Lets just be grateful that Bush kept us safe for the reaining seven years and we didn't have Dumbama in office then.

Too bad Bush didn't keep us safe during the first eight months. Remember the ignored warnings? As for the rest of his term, he didn't create a safe world for almost 4,000 American military personnel whom he put in harm's way for no good reason. Obama at least knows where the enemy is and doesn't unnecessarily create new ones while failing to catch the existing ones.

very well said old vet !!

Lets just be grateful that Bush kept us safe for the reaining seven years

Grateful? Pure bullsh-t. Lets be realistic. 9/11 was such a resounding success that a subsequent attack was unnecessary. In large measure, it still is. To follow this jaded logic that "he kept us safe," Clinton did it for a longer period. The first WTC bombing was in February of his first year ~ he logged 94 months of "keeping us safe" ~ Bush only 88. In reality, terrorists chose NOT to hit us again, primarialy because there was nothing to be gained. Fear had already seized our government and after all, that is the principle objective of terrorism. BTW, whatever happened to that "wanted dead or alive" rationale? When did it change ~ and why?

As an old Vet who served in 1992-1996 I feel Iraq was worth the price. Without a free Iraq there would be no inspiration for the people of Iran and the other countries in that region. I think over time that the tone on Iraq will change. Freedom always has a price.

So true Old Vet-462462, Cherry picking intel to get us into Iraq cost many American lives. The far right now ignores where the real threat started. How quickly they forget 9/11. AL Qaeda...which didn't exist in Iraq at the time.

Jason, you are absolutely correct. Thank you for your service, & I am glad you are safe.

Jason--We'll have to wait quite some time to discern whether Iraq is truly "free" (I assume you mean establishes a true democracy). It would be nice, but I don't hold out much hope. Fifty years ago, Lebanon was hailed as a democratic beacon in the region; that light went out some time back without much inspiration to anyone. In the meantime, there are lots of places to which to spread democracy. Where do you want to start? Turkmenistan? Somalia? Belorus?

Hi Jason,

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion on Iraq, but I do hope that you are correct over time... I would hope to see Iraq become a stabil country that can help inspire other Middle Eastern countries to become more democratic to the benefit of their people.

I am awed by the effort the Iranian people are putting forth in Iran to be heard. I do not think it has anything to do with Iraq, with the exception that Iranians do not have to worry about Iraq as an enemy at the moment. I think it has to do more with being frustrated by having had their president misrepresent them to the world the past few years, and to see him re-elected when it looked like he would lose by a landslide, has brought their frutration to a peak.

Anyways, I appreciate your viewpoint, and I do hope the sacrifice that has been made by American soldiers and by Iraqi civilians will eventually lead to a better Iraq.

Jim: We had how many embassies blown up, which ship attacked, and which Dictator tried to Assasinate which former US President? How many troops did we loose in how many different countries during Clintons watch? Which country did we pull out of that led Al Queda leaders to believe that the US was weak? Can you name the Soldiers that were dragged through the streets? Now can you name the number of empty tents we destroyed in response to all those terrorist attacks?

Yeah, President Clinton... He did so much to keep us safe including that little program that made it so the FBI and the CIA couldn't talk to each other. I don't blame President Clinton though. Before 9-11 we all thought a different way.

Yep, looks like the Czar leading up the 'Department of Diversion' and the state run media are teaming up again to provide cover for Obama by pushing another diversion story........

What's really happening?........ Obama is saying Oh Sh!t.... the dumb Americans are wising up to my attempts to control everything, desire to screw up health care, impose the largest tax increase known to man with the stupid 'Cap and Tax' ('er I mean Trade), and of course the "Stupid" comment, etc.

They need these diversions in the worst way because their political capital is very quickly running out.... FINALLY !!!!

Ah, yes, Smart, Obama took the time today to tell the NYT what to publish. He didn't have anything else to do. And the Times is in league with the government (but which one? This is the same Times that backed Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, but later broke with that administration. Have they no loyalty?) So many conspiracies, so little time.

Now Doug... Not all Democrats are crooks.

Hey Old Vet......after the 1993 Twin Towers bombing there wasn't another attack on American soil until after your guys Bush and Cheney took over......so who really kept us safer?

Corruption and deception like the New Deal, etc.? Oh, my. Tell me, can you use regular tinfoil in your hat to keep the radio waves out or do you need the heavy duty stuff?

At least Bush asked the question and debated the merits. Obama would just do it with no regard for anything but the politics and his agenda.

I figured as much. "Darth Cheney" was pulling the strings all along, and Woo was his right hand. At Least "W" had enough undamaged brain cells to know better than to activate US troops on US soil. Cheney should be given a quick trial and then hung for his treasonous acts along with Woo. "W" should be spanked and sent to his room in "Daddy's" house for one year and "grounded" for the rest of his natural life. The man with the big ears in office now is just another politician with dilusions of grandgure. Vote every single person in Washington out in 2010 and start fresh by voting Libertarian. Then we'll see a "change" for the better.

Chuck - you are exactly right. The Bush administration knew these terrorists were in this country and debated how to go about getting them. They got them before they could kill any Americans. For that I thank the Bush administration. I have yet to find anything to thank the Obama administration for. And I can only say to all you liberal Bush haters out there, would you rather have had Bush handle the situtation of rounding up those terrorists like President Clinton handled the Waco or Ruby Ridge situation? And those were Americans.

Americanwolf--You should really read some American history. Start with some basic narratives of the New Deal like Leuchtenberg's Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal or even Michael Parrish, Anxious Decades. Also throw in something about socialism so you actually know what the term means (to share in the distribution of wealth is not socialism, it's capitalism). If you read those books you will find there was no deception and very little corruption in the New Deal. If you want to challenge that notion, give me evidence, real evidence, not the rantings of a disturbed mind.

bush and his daddy didnt keep us safe after 911, hell they are the ones pulled it off. as for troops in the us, george washington used them to arrest and hang tax protesters...thats history folks.

How about us GIs in the US for our real problem. The Narco Terrorist streaming across the border in the SW. We already seeing kidnapping by Mexican nationals in our own country and nothing is being done to halt it.

to JH, my initials too!!

The discussion of GWBush deciding NOT to suspend Posse Comitatus was primarily because of the heat brought on the Slickmister because he did at Waco and Rubie Ridge.

We will see PC suspended under the Obama Regime.

As for terrorist attacks on US interests...US Embassies Kenya, Tanzania, USS Cole, Kobar Towers all predate GWB....

Paul--the paying off of the corrupt Wall St. companies began during the Bush administration--remember TARP? That was all passed under Bush. The current administration has proposed regulating those corporations. And AIG's corporate headquarters are in Connecticut; Biden's state is Delaware. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Too bad Bush did not keep use safe? Are we going to insult anthrax victims? Meanwhile we have been safe since Obama was elected. Bush: illegal wiretapping of our citzens, torture, ect....there will be more uncovered because Bush violated the law often.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

=========================

phugoid

Lets just be grateful that Bush kept us safe for the reaining seven years and we didn't have Dumbama in office then.

===============================

bush kept us safe? what kind of idiot are you? I'm a veteran of the Army, 26 years service, and I'd gladly volunteer to arrest bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolf-oh-witless, and others. My God how low did these morons sink? And to think there are those who STILL support them. They should be shot too. phugold this includes you.

george bush is an idiot. dick cheney is an idiot.

@phugiod

If you honestly don't think this is a big issue, then you are incredibly ignorant. This incredible near attempt at once again undermining the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law is unfathomable. US SOLDIERS DOING DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT? This and the countless other policies of the Bush administration that worked to undermine Freedom and Liberty brought this country closer to FASCISM than at any time since the founding of this nation,

You obviously have no understanding whatsoever of what it means to be an American, and what freedom from an oppressive government is. If you are so naive and ignorant of history to think that allowing a president and his fascist cronies to shred the United States Constitution and invade the lives of the citizen in the name of "security" won't result in a terrible outcome, then you are even dumber that I though.

Actually, I don't want you in my country. Seriously. IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FREEDOM AGAINST OPPRESSION THAT IS GIVEN TO US IN THE CONSTITUTION, THEN GET THE *** OUT OF AMERICA! THOUSANDS HAVE DIED FOR THAT FREEDOM, AND IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, THEN WE'LL TAKE ANYONE THAT DOES. YOU ARE NOT WORTH THE AIR YOU BREATHE. NOT IN THIS COUNTRY.

Old Vet,

"Upset after 9-11?" Upset does not begin to describe how 99.9% of the American population felt. Obviously, you were in the very very small group that were merely....upset. It is 8 years later and I, as an ex old vet, still want Osama Bin Laden's severed head stuck on a pike and displayed on the front lawn of the White House. The prohibition against using US Soldiers in domestic matters is way obsolete and irrelevant as US Soldiers are joined with US Law Enforcement on Drug interdiction missions all over the Amercian S. West. Since those idiot Arabs in Buffalo were targeting a US Soldiers in America I would have been thrilled to see a squad of US Infantry from the 10th Mountain Division on CNN knocking down their front door and yanking them out of bed and stating, "YO. You WANTED us....well, we are here, Beeeeach."

Bush is taking a play directly out of the NAZI playbook with this move.....

Cheney has always been unhinged, and power hungry, greedy and infinitely evil. I have more respect for Rice now, though.

Bush had more sense than some of us thought (not enough - but some) - if something had happened to him and cheney was Pres.. we would be living in a dictatorship now - or have had another civil war in this country to restore our freedom.. but this time it would have been citizens against the part of the military that cheney would have controlled. Another reason "this" independent liberal leaning citizen would NEVER give up his guns! It was closer than we think - like we said about unqualified Palin - a heartbeat away from anarchy!

Phugoid, Too bad Bush was only able to keep us safe following 9/11 instead of before. ~G

These "drastic measures"? What is the difference between police using military tactics to obtain property and the military acting as police?

Kept us safe? LOL ... if you think any Pres can stop a terroist attack - just hop on over to one of the most sercurity conscious areas of the world and ask the head of mossad in Israel...OMG - such lame nonsense comes out of some of you on the right... never blamed Bush for 9/11 = it happened on his watch - but doubt any pres could have stopped it - blamed him for ignoring the signs though .... and for one thing ..

He kept us safe and his domestic deregulation policies, the war in Iraq , etc cost us our economy... OMG - do you think Obama and the dems won by accident??? the far right is still out there spouting about their bibles and values - while one by one they fall to "disclosure" of their hypocrisy ... cheating on their wives - cheating on their public trust... no different from the "dems" now are they? ... Not a whit

And to those who would give up your freedoms in the name of security - a wise man once said - don't be surprised them if you have neither .. (but you far right nutbags won't get that reference will you?)

No doubt this move was an attempt to expedite their transfer to a CIA prison for "enhanced interrogation"....

Yea, Maybe if Clinton did something like this 9-11 would not have happened. But Clinton let them run all over the country taking flying lessons, having a good time, in Florida and where ever. I want to start a new Group the BBB,s BRING BACK BUSH. To all of you lib's out there it was the whole Clinton Administration who said that we should take Hussein out,but didn't have the nerve or ( balls). WHY? Because His were always on Monica's chin.
No the Clinton's were always getting information on the women who could prove that Bill raped them and had to shut them up. Anyone who had dirt on the Clinton's were looked at and warned to either shut up or else.
Just like all of Bill's friends who were in the DRUG business, 275 DRUG Dealers Pardoned by BILLY BOY. Never a word from the PRESS or his LIBERAL FRIENDS.

The reason the Press and the Democrats got everyone so hateful for Dick Cheney is because they couldn't control him like they did others. He didn't BOW DOWN to their commands. He wasn't a WOSS .
Dick Cheney was a good man and a good Vice President. Who would you rather see, him or Al Gore who is dumber than a DONKEY. Everything that was going on in the Clinton Administration right under his nose and he didn't even know what was going on,( give me a break) If he didn't see that ,now I know why they didn't see the TERRORIST running around the COUNTRY getting ready to BLOW UP THE TOWERS.
Wonder what Country's gave Bill Clinton all of his HUNDRED'S OF MILLION'S of DOLLARS after he left office, THE MUSLIM COUNTRY'S. The big OIL SHEIKS.
(Oh But Bush And Cheney are in with the Oil Company's.) And Who gave Albert Gore all of his MILLONS????????????????????// AMAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZING

Cheney needs to get his @zz arrested for treason, and waterboarded until his robotic heart short-circuits. The no good scumbag!

Do a search for - 20,000 Domestic Troops - pretty shocking!

Phougoid. your kidding,right?? For the record both Dems and Repubs make me sick. Its also sickening reading that you subscribe to the words excreted by the chenny/ bushwacker syndrome administration. As far as cHEENYdemanding that bushwacker send troops into Dallas to arrest six terror suspects is disgusting. Almost as disgusting as the current administrations continuing refusal to arrest cheeny and bushwacker. High level polititions,in this country suck. BURNHAM....THINK AGAIN the price of Irac continues to grow. The price of Irac will continue to increase well beyond your life time and mine. The Irac mess is going to lead to wars involving five or six countries simultainously. The cheeny bushwacker era is going to cause damage world wide for mant years to come

Bush concidered sending troops but decided against it. This is a non story. Yet troops were sent to Alabama in March during Obama's term in Presidency!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/03/who-sent-soldie.html

Why doesn't this story focus on the true story? During the Bush terms they successfully found and captured six terrorist inside America and convicted them. No matter what side of the political isle you are on, is'nt this a good thing? Why is it when it comes to Bush , MSNBC's glass is always half empty and never half full? I live outside of New Orleans and the military was sent into New Orleans after Katerina, to clean up the Scums that was roaming the streets killing people. The National Guard is still there today. The president always has the option to send in the military if he thinks National Security is at risk. John F Kennedy sent them into Alabama during his administration and he is considered "BY SOME" as a great president. I guess its all how you look at the glass. is it half full, or half empty? You make the call but don't let MSNBC make it for you.

some people have a problem with getting the job done. they would rather the gov work within all the red tape when carrying out their objectives. kind of hard to do that when you are dealing with animals.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article in March, Mr. Yoo defended his 2001 memorandum and its reasoning, saying that after Sept. 11 the Bush administration faced the real prospect of Qaeda cells undertaking attacks on American soil. "The possibility of such attacks raised difficult, fundamental questions of constitutional law," he wrote, "because they might require domestic military operations against an enemy for the first time since the Civil War."

I think it was Gore Vidal who referred to the Wall Street Journal (at least it's editorial page) as a cheerily fascist publication and this is more proof that, in a humorous way, he was just stating the obvious.

Here's another quote from the article:

WASHINGTON - Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

They were just "Testing"?!? Have you ever noticed how the corporate media will never say anything a high official does is just flat illegal no matter how blatant a violation of the law and the constitution it is?

This is like when they are trying to spin some government officials former drug use (I think it started with Clinton's) so instead of saying he used drugs they say he "experimented" with them. Like he was dressed up a lab coat, making notations on clip board as to the effects of the mind altering substance. Just for the advancement of science of course.

So now Bush was just "testing" the constitution contemplating committing a criminal act. And he didn't decide NOT to because it was illegal, either.

It's surprising that American's still take the law and the freedoms in the constitution as seriously as they do given the spin and PR that is intended to make them not care.

They were just "Testing"?!? Have you ever noticed how the corporate media will never say anything a high official does is just flat illegal no matter how blatant a violation of the law and the constitution it is?

Perhaps it is because the editors aren't constitutional lawyers. While I think this concept of using troops to make arrests is frightening, I respect that reputable publications such as the NYT and WSJ don't render legal opinions in their headlines.

Joe:

Why doesn't this story focus on the true story? During the Bush terms they successfully found and captured six terrorist inside America and convicted them.

were these convictions with or without the optional waterboarding ..?

the military was sent into New Orleans after Katerina, to clean up the Scums that was roaming the streets killing people.

I assume that you're referring to Blackwater, who were also sent there by the US government...

The president always has the option to send in the military if he thinks National Security is at risk.

It used to be that the President would need to get a Governor's permission before using that state's national guard for any purpose.

Now, the President is claiming that he does not need any such permission.

This is a sea change in domestic policing/military deployment.

john:

they would rather the gov work within all the red tape when carrying out their objectives. kind of hard to do that when you are dealing with animals.

Don't you understand that it is the red tape (aka, the Constitution) as you call it that prevents the animals from taking over..?

Unless we can continue to agree that we want a society of laws and not of people, we're all end up well and truly f*cked.

Upswing, you should recall that the Democrat's King of Camelot, John Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to segregate the schools in Alabama. JFK sure as heck did not ask George Wallace for permission before he sent them to move Wallace's butt off the front steps of that University. Now exactly how threatening was George Wallace to the national security of the US?? Absolutely None. But he was disobeying a Federal Law and JFK used US troops on him.

Dwater:

Now exactly how threatening was George Wallace to the national security of the US?? Absolutely None. But he was disobeying a Federal Law and JFK used US troops on him.

I'm not sure how disobeying a Federal Law would constitute "Insurrection," which is the only ground I can think of that would have allowed federal usurpation of control of a sovereign state militia during a time of peace and regarding a dispute that was entirely state-oriented.

I believe Wallace invoked the 10h Amendment and claimed that federal government intervention in the Alabama's education system was unconstitutional -- he probably had a point on that one, too.

But, as you rightly allude to, there was no national emergency. And, even though the National Guard is a part of the US Military, it's still the case that, during peace times, the federal government needs a governor's permission to deploy the state's national guard domestically.

In short: I believe that Kennedy violated the Constitution of the United States by usurping Wallace's control over both Alabama's education system AND its National Guard.

This is a hard thing for me to say, because I am extraordinarily pleased that those kids got to go to school that day, and that we at least now have the opportunity to have integrated schools. (The reality is that many are still segregated.)

Racism is evil and it sucks, but the 10th Amendment is what it is ...

I am very open to correction per my facts, though (Too sleepy to do much research right now) ... So please feel free to challenge any that it makes sense to you to challenge...

No Challenge. Get some sleep.

Remember, the Constitution was written before Air Conditioning and our forefathers wore wool and non-breathing silk. It was hot, they got tired, finally had to write a Bill of Rights to get the Southern States to agree and they could never have imagined the liberties that shark lawyers would attempt to wring out of the Constitution 200 years later. If they had forseen all touchy issues we would be fighting about they would have written a 500 page document listing in detail whether abortion would be legal, gays could marry, can a person sell their own kidney etc etc etc. Heck, after stating that 'All Men are Created Equal ' they left slavery still in effect, thus forcing us to have to resolve that one with a bloody four year civil war. The Constitution is a product of men, thus has considerable flaws that are exploited by every President, Congressman and US Attorney General in their cherry picking of when to hammer somebody with it and their selective application of it's provisions.

Dwater:

No Challenge. Get some sleep.

Sleep has been got... :-)

If they had forseen all touchy issues we would be fighting about they would have written a 500 page document listing in detail whether abortion would be legal, gays could marry, can a person sell their own kidney etc etc etc.

I'm not convinced they would, since the value of the Constitution is its flexibility in tactics and its rigidness of strategy.

Itemizing specific responses to specifc legal instances would destroy that flexibility.

I'm guessing that a modern-day re-writing of the Constitution wouldn't survive corporate interference... in fact, it would pretty much be written by corporate lobbyists, international bankers and corrupt politicians.

I say this because I think that others would share your perspective of the Constitution.

This would mean that the writing would be improperly be viewed as the writing of law, which rightly enjoys a sausage-making comparison, as opposed to the enumeration of rights, which is the design and construction of the sausage machine.

that is NOT using the military to arrest someone by declaring them "enemy" combatants... that little difference is the difference between nazi germany and freedom ... what next - use them to arrest people who do not agree with the admin by calling them "enemy combatants" ... OMG - the FBI arrested them and the justice system prevailed - they plead guilty by the way...

what next - use them to arrest people who do not agree with the admin by calling them "enemy combatants"[?]

The President's contention that he had the right to declare someone an "enemy combatant" and deny them their constitutional protections was, and is, absolutely terrifying. It made him no different than your garden variety dictator.

Can you imagine the uproar among neo-cons if Clinton or Obama asserted that "right"?

Barry:

I respect that reputable publications such as the NYT and WSJ don't render legal opinions in their headlines.

I would question the respectability of the NYT and the WSJ ... Notwithstanding, don't you think that a policy that apparently violates the Constitution would elicit some kind of investigation/representation in a large newspaper?

At least these publications should be asking Constutitional experts to answer the questions that regular folk would have regarding the Constitutionality of these policies.

The editors don't need to be Constitutional scholars to recognize and investigate obvious questions, do they?

Lor....Inspecting every walking, talking, breathing American had more to do with Bush and Cheney as neurotic control freaks. As for those actions in Texas...who cares? The Mexicans will take that state back any day now. And, according to blowhard Texans since everything is bigger, better and best there, why wouldn't Mexico reattach such a bigger, better, best and most state like that? Good riddance. My only joy in that would be that Bush will have to speak Spanish instead of creating his own gibberish.

You're absolutely right. I recently finished Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency by Martin Gellman, who received a Pulitzer for the series on which the book is based. He presents an unsettling image of a VP who, for what he was convinced were the best of reasons, would have preferred a dictatorship.

Jim, #3, Chaney was not a civil servant. He was the VP thus an elected official just like the President.

Civil servants are government employees/workers who remain in/on their jobs i.e. doing their work after the elected officials (whatever/whichever administration) leave office. LOL

As the saying goes, 'administrations come and go but the civil servants remain at their stations/desks/jobs'. LOL In other words administrations come and go but the civil servant remains/stays put. LOL

Jim in Texas

Lets just be grateful that Bush kept us safe for the reaining seven years

Grateful? Pure bullsh-t. Lets be realistic. 9/11 was such a resounding success that a subsequent attack was unnecessary. In large measure, it still is. To follow this jaded logic that "he kept us safe," Clinton did it for a longer period. The first WTC bombing was in February of his first year ~ he logged 94 months of "keeping us safe" ~ Bush only 88. In reality, terrorists chose NOT to hit us again, primarialy because there was nothing to be gained. Fear had already seized our government and after all, that is the principle objective of terrorism. BTW, whatever happened to that "wanted dead or alive" rationale? When did it change ~ and why?

{"commentId":8428961,"threadId":"634595","contentId":"3065016","authorDomain":"artisan3m"}

• 7

• !

#1.4 - Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:56 PM PDT

Al Queda isn't playing a game of who's got the bigger d1ck. These people want to kill Americans period. It doesn't matter when, or where. I don't think they stopped attacking because their strike on the towers was "good enuff". Pretty stupid reasoning actually, considering all the other targets they hit.

Bush

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/05/b64326.html

actually Jim in texas your reasoning is right on target - to expand ... it is bang for the buck.. they do not have the resources to mount major attacks continually that are at one target - they can snipe often.. but their main goal was distrupt as much of our culture as possible with as little expenditure as possilbe.... and that is exactly what they did .. just ask yourself - did you go through the huge hassle of airport security "prior" to the bang for the buck? didn't think so .. and that is just ONE example .. can expand it to every aspect of our lives today ...

And what happened to "we will hunt you down and kill you" .. it became we will elt you continue to run free as a shining example of why we need to seize more and more control OVER what the constitution allows!

I was wishing and hope-ing each day that the ego clogging the brain arteries of chenhead and bushwacker would drop both dead. unfortunately it has not happened

JASON. I thank the randomness of the universe that you are not a political leader in this country chenhead needs a heart transplant why dont you volunteer yours??

I give GW credit for shooting this idea down. The imagery alone would be a huge public relations nightmare (with comparisons to pre-1945 Germany and Russia until around 1991). It's nice to know that he was able to resist some of the things Cheney was pushing - unfortunately, a lot still got through. That "safety" that was brought to us came at a heavy cost to privacy and rights. NSA - border seizures - "Patriot" Act.

I'm noticing a trend on Newsvine. Any news story that doesn't focus on the doom that Obama is surely bringing is a "cover" or a "diversion" story to keep people from seeing the "truth" about Obama. It is a new (and sad) new tactic in the GOP playbook.

I'm not a fan of Obama's policies to this point, either, but come on ... I'd just stop checking the news altogether if it was just about one guy.

Great post tuxkevin. Seems like the GOP solitary motive is to bring down Obama. I am not a big fan either but I am willing to give him a chance, just like I did when GWB and all the others before him was in office.

The pig-headed stubborness of the right and the left will never get anything accomplished. I am very firmly convinced that if Obama came up with an actual real solution to fix the problem of the US, the right wing would refuse to back it. The same thing for the left. If the right really came up with a way to fix things, the left would not even look at it. This solves nothing.

The same thing with the well off and the poor. I have never seen so many people that are doing well right now and would not offer to help their fellow man. I know they worked hard and earned their status in life. I don't take that away from them. But to be so selfish as to refuse to pay their fair share of taxes to help this country out is unbelievable. C'mon, we all know that the wealthy have tax loopholes and deductions to avoid paying what they really should pay. And when they are forced to pay what they should, they scream "socialism". Has greed taken over so completely that they really care so little for this country that they would let it completely fall apart? Did any of these people give to charities (and not just for the tax deduction) or families that were devastated after 9-11?

And on the poor side, I understand if you lost your job by no fault of your own and can't find another. My heart goes out to those people.

But for the lazy, hand-sticking-out, I-want-a-free-ride jerks and the thousands of illegals that are working the system for all the free money and benefits they can get, you have no sympathy from me. You are all nothing more than vultures picking away at the carcass of this once great nation and are the reason the well off want nothing to do with helping the poor.

We have got to stop fighting each other and start fighting together, no matter what our political differences are to keep this nation alive and prosperous. There will be no winner in a left vs. right fight. Everything (including us in the middle) will be lost in the battle and the winner will be king of nothing.

The GOP knows it has nothing to offer in their old boys network. The old GOP before the Bush Dynasty puked it up was at least progressive and had their country in mind. Now? This is the party of Narcissism, Greedom and Perversion. All the wrong GOP party bosses make all the wrong decisions and then go after their opposition the only way they know how...character assassinations. They are working overtime to insert every possible damaging slice into Obama just to prove we need another round of Bush and Cheney types 8 years from now. They expect in 7 months what their president didn't do in 8 years. They only know one thing: neoconservatism. There is nothing about neoconservatism that is constructive, best for the common good or the welfare of solidarity of this nation. Neoconservatism is all about gun running, war and dividing the country by infusing it with a one-party system. Isn't that what Rove had in mind when he was working for Bush as his architect?

Bush and his gang wanted ultimate power and went about accumulating it, ever pushing the law, ever pushing the limits of power

The more I study the matter, the less inclined I am to blame Bush for the power grab. It seems more in keeping with the understudies and hangers-on ~ like Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al. These are always the most dangerous of secondary operatives because they can hide behind the chief executive, king, queen, throne, or junta. The chief can't take issue with these worms because it would make him appear not to be in charge and in control of his administration. Bush was merely satisfied with the title and recognition of his office. We have already learned that he didn't give a whit nor soo about the minutia of actually governing. Frankly, I think that early on Bush realized he was swimming with sharks and spent a lot of his energies just protecting himself from consequences.

Nice to hear someone from TX make those comments Jim. Bush was basically a figurehead, just like the Queen of England is. Cheney was the "real" president and I think the facts will continue to come out to show the power that he wielded during those 8 years. Now if we can only get enough facts together to prosecute him, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. al. We need to shut down Liz at the same time. I don't know too many gays who are supporting her right now. If she ever got elected to any office, it would be a continuation of her father's power grab. The family is a black eye on their Buckeye ancestry.

There is a lot that President Bush did that most people don't know about. The largest Marine Reserve ever to be created in the world. It is the 96th National Park. The African Burial Ground National Monument is another wonderful piece of Legislation that Bush helped to create. He contributed heavily to the Goverment giving grants to Hydrogen Fuel Cell creation companies. He was a staunch speaker for Global Warming and though Democrats don't want to recognize it was the Co-Creator of the current Cap and Trade Program (by the way I am against).

The education act co-sponsered by Senator Kennedy has had some major successes but was one of the first things attacked by President Obama when he became President. I do not understand how this program could be attacked by Democrats.

President Bush acted more like a Democrat than most Democrats. The Patriot Act was expanded upon by President Obama to include Domestic Phone Conversations. Gitmo has been shown to be needed and most Americans do not want it shut down. Healthcare Reform began with President Bush but many of the programs he wanted were killed by the House Democrats. Suprise, suprise many of those same Programs are now on the current House Bill.

Iraq has a ways to go but with hope it will become a beacon of light in an area of repression and darkness. I could also move onto Africa where President Bush is considered a hero to most of the Continent. Schools, Hospitals, and many things that we take for granted were brought to a part of the World that was mostly ignored.

If you are going to attack President Bush then please be truthful about it. Not everyone thinks Iraq was an unjust War.

HA!

The facists are now in charge, hate to burst your little bubble.

Trillions of dollars gone in mere months.

Not even Bush could accomplish that.

The greatest swindle in world history.

its every where Paul. Including within you. Ive wrote it before. your not about being in denial. you are about denial

Except for casting an occasional tie-breaking vote, Cheney had no power that Bush didn't allow. Cheney might have advocated any number of things, just as many other White House advisors did, but ultimately the blame for a disasterous eight years falls squarely on Bush.

Barry NJ...Sorry, but it wasn't Bush's idea to hold a secretive meeting in 2001 with the energy giants. Bush wasn't the calibre of CEO Cheney was. There is NO WAY Bush could have ever been CEO of a corporation the size of Halliburton. The nearest Bush ever got was Arbusto Oil and you recall how fast he managed to reduce that company to bankruptcy.

Cheney is now and always has been a control freak. Cheney tried a run for the presidency in 1994 but knew he didn't have the backing of his own party. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the decision to keep Cheney from the presidency was made. Cheney figured, like all CEOs, if you don't get it one way, you use the back room door to get the presidency another way.

The threat to our Constitution is no longer in power thank God. I only hope Obama will restore what Bush and Cheney trashed. Some of the extreme right seem to think that our constitution can be re-written at the whim of the president, it cannot and i hope Bush/Cheney and company will someday be held accountable for their actions.

The Constitution does not apply to those from other parts of the world that are at war with us.

bburns--If those people from other parts of the world are held in an area under the dominion of the US, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution does indeed apply to them. You are repeating the discredited notions of the Cheneys, Addingtons, and Yoos.

bobr:

I only hope Obama will restore what Bush and Cheney trashed.

So far, all evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, bobr, but Obama is just more of the same and worse in some ways. He is only continuing the policies set out by the Bush administration. He also voted to continue the Patriot Act. There is a lot of legislation going through right now that is anti-second amendment. The military is trying to recall ALL weapons from the VFA. We have recently-returned Iraq vets on "domestic assignment" in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Obama has done nothing to rescind any of the unconstitutional things that Bush did while he was in office. And, Obama is clearly a puppet of the Federal Reserve. All in all, I'd say we are screwed until more wake up and resist the tyranny going on right before our eyes.

upswing

This story is seven years late and ignores the genuine threat that still exists to our Consitution and the rights that it enumerates.

This is your government speaking. We're listening to you and do not have to have a court order because we have our fingers in everybody's pie. We may have your name on a list because you recently returned from the war or are against abortion or taxes or speak too frequently and too publicly about the Constitution or your right to own a firearm or you think your government has become too big for its britches. We can look at your bank records, major purchases you make, your library records as well as listen to your telephone calls and read your snail male and e-mail.

We may arrest you as well at any time, even if there is no reasonable suspicion to do so because we are no longer required to have reasonable suspicion like in the old days under The Constitution let alone probably cause. After your arrest we may hold you forever. You can talk to an attorney but not your family or the media.

Rules of evidence? Forget it. You think your detention is unlawful and you want to petition a court for release? Forget it. Trial by a jury of your peers? Forget it. Until recently, we might have thought you had information of value and could put a rag over your mouth and nose, soak it with water until you gagged or coughed up the information we thought you had.

How do we have this authority you ask? Your former President authorized it in a series of Executive Orders. His Number Two pushed vociferously for it and the head of The House of Representatives helped enact it in the Patriot Act and regulations governing the Department of Homeland Security.

And you thought it only applied to foreigners who want to destroy you? Forget it. So far, your new President hasn't rescinded it and the party to which he belongs loves to point fingers at the other guys for all which is described above. Got a complaint; talk to the folks who determined that YOU are outside the Constitution where these matters are concerned. We're only following orders. Besides, who cares about a few rights when your safety may be at stake?

Hy Doug haha at least Obama has spread the power among many,rather than the chenhead bushwhacker admin which gave ALL power to chenhead. Keep yapping, I enjoy the follies

Brad Melton:

I think that you've laid out on of the biggest crime in the history of the US -- the disintegration of the Constitution, resulting in the take-over of the country by the global banking Elite.

Despite its size nad reach, this story has gone unreported on in the corporate-owned MSM.

I'd love to see what effect your "government notice" would have on people who don't understand how much has been taken from them.

Judging by past responses, I'm guessing that you could send your notice out as a serious message, and, despite them having to simply and summarily dump the Constitution, many Americans would think it's a good idea.

You make you point very effectively. Very nicely written, Sir.

I'm starting to believe that Osama has won. Why? We're living in fear that our civil rights are being taken away and replaced with "Security." Before Osama did his dirty deed we didn't need a Patriot Act, we were truly free. Now our freedom is becoming torn apart and our privacy is being infringed upon. Two planes, two buildings and our lives have become completely changed.

tappy:

I'm starting to believe that Osama has won.

What does any of this have to do with Osama bin Laden?

Tappy....Prediction....Before Obama leaves office, he will capture Osama bin Laden. Why else do you think his focus is on Afghanistan and not Iraq? Shows how utterly idiotic Bush was. He focused 1.6 trillion on Iraq and now, not even al Sadr has any power left. Bush can't even take credit for the present changes in Iraq because most came after the US military began to leave that country.
Osama's son was killed last week. Osama will be next. Count on it. If he actually is still alive. And, if he isn't, whoa....does that put another black spin on the Bush Administration military policies. Can you just imagine the reaction of the parents who lost kids in Iraq if it's discovered Osama has been dead lo these last 5 years? This is going to create a mess for our CIA if that becomes certain. I find it suspicious that the son of the man the entire al Qaeda worships dies without any Muslim religious fanfare. This kid had no mother? No sisters? Brothers? It proves one thing: al Qaeda is less Muslim and more terrorist than it wants anyone to believe.

I could not agree with you more.

Yeah we were safe except for the time Bush ignored the warning of a terrorist attack which resulted in 9/11. Oh and the other time when we had terrorist anthrax attacks . Other than that he did a fine job of tearing up our Constitution and keeping us safe! I wonder if you think the Patriot Act is such a great law now that we have a new administration.

By your logic, Clinton kept our homeland safe since the 1993 attack on the towers until Bush ignored the threat. Along came 9/11

Burns,,,pull ur head out and look around ,,see the light. Bush and Cheney had visions of being the supreme ruler of the world,,total control was their aim, it didn't work. The only thing that they accomplished was total incompetence for eight years. They left our country in shambles and someday will pay for it i hope.

Most of you forget, Bill Clinton, could have and should have captured Osama Bin Laden while he was in office. You can't blame Bush for everthing, though you try.

It seems democrats are more at fault at about turn we make. I'd take 10 George Bush/Dick Cheney's over the current administration we have now.

Clinton tried but you neo-cons were more obsessed investigating his every move. Bravo, you nailed him for lying under oath about a blow job.

But we can blame Bush and his father for the power they allowed the Illuminati to maintain within the US. Bush 41's Illuminati membership, along with many members of Congress, helped lead us to the Patriot Act, which should be challenged in the SCOTUS and ruled unconstitutional. This secret society will do anything they can to control every government possible throughout the world to maintain their control of the world economies.

Anti, #7.8, Challenging it to SCOTUS is going to help how? Weren't they the same folks that ruled that he won the election? Hmmmm

Hanging shards anyone? LOL

Look Idiot bush let us get attacked.

What I have always found amazing with the Bush bashers when you spout off "he ignored the intelligence that led to 9/11" is that it is alys easier to connect the dots after the fact than at the time. It's also hard to connect the dots when one agency has half and the other agency has the other half but were not allowed to try to connect them. You people who are so quick to blame Bush for 9/11 are the same people who criticize the coach on Monday morning after the football game is over.

The 'selected not elected' argument is a bunch of BS and you know it!!!

I can't believe the things people say about Bush & co and their "power grab". Have you taken an honest look at what Obama is trying (and it appears succeeding) to pull off. He said he wanted to remake America and rewrite the Constitution. All the good he said he would do he has not even attempted but the bad he is hell bent on pulling off.

You bunch of idiots! We were safe for nearly eight years.

It is interesting how this sort of time line always begins on 9/12/01. Why, if Bush and company should get credit for keeping us "safe" after 9/11/01, he doesn't have to take the blame for the events of 9/11/01?

Those in intelligence simply don't talk about what happens on the down low...... the threats, by the way, have and are what they have always been for a "free nation", politicians use the information whenever neccesary. don't let fear rule you,or your nation will be plundered of all its freedoms. sh*t, it probably already has been, msm just hasn't reported it to you yet.

bburns

really now where is any proof of your claim bush kept us safe for eight year -- first lets do the obvious correction bush had been president for almost 9 months on 9/11/2001 -- fact is he was president on 9/11/2001 -- fact he had intelligence an attack just like this would happen and he had that intelligence prior to 9/11/2001 -- fact bush and his regime did nothing absolutely nothing to try and stop the attack from occurring --

Now as for the rest of your claim just how did bush keep us safe? Were is all the facts regarding the people arrested and convicted for attacks that were foiled by the bush regime--- I have a feeling I will die of old age before any facts on this come out since there are none -- so at best bush and dumb luck walked hand in hand and no other attacks like 9/11/2001 occured -- anyone who looks at the history of these terrorists can see one thing for sure -- they plan an attack for years

You blather regarding how a different guy as president would have made anything worse is nothing but right wing nutter talking points with zero reality

Chuck 454....Obama is trying to fix the mess Bush left him. What would you say if he did nothing about the economy? Nothing about health care? Nothing about the mess in the financial sector? That he's inept? Name one single secret meeting he's held with the CEOs of Big Energy. Or, made decisions with the help of Yes men like John Yoo who virtually attempted to rewrite the Constitution.

Stop Bashing Obama. If that's the only method you hardliners can use to get your GOP candidate elected, it stinks. And, it's old and boring. Too many of us already know what you people are trying to do. Every word out of Obama's mouth gets jumped on and is reinterpreted. He's been in office 7 months. I'm guessing when your kid was born, you expected him to be a CEO by his first birthday? You can't do Obama's job and you know it. Till you can, don't try to be an armchair president. Lead butts go no where. Only their mouths move.

bburns....Obama is giving up 8 years of his life to clean up Bush's mess. That's how long it's going to take to restore any American's ability to move forward from the doom and gloom of fearmongering. The more Bush attacked, the more attacks occurred. War only begets more war. Bush knew that. He also knew that to keep war going, you have to keep instigating trouble so that his military cronies in the military industry would reap billions. Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater all are sated with taxpayer monies as a result. Now, those same taxpayers can't pay their rent. How safe is a country of paupers?

Prove your statement about Mr. Bush being indicted for felonies or any other crime he may have committed. I for one would be very interested to see them!! But, at the same time I am not going to hold my breath waiting for them. I am neither a Bush supporter nor a Obama supporter. There are certain things I liked that Mr. Bush did and things I despised Bush on. The same holds true with Mr. Obama.

John...Isn't Cheney also being investigated by a committee in the Hague for his condoning the use of torture?

and of course now you hate the Patriot Act. You remember the law that was passed as you chanted "USA,USA" I'll bet you don't feel that "if you dont have anything to hide its OK any more do you?

Jdoehekd, #9, what else can be done to this country from without and within, that has not already been done?

What do we have left of value to lose, except what remains of our freedom?

What was/is worse, the sept 11 attack or subsequent the economic implosion? Hmmm

Don't you think the subsequent economic implosion did more damage to the whole country and continue to do so? Just asking.......

jdoehekd....Ask yourself why Americans and the world feels safer without Bush and his evil puppetmaster Cheney....Because instead of having guns pointed in their faces, threats of war and bloodshed, people around the globe recognize that war isn't the only answer. Obama is a peacemaker. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth. Americans are breathing a sigh of relief not having to pick up a paper every day and find another 1,000 Americans dead in Iraq.

You and your ilk want to overlook the obvious. Bush intended to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. How else would they get total control? People do strange things when they are hungry, naked and homeless. Bush also knew that one of the ways he could make more people poorer was to invest in war. So, he spent like a drunken sailor. Don't defend evil. It makes an evil person of you.

DBW...When elected leaders challenge the Constitution, it isn't for the people or their protection. Elected leaders who presume such power are dangerous control freaks. Bush and Cheney just thought that if they implemented a few well calculated strokes that would alter American freedoms and rights, they had it made on their way to their ultimate goal: one party led by only a small handful of their cronies. Smell any dictatorship in that?

its highly likely that Iraq will be a dictatorship in a few years allied with Iran.

Brian...Was Willy as slick as the GOPs Tricky Richard Nixon? Who lied barefaced to the nation and all of you tried to tell us he was being honest? Your Republican legacy of lies go straight to Bush who lied when he claimed he didn't know Abramoff. Of course, now that there is proof that he not only knew Abramoff but also accepted campaign contribution...Now...You go after Clinton the same way your ilk is doing to Obama. Can't you people win elections the old fashioned way? By getting people to vote for you based on your qualifications?

Except for starting a war of choice.

I feel Saddam shares most of the blame for Iraq. Kuwait, the mass killings of the Kurdish people, the mass killings of the Shiites, the numerous times he crossed the no fly zones, the way he pretended to be making Chemical and Biological Weapons, keeping UN Inspectors from investigating certain plants, the Intelligence Reports that Saddam had tried to get his hands on Weapon Grade Nuclear Material. He had already tried to kill one former President of the US, already had used Chemical Weapons against not only an enemy country but also on his own people, and then there were the torture camp video's that were being smuggled out.

As long as Saddam stayed in power that region would always be a Region of Instability. By our Intelligence, he had Chemical Weapons, and now was hiding them. When the attack started he more than likely drove them out into the middle of the desert and dumped them.

One less evil man in the world. I think it was a good choice.

Jason-you're right on! Hussein continually ignored no-fly zone orders and also committed genocide on his own people. Clinton let him continue. Bush acted. Now, what will happen with Iran? Obama will continue letting them build a nuclear arsenal whle he concentrates on making sure he can listen to our phone conversations and be all-knowing, put our medical records online so he can be all-seeing, and get all our guns so he can be all-powerful.

As for the chemical weapons in Iraq, I have believed all along that the endless line of tarp-covered trucks that we saw on tv leaving Iraq carrying "citizens to safety" a few days before the start of the war were trucking those weapons right out of the country to Syria. BUT, we couldn't search them-the American public rallied for humanitariansim! Gag me with a caseknife! And, of course, people rant against Bush for ousting Suddam, yet loved it when Bill Clinton finally acted in the Bosnia/Serb genocide mess (after he failed to protect Rwandans of course).

Squirrel...My my my...But you have a very convenient memory. Go back before Clinton and check on what Pappa Bush considered his friendship with Saddam Hussein before they had that falling out over Iraq's oil fields. You need to be able to explain how Bush managed to get his CIA to find Saddam Hussein in an underground bunker but failed to find a free wheeling Osama bin Laden. Bush was a failure. Your party is attempting to win an election they only way it ever does...go after petty BS that matter not a smidge to the common good.

using our troops as police in other countries has the same effect- it creates enemies

this story was very likely leaked to the Times by Bush loyalists who are pissed at Cheney bashing Bush the past few days.

Oops, yeah he did. From the Army Times:

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 30, 2008 16:16:12 EDT

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.

“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.”

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.

Other branches included

The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.

Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.

A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.

In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.

There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

One of the things Vogler said they’ll be looking at is communications capabilities between the services.

“It is a concern, and we’re trying to check that and one of the ways we do that is by having these sorts of exercises. Leading up to this, we are going to rehearse and set up some of the communications systems to make sure we have interoperability,” he said.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

Nice article. I noticed though that throughout it it says that these forces were on military grounds. Nowhere does it say that these troops were in the middle of some civilian town. Good try though.

Where else would they stay? YOU missed the point. These guys are here for domestic "support" missions that are up to the whim of NorthCom.

"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control"

Unconstitutional. Period.

DCS...Must really hurt the hinney to lose an election. Bill Clinton's presidency was destroyed by the oh so and not very moral right wing. And all for what? 8 years of a TX idiot who made up his own laws and his own language and when he had to, barely gave lip service to civil law. You won't get a second chance at the Bully Boy Brigade takeover. We've had quite enough of that. Thank you. You need to manup and face that you and your Bully Boys were overruled by a majority of Americans who won the election for Obama. Hurts, doesn't it? If you and your party don't grow up and act like mature adults instead of petulant, overindulged brats, you may not see a GOP president for another 16 years.

ewent-

You need to look past the left/right repub/demo paradigm and see it for what it is. It's just a distraction to keep you from seeing the real issues. We basically have a one-party system. The two parties are so similar that it's not even funny. Obama is just continuing on with and even strengthening the policies put out by Bush. His first executive order was to disallow investigation into executive background. That's right, he wants to prevent investigation into his background. He has done nothing to undo the damage done to the Constitution and our civil rights. He wants to disarm us. He wants to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq and has the balls to say that we are pulling out. He is just increasing the debt and wants to give more power to the Federal Reserve.

Obama - just more of the same.

Deke...The most serious danger to seeing the issues IS the ideologues. I do not believe we have a one-party system. I do, however, believe there will be a third party within the next decade. Too many of us cannot fall in line with partisan ideology. It's already happening in my own town. But, the system is set up so that you must declare party in order to vote in my state. A lot of people do that and become inundated with party literature and requests for donations when all they wanted to do was vote.

As for Obama and Bush, there are nothing alike. Obama is a progressive. Bush was a regressive. Obama is a people president. Bush was HIS people's president. I don't hate Bush. I hate what and who he represents. Neoconservatism is destructive and bullying.

ewent-

Don't let Obama fool you - he works for Wall Street and the banks. Don't listen to what he saying - look at what he does. He is not going to have a positive effect on this country other than getting people to stand up and tear down these corrupt officials.

I agree with your comments about a third party. I think the various independents will do a merger and become a real political force. We need to get back to true Constitutional values if we have any hope of surviving as a country.

As long as it's all a conspiracy on the part of the media, we don't have to think about its ramifications, right?

Old Vet...Trying to rationalize with a neoconservative right winger is like trying to get a spoiled 2 year old to eat his spinach. The more you expect adult sanity, the less they can manage.

Micha'el:

Excellent reminders.

Thank you.

Your comments are so true. Too bad you didn't identify the real culprits in this mess that has gone on even further back than 1913. After all the Fed Reserve is the THIRD NATIONAL BANK established since the Constitution. Each National Bank was controlled by "outsiders", namely members of the Knights Templar (Freemasons) secret society's internal secret society, Illuminati. Bush 41 is a member, as are most WS execs, most top financial institution execs, most major corporation execs, and many members of both houses of Congress (especially Senators.)

Look at the symbol on the One Dollar bill on the left back side. That truncated pyramid with the "eye" forming the broken off top of the pyramid IS the Illuminati symbol. Check out this site. Very informative.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm

Mich, #17, Which leader has ever willingly given up power ( or ability to act/react within whatever manner) already gained, no matter how questionably unless forced to do so? Hmmmm

A leader is only as good, ethical, just, law abiding or honorable etc as his/her advisors, don't you think? Hmmmm

So true and don't forget the Bilderburgers of which Obama, Bill Gates, Oprah, Kissinger et al belong to.

Tappy...Did you want a running list of the groups the Bushes belong to? One in particular is tied to the biggest financial CEOs and the other of note is based upon returning the US to a federalist society.

Baaaaaah!

Brad Melton...But baaaaa than...a Bully Boy Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Gee, I seem to recall the Taliban and Al-qaida going to Pakistan when we invaded. Should we just have gone in there too?

Yeah, we should have. We should of followed them to each little cave they dug and rooted the rats out once and for good.

Jason...and what? Prove that the mighty US is a warmongering society bent on blood and destruction? All to prove a handful Americans' need for power? I love it how people like you avoid the history of wars that ended many civilizations.

it get's their rocks off.

It's good that there was debate and that rational thought prevailed. The interesting and rather instructive thing is that some in the administration even considered using troops and did so apparently on the assumption that those they captured would not be subject to Constitutional guarantees. There are so many contrary legal precedents, going back to the Civil War, that one wonders about their abilities as lawyers and their understanding of the fundamental nature of the Constitution. This perhaps serves as a warning.

Everyone on the planet has constitutional rights now. That's why enemy combatants are now having their rights read to them just after they kill our troops. It's a rediculous change in our constitution. I say to the troops blow their brains out and take no prisioners. Period.

It enters the realm of ridiculousness. The country was attacked. Legal research was done on the scope of Presidential authority to use the military in this role, it was debated at the highest level, and the President, for whatever reason, decided the circumstances didn't warrant it. I mean, isn't this what we want presidents doing? Considering the alternatives and deciding on a course of action? But it turns into an anti-Bush rant. Yo, Dems! Want a real controversy on the abuse of presidential power? Just look up LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Tired--I haven't written anything against Bush for making this particular decision. As I said, "it's good there was a debate and that rational thought prevailed." I applaud what appears to have been Bush's decision. What I find disturbing is that some people in his administration would have even considered using the military and the rationales they reportedly gave.

Tired, #21, "What more is there to gripe about" is the fact that it was even discussed as an option in the first place.

If these "issues" are not discussed/griped about by the people/ citizens/masses, then what happens the next time when something happens that shakes this country to its roots?

The Patriot Act (i.e. loss of freedoms act ) passing anyone? LOL

Still feel like beating up on the ACLU, when they were the only ones questioning these 'issues' anyone? LOL

How many of you are a bit worried that your e-mails and messages to the message boards etc are being 'viewed' for content yet? Hmmm..LOL

Still feeling free......... home, home ( to freely roam) on the range, where the deer and the antelope play, where seldom is heard a discouraging word (stop, you are under arrest) etc...... LOL LOL LOL

I have to agree Tired Floridian. I remember the Marines were mobilized from Camp Pendleton to the Los Angeles Coliseum during the Rodney King riots. I do believe the Marines would have been deployed against the general public should the situation warranted in the President's eyes.

oh yes rather than be outraged at more trampling on our constitution people must try and justify these treasonous acts

The public needs to rise up and stop the federal government from taking rights away from it's citizens and stop this nonsensical partisan blather -- on the left if a republican did it then shout about it on the right if a republican did it lets cloud the issue with pointing to dems who might have done the same or worse -- the reality is the people in power (which has nothing to do with republican or democrat) has the citizens right where they want them -- blathering about nonsense while they work to screw the citizens more and more

Here is a little tid bit for you all regarding the looming shortfall of social security and the horrendous condition of the US health-care system -- all you elected congress people and senators and their staffs pay zero into social security -- that's correct they pay nothing into social security while the rest of us pay in every week and our employers match that money every week and for health care the entire congress has the best plan in the world and they pay zero zip nadda -- oh and let's not forget when all these elected officials leave office well they just continue getting their full pay and health care for them and their families for the rest of their lives -- what a sweet deal

So if any of us expect to see any relief on health care insurance and want social security fixed then we must force all these elected officials to start paying into both and stop the gravy train here and now

Tired Floridian....If Bush and Cheney had gotten their way and found the right loophole, how fast to you think he'd have used that to stifle the anti-war protestors and protestors at his Republican campaign headquarters, which he tried to do anyway? Our constitution guarantees the right to non-violent public protest. Only that jerk Nixon and later Bush tried to stop that.

Yeah you're right Corsair...who gives a damn about the Constitution right??? Who cares about the 4th amendment that says the military is NOT ALLOWED to be used as law enforcement right???

You idiots can't have it both ways....you can't wrap yourself in the flag and say what great Americans you are and at the same time decide to walk all over the Constitution.

That's called hypocrisy.

It's called defense.

And not using it, is called ignorance.

No one was talking about martial law.

They were talking about covert operations to weed the country of

the same @!$%#s who flew planes into buildings.

No, it is not defense. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in every piece of the United States of America. It forbids the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement operations, or other militaristic operations for that matter, within our borders against our citizens. There are effective law enforcement agencies here that are quite capable of legally taking care of "covert operations" against alleged terrorists. There are procedures in place that allow these people to be monitored and still respect America's tradition of the rule of law. Apparently the Founding Fathers, and subsequent generations, have thought this was a good idea which they set forth in the Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, etc. despite the various enemies they have fought against through our history. If you're willing to make excuses to violate peoples' rights, no matter how vile you may think they are, none of us are safe any more. Remember Benjamin Franklin's advice: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

US troops were used on 911...who do you think flew the f-16 that attempted to intercept the planes?

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say this? The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 does specifically limit the use of US Troops in domestic law enforcement roles, because of all the abuses during and after the Civil War. The Constitution however does not forbid it, it does limit some peace time activities of the military, e.g. 3rd Amendment, but I have never seen the Constitution state no domestic military use. Just the other previously mentioned Act.

In my zeal to post a response on this issue, perhaps I overstepped what I had hoped to express or perhaps I simply abbreviated my thoughts too much on the matter. Without turning this response into a legal brief, allow me to better and briefly explain the issue as I understand it. Indeed, there are laws laid down that specifically address the use of our military forces within our borders. Namely, and as mentioned, the Constitution does address an aspect of domestic military use with the 3^rd Amendment and, later, it became apparent that others issues needed to be addressed through the authority of the Constitution with the Posse Comitatus Act. Last year, in a repudiation of a memo written by the now shamefully infamous John Yoo concerning the domestic use of our military, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department stated that “the Fourth Amendment is fully applicable to domestic military operations.” This applies to the NSA as well, an extension of the DOD. One might then claim that this still doesn’t completely bar the domestic use of our military. I would agree that this is true. The military was created “for the common defense” and I doubt that anyone would expect our military to simply stand by and watch while the U.S. is invaded by a foreign military force and hope that the National Guard can handle the matter. I think it would also be foolish to object to the military serving to aid people in peaceful operations such providing humanitarian aid after Hurricane Katrina, fighting wildfires, etc.

But when the military is asked to use its ability to commit force in domestic issues, then the validity of its proper constitutional use comes into question when other agencies are commonly tasked with what are almost always law enforcement duties. That old American revolutionary resistance to standing armies of red coats and Hessians gets aroused. Many of the Founding Fathers’ writings lend attention to the dangerous use of standing armies, which adds to the values and spirit behind the literal, written laws in the Constitution and those written under its authority. It has been argued that, by declaring people enemy combatants and the target of military operations, the Bush administration could have been freer to try to circumvent the usual protections of our Constitution and handle people, citizens or not, as it felt. Regardless of your political affiliations or ideologies, keep an eye on what your government is doing in your name. Besides Benjamin Franklin, many more of the Founding Fathers counseled as such.

What?

GW "demanded imperial presidency" I dont remember that speech

Yea....thats another of those far out weird crazy fringe leftists theories. Old Vet mentioned a book about cheney written by a pulitzer prize winner.....isnt that something that communists give other communists???? Very impressive...