Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Jester]

Presidents merely sign or veto.

Uh, no. The modern executive is much, much more powerful than its strictly perscribed consitutional limits. This has been true since WWII, and is only getting worse.

The PATRIOT act is Dubya's baby (well, not him personally, he's not much for policy, but his administration). It was written by his crony. Congress just rubberstamped it.

Ted is a bigger danger and one reason I support term limits.

This strikes me as profoundly lacking in perspective. Ted Kennedy has been a spent political force for 25 years. If you disagree with him (clearly you do) that's fine. But to assign him this kind of importance is simply bizarre.

I think we felt pretty safe prior to 9/11 with those grubby zealots (trained in Pakistani Madrasas) in their caves on the Afghan border. It doesn't mean we are. We underestimated them, and their number then, and I think you are doing it now. How many al Queda cells are in operation in London? Do you really think we could be safer by retreating from them? It seems to me that Clinton tried the minimalist approach (tit for tat), and then we had one of the worst terrorist attacks on America ever.

Not that I particularily supported him in this, but Clinton tried to put the screws on OBL. He was accused (quite rightly) of cooking up issues to distract from the Lewinsky scandal, and the whole thing died. Bush, upon reaching office, took an even more "minimal" approach, and took all the pressure off, seeing it as irrelevant.

However, to me, the whole thing is beside the point. Step up international police and intelligence action. Revamp the intelligence community to better process the information they have. Be more vigilant in defending against terrorist attacks, especially creative, bold ones. You do not retreat. You advance in ways that actually help.

I too applaud Jefferson as a free thinker, and not a brainless adherent of religious dogma. He is a true scholar of the available texts in various ancient languages and has formed his opinion, to the obvious consternation of the leaders of various Catholic and Protestant sects in his time. It is clear why he kept his views private.

We are in agreement on this point. Although I disagree with most of what even Jefferson believed about religion, it is clear he got to his conclusions through careful thought, detailed analysis, and not a little bit of chutzpah.

Of note, Jefferson says, "...it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus".

Yes. The emphasis there being on "real". Meaning that anyone who believes in the things that he cut out of the bible (like, say, the miracles, and the divinity, and the virgin birth, etc...) is not one, or at least on shaky ground. He is saying that Christianity as it is was practiced then and is practiced now by George Bush and a hundred million Americans is, in the main, a fraud perpetrated by charlatans, although built on the sound principles of a moral philosopher. If we're down to saying that this makes Jefferson a Christian, then yes, I suppose I'm willing to settle. I would certainly still describe him as a Deist by religion, if a Christian in moral philosophy. But this is a very different Christianity indeed, and distinguished in the ways I have already outlined.

I'd say if the extremists want Jihad, we should bring them Jihad in great measure and more than they can stomach. But, we should always be offering the frond of peaceful coexistence. We should endeavor to expose the warmongers on both sides and make them irrelevant.

I'm having serious difficulty with how it is those sentences coexist side-by-side. One says that if the extremists want Jihad (no need for the conditional, they do) that America should bring it unto them in "great measure"? And more than they can stomach? You're going to make war until the *extremists*, the ones who believe in martyrdom, cry uncle? That's war forever, as far as I'm concerned. And if those wars are anything like the one you've been carrying out, it is not the extremists who suffer most from this "Jihad" you bring them in "great measure". It's the ordinary people of those countries.

And then, next sentence, you're saying we have to expose the warmongers on both sides. What? Didn't you just recommend a Jihad? How does that not make you a warmonger? Because you are willing to make peace, if only the crazies stop being crazy? That's never going to happen. Never. So, what you are suggesting, if I am reading you right, is perpetual war.

I implore the United States: do *not* play right into Osama Bin Laden's hands by alienating half the world. The extremists are looking for Jihad. It is precisely what they are trying to provoke. They believe (sound familiar?) that God wants this war. They want to be the heroes and martyrs of the great war against the infidel. Why on earth would you want to give it to them? Why not just let them languish in their dank caves, and work instead to cut off their resources, track them down, infiltrate their organizations?

-Jester