1 Everything for the last several years has basically been handled by one political party. The GOP controls the House, Senate and Whitehouse which gives them the convenient ability to basically ignore the opposing party. And no, I don't think the Dems would be any better at this point.

As for the deal, it's great that a deal has been reached, I'm just curious what the details are. The Reuters article is riddled with quotes but no actual useful information.

2 What Rich said.

3 According to NBC news tonight, the deal approves all the techniques that have been being used, and military tribunals to try the terrorists with controlled access to classified materials for defense counsels.

4 If anyone doesn't think the crying and complaining from the democrats hasn't had a effect on decision making is wrong. The constant pressure placed on the President, GOP and military by the dems has hindered republican efforts to fight terrorism. Hope this decision helps America. I still don't understand what side the demos are on. Definitely not Americas.
Hard to make a decision when you must consider what the liberal media and democratic nut jobs will come up with.

5 greyrooster, you're kidding right? I think the reaction of the Dems is largely an annoyance to the GOP, not something that alters their chosen path.

I'll even go out on a limb here. I can't think of a single time that the Republican led majority gave in the the Democrats demands. I can however think of many times that the more moderate ranks of the Republicans won out, this issue is one of them.

Can you think of even a single bill that had 100% agreement from the Republicans but was altered due to Democrats' concerns?

6 Rich: You miss the point. What the dems will cry about in the morning is always on a politician's mind now a days. They expect to be attacked on every issue. I agree they haven't gone butts up to the liberal crybabies. AND THAT, MY FRIEND IS WHY I RESPECT THIS PRESIDENT. Not because of his mistakes, not because he makes all the right decisions. But that he is not afraid of public opinion when he believes he is on the right track.
You don't have to be perfect when you have guts. Life has shown me that sometimes guts are enough to win.

7 Let me know when we win ...

8 This is a huge development!

What this deal buys is:
1. When the UN ICC types accuse us of "torture," they are pointing their accusing fingers at the Peoples' legislature now, and not the executive branch.
2. The Dem's (and their moles, like Andrew Sullivan) finally shut up about "Gulags," loud-music and body-slaps. They are beat on National Security, and I think they finally realize it.
3. From a review of their reportage on NSA, and wire-tapping issues, the NYT, AP, LAT, Washington Compost, Bertelsmans Der Spiegel, and a gaggle of like-minded media orgs all look like running dogs for terrorists.

It's been a good month!
-Steve

9 I expect that we will win. That is if the liberals allow us to win. Perhaps the libs will have to be taken care of before the muslim menace.
All this constant talk about how unpopular Bush is. I honestly believe if we had an election tomorrow, he would win big. Get serious. Who else is there in this time of need. Maybe Newt. Time for balls.

I am disapointed. I haven't heard anything about Dog Chapman in days. Is no news, good news?

10 ...which begs the question: why aren't Democrats involved in protecting the United States from terrorist attack?

Because you can't catch and pitch at the same time. Every victory for the terrorists is a victory for the lefturds, which is then parlayed into another victory for the terrorists.

11 Since "terrorists" and "aiding terrorists" can include statements like saying terrorist suspects still have rights to be presumed innocent until fairly, e.g. Constitutionally, proven guilty, most of us are likely to be pottentially so-called "terrorist-aiding" suspects. Apparently as long as no one demands the death penalty, we could rot in detention never seeing supposed classified evidence against us forever. After a bit of hot/cold and other fun non-torture interrogation of us. Great compromise by our boys in the Senate; way to go.

12 greyrooster, I didn't miss the point, I was going by what you said yourself: "If anyone doesn't think the crying and complaining from the democrats hasn't had a effect on decision making is wrong."

Now you're saying the president basically ignores the Democrats. That is precisely what I was saying as well. Our differences lie in the fact that you respect him for it while I see it as one of his bigger faults. Remember, he did famously say "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Ignoring the other party is hardly the approach of a "uniter."

While I agree with your comments about public opinion and guts there is one other trait that should be there. The ability to recognize your own mistakes, learn from the experience and move forward with the new knowledge. This is what's required to move from a simply passionate, self assured man to a truly great man.

Just this past Sunday I had dinner with what is very likely to be the most conservative man I know. Even he is beginning to regret voting for Bush. So, I tend to doubt that Bush would actually win if there was an election tomorrow. Given the Democratic alternatives right now I don't know if that's good or bad.

As for winning big, that's laughable. I would never argue that he won both elections however, both times he just barely squeaked by.

Getting a little off topic, that's actually why after the 2004 election I had tremendous hope for his administration. I felt that after that election, which he won without a single legal challenge, he would see that at a minimum about half the country had serious concerns about his administration. I felt that was his opportunity to reunite the country the way we were after 9/11. He instead gave speeches about how he "earned political capital" and he intended on using it. It was a very nice if very brief dream I had.

13 Oregon,
"Way to go." I can't read your intent through your sarcasm.

But, you seem to think that the civil-protections you and I enjoy as American citizens should extend to everybody in the world.

That=transnationalism.

The rights we enjoy in America come in exchange for our civic performances. Unlike you and me, Waziristani or Saudi terrorists haven't paid into the pool. If they attack my country again, they're lucky to get what they get. And they'll like it.

Improbulus - you hit the nail on the head. There is an unrefutable synergy between muticultural, transnational socialism and radical Islamists.

And big points for the baseball analogy!
-Steve

14 One of the rules of warfare is that you must never fail to capitalize on an allie's success, and so the lefturds and muslims are working in synchronicity. When the jihad comes to the streets of America, it will be the spolied-brat suburban white kids, like oregonkid I imagine, with dredlocks and piercings who will be responsible for most of the terrorism. But that's fine with me; a hemp rope doesn't care whose neck it stretches.

15 "Because you can't catch and pitch at the same time." this is so right on. IM, if you don't have a blog, you should. The left really is playing a nice game of interference for all of our enemies world-wide.


Rich: a healthy government relies on a robust opposition because it helps raise the quality of the public debate. Because the left hates America we don't have a robust opposition and we debate such stupid things as: can we pull out yet? is Bush = Hitler? When should the Geneva Convention apply? Can a koran be flushed down a toilet?

Imagine, instead, the dems. asking useful questions like: shouldn't we go into Iran first? instead of Iraq? Shouldn't we confront Saudi Arabia and their funding of the Wahhabis? Is COndi up to the job based on the recent Lebanon/Israeli War? should she be replaced? Why send Karen Hughes - a well-meaning, well-spoken and attractive woman - to misogynist Saudi Arabia to debate women's rights? etc.

16 Rich,
I think he would win big. The latest polls I saw have his approval rate at 44%. Remember that some of the disapproval, possibly quite a bit of it, is from people who don't think he's been tough enough on the Islamists. Do you really think those people would vote for a Dem?

17 Thanks Dreamer, but it's too much work to find all the content to keep a blog interesting.

18 Bush's approval rating is in direct inverse proportion to the price of gasoline. What a bunch of fickle, gullible sheep the Americans people have become! Fore!  L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7

19 Heroic Dreamer, you're both completely wrong and absolutely right. You're wrong about this "the left hates America" shit. It's just plain brain dead to spew stupidity like that and it gets really old seeing it repeated over and over. They disagree with you as to the proper direction of this country, they don't hate this country.

On a more agreeable note, you're absolutely right about the quality of the debate. The Dems at this point are a completely ineffectual opposition party. I agree 100% with your list of questions the Dems should be asking.

They've unfortunately latched on to this "anything but Bush" mentality and ran with it. The call to pull out from Iraq ASAP is a perfect demonstration of this. Any thinking person knows pulling out from Iraq at this point would be an enormous mistake.

As for irish19, he's never won *big* before, with better approval ratings, why would he win big today?

20 Rich: Simply because people have choices to make. For President the second choice at this time would be a liberal candy assed democrat. Deep inside all Americans with a brain know that taking action against the terrorists is the only choice we have.
The problem with our election system is that idiot losers get one vote, cowards get one vote. Foreigners waving foreign flags get one vote, parasites on welfare get one vote and successful thinkers get one vote. It's amazing to me how we ever get a good president.

21 greyrooster, we agree on something. It's sad that someone who goes into an election, with their mind already made up, an unthinking drone, gets an equal say to someone that actually sits and considers all positions no matter the political affiliation.

It all depends on who runs. There are candy asses on both sides of the isle. Do any of the Democratic front runners interest me now? No, not in the least. If I had to chose now based on the rumored candidates I'd chose the Republican (McCain) but, that could change if someone else throws their hat in the ring.

Of course, our differences are largely because I consider many issues while you consider only a single issue. By all accounts that is a poor way to contribute to our democracy.

22 McCain is an idiot playing on his POW past. Nothing more. He couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water.

23 greyrooster, and what if he ends up being the GOP candidate? Will you consider other candidate's views or vote for him anyway since he's the Republican?