declaring "All Americans are Israelis". Besides "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a Clinton policy, no?

    Shouldn't you be trying to get Jonathan Pollard out of jail? He was only doing the work of "The Lord" in the words of Lawrence Kudlow who may be using the nose candy again - hard to tell with such asinine statements.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Sorry but our president and the 294 million Americans who are not Jewish are supposed to be Americans who follow the US Constitution - not the demands and security needs of the State of Israel"

    That is a real, real stretch. Putting America's interests ahead of Israel's is "anti-Semitic"?

    BTW, could you please define "anti-Semitism" for us? We still have no idea what it means to you. Is putting American interests ahead of Israel's interests "anti-Semitic"? Is pointing out two people high up in AIPAC being brought up on charges of spying "anti-Semitic"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. When you define "Americans" or "American interests" as anyone who is non-Jewish that is typical 1950s John Birch style anti-Semitism. Those nuts were read out of the conservative movement long ago. In the Mideast Israeli interests and American interests are one and the same. In the last five years I have spent considerable time in the Mideast including Israel and every major Arab country. I don't get my information from the conspiracy tin-foil hat types like "Jason A" on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2/3's of Americans reject any American involvement in Israel's latest war. Israeli war mongers were beating the drums calling for a war with Iran. Over 60% of Americans reject neocon Goerge Bush and his neocon war with Iraq.

    We need to control our borders where 15 - 20 million illegal aliens have crossed - not Israeli borders or Iraqi borders.

    Israel is not part of America - it is not a state, not a territory. Your agenda is at odds with American and the American people. You are a disgrace to this country. Go back to the Middle East and fight your own battles. America's troops need to be home defending America - not your disgusting neocon agenda and propoganda which 2/3 of all Americans reject.

    ReplyDelete
  18. agenda as well. Not only do Americans reject Matt's asinine statement "America and Israel's interests are one in the same" but the rest of the world does as well.

    Tom Roeser rejected in a previous piece the claim that being against policies of the State of Israel is anti Semitic in any way even though he is very supportive of the various wars going on across the Middle East. Then again Tom Roeser presents arguments and rational for his views unlike Matt who has nothing but accusations of anti Sematism to support his indefensible statements.

    Are American interests served when Israel sells American weapons to China and other enemies of America? Or when America is drawn in to spend over $1 trillion and thousands of lives to attack a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 and was never a security risk to the United States?

    America’s troops are spread too thin and are neglecting America’s security needs including a porous border which the Neocons demand to drive down the wages and living standards of the American people. No country in the world will assist the United States and Israel in any further Israeli war ambitions. Most Americans reject the current level of involvement and the thousands of dead soldiers. America’s involvement in Iraq is a complete failure criticized by people of all political viewpoints – Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and Conservatives like George Will, William Buckley and Pat Buchanan. The only people left parroting the failed neocon rhetoric are the Weekly Standard and the apologists on the WSJ’s editorial board who have never seen an illegal immigration amnesty plan or Zionist war demand they didn’t like and a few AIPAC mouthpieces who make the rounds.

    ReplyDelete
  19. When you define "Americans" or "American interests"

    Are America's interests always equal to Israel's interests? Is there such thing as an American interest? Do you think Israel would back America if we started kicking Mexicans out of the country or started lobbing missles into Mexico City to fight drug lords?

    In the Mideast Israeli interests and American interests are one and the same.

    They are? What do we gain from Israel's gains? We don't get oil. We don't get peace. What, exactly, do we get?

    You still have not defined "anti-Semitism" unless your definition is anybody looking out for America first is "anti-Semitic".

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'd also ask if America's interests are served when Israel or AIPAC spies on us or when Israel sinks our ships?

    ReplyDelete
  21. would never receive even a fraction of the response Israel launched against an entire nation. George W Bush would never allow it. But for Israel any / every response is allowed and supported.

    Also, Henry Hyde (begin sarcasm) another "anti Semite" (end sarcasm) spoke out against Israeli attacks on Christians in the West Bank and wrote a letter to President Bush stating:

    "I cannot be blind when Israeli actions seem to go beyond the realm of legitimate security concerns and have negative consequences on communities and lands under their occupation."...

    "It is important that United States support for Israel not be perceived as involving the affirmation of injustice."

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/05/25/henry_hydes_plea

    (Begin sarcasm) How dare Henry Hyde criticize Israeli policy as we all know their interests are one in the same with American interests. (end sarcasm)

    I guess he can speak out for the American people since he is no longer seeking reelection and he can join the ranks of (begin sarcasm) Charles Percy who of course is a "John Birch" anti Semite as well. (end sarcasm)

    I wrote a piece which Tom called very good rebutting some of the arguments laid out in support of the war. Long story short – it is not our fight and our involvement in the Middle East has always come back to haunt us and this latest episode may cause the largest long term damage.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Jason A" or whatever your name is, you have repeated in your posts so many of the lies promoted by the loony left and their lazy media allies that I hardly know where to begin. Iraq was part of 9/11 because it is part of the war on terror and we must confront these groups or they will destroy us as surely as the Barbarians did to Rome in 399 A.D. The War on Terror began in the 1980s with the kidnappings and terror actions in Lebanon and it will continue after the Iraq War. Saddam provided aid and comfort to various terrorist groups and leaders who came to Iraq before 9/11. Saddam provided money (25k) to the families of any suicide bomber who blew themselves up in various pizza and dance parlors in Israel. Our Military has, to date, removed 500 tons of WMD from Iraq. The media has been very quiet about that -- what a surprise. As far as going back to the Mideast, Jason, to fight "battles over there" -- been there, done that. I was in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in the last part of 2003 and 2004. Now I back here fighting American's enemies like you -- and I'm winning.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2002%5C08%5C04%5Cstory_4-8-2002_pg1_6

    Clinton says he would have died for Israel

    By Khalid Hasan


    WASHINGTON: Former US President Bill Clinton who many Arab thoughts was more even-handed on the Palestine question than his predecessors shocked many when he asserted in Toronto last week that had Israel been attacked by Iraq or Iran during his presidency, he would have been ready to “grab a rifle, get in a ditch and fight and die.”

    “The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die,” Clinton told the crowd at a fund-raising event for a Toronto Jewish charity Monday.
    ________________________________________

    Another American politician who would gladly die for Israel yet refused to serve in America armed forces when called upon.

    If you are not willing to die for Israel you will be targeted by AIPAC -anything less is anti Semitic.

    George W did one better - he sent over 2,500 to die and Israel (nor anyone else) was attacked.

    Hillary looks to up the ante in her bid for the White House.

    Do I hear 25,000? 250,000? 2,500,000? 250,000,000?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Iraq was part of 9/11 because it is part of the war on terror and we must confront these groups or they will destroy us as surely as the Barbarians did to Rome in 399 A.D.

    That isn't a Hannity talking point?

    Saddam provided aid and comfort to various terrorist groups and leaders who came to Iraq before 9/11. Saddam provided money (25k) to the families of any suicide bomber who blew themselves up in various pizza and dance parlors in Israel.

    Just to remind you, Israel is not part of America. Israel did not volunteer to go take on the Taliban or Al-Qaeda after 9/11. In fact, they were pleased as punch when it happened.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Liam - How does it feel to always be on the lunatic fringe of life?

    ReplyDelete
  26. based on her urging of Israeli restraint in their latest attack. NeoCONS are a disgrace.

    Americans who served their nation with honor like Colin Powell are tossed away like garbage when they do not accept hook, line and sinker the lies of the NeoCON lunatic wing of the White House.

    Condi is the voice of reason and reflects the position most of America and the World have taken and thus NeoCONS resort to racist code to try to eliminate their opposition.

    http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Condi3.htm

    There is hope for the future of America as over 2/3's of America rejects George W Bush, rejects the Neocons lies and their grotesque war and looting of American taxpayers and the corpses in Iraq and rejects any American involvement in the latest Israeli war of obscene aggression.

    Nearly 70% also reject the NeoCON Bush / Vincente Fox illegal alien scheme - the one where Bush and his co president tried to sneak 20 million more illegal aliens into our nation and 66 million more of their relatives over the next two decades.

    Americans must continue to be vigilant against the disgraceful representatives on both sides of the aisle whose level of contempt for the American people and the US Constitution has never been lower.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Last word should read higher.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Chill out and make a coherent, rational argument.

    And report to the Combat Stress Clinic, on the double. That's an order.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ... that them Arabs are going to make us all bow down and face Mecca and have our women wearing head garments and you're calling others "lunatic"? You haven't made a coherent argument yet on this thread except for calling Jason A. "anti-Semite" (without letting anybody know what it means) and you're calling others "lunatic"? You're more concerned with what Saddam Hussein did to Israel than America's interests and you call others "lunatic"?

    At this point for you dual loyalty would be an improvement.

    ReplyDelete