), athletic uniforms and scientific instruments." Incidentally, he made this statement in a memorandum to his boss — that is, from the White House counsel to the president. In the height of mid-90s scandal, Democrats and the mainstream media tended to view the very thought of intruding on that relationship as an unspeakable violation of the attorney-client privilege and the end of the Bill of Rights as we know it. Now...they want the rest of the memos. Evidently, they've evolved.
This, no doubt, is because Gonzales, aside from being an intimate of the sitting Republican president, is also, alas, one of those sticks-in-the-mud who thinks we shouldn't treat al Qaeda terrorists as if we had a treaty with them, and that we shouldn't accord the privileges and immunities of honorable warfare to barbarians. For such positions has be been castigated by a hastily assembled group of retired military brass with a recent history of anti-Bush activism, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the usual cabal of "human- rights activists" who, though they've never met a terrorist they wouldn't coddle, don't seem to get particularly whipped up over humans whose work day is interrupted by hijacked jumbo jets crashing through office windows.
In any event, on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Gonzales. Critics are urging committee Democrats to question the nominee aggressively on the benighted administration policy of no Geneva protections for terrorists whose lives are singularly dedicated to annihilating Americans. Fair game, one supposes, but no senator should be allowed to take up the torch without at least answering a simple question: Do you favor a treaty with al Qaeda?
The inarguable, inconvenient fact is we have no such treaty. Al Qaeda is not and, indeed, cannot be among Geneva's high contracting parties. It is not a country. The U.S. has for over two decades expressly rejected a treaty — the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions — that would have vested terrorists with Geneva protections. I hate to spoil the party, but if we're going to have such a treaty with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, it will have to be a new one.
Under Article III of the Constitution, the consent of two thirds of the Senate's membership is required before a treaty can be approved. Although we haven't yet been able to arrange getting President Bush and Emir Zarqawi together for a signing ceremony, getting the senators on record — especially given the caviling over Gonzales — could really get the ball rolling. So let's ask them. All of them. Plain and simple, so the folks back home know just where you stand: Do you favor a treaty with al Qaeda?
Does anyone think there are 67 yea votes on that one? How about ten? How about one? No. The fact is, outside a lunatic fringe, there's not a politician in America who would support something so absurd.
The next attorney general's position on this matter is not a radical view. It's America's view. So ask away — it'll be good for all of us to know where everyone stands.
— Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
This is from a year ago...funny how nothing changes. Liberals are even more interested in the rights of terrorists than they were then. Regular, normal Americans, however, are not.
Last edited by pwrone; 01-20-2006 at 01:05 AM.
Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?
Wipe out Iraq and throw them into turmoil because they MIGHT have WMD's but negociate with Osama Bin Laden who ordered planes crashed into the twin towers?
What is to negociate? We were supposed to have gotten OBL over 4 years ago. I say put him and Bush into a boxing ring, whoever survives earned their life back.
Lady mod, don't worry, it won't be long before yirm, dchristie, umd, bacardi and ronnie of toronto are going to expose Bush as some sort of retard for not striking a peaceful negotiation with ubl. Will this happen after a terror attack, or before? That is the only real question.
happened to the land that was once our nation...
I don't think that was a real offer from OBL, I think it was staged. And I doubt that any of the others you mention think the offer for negociation was any more legitimate than I did.
That's some incredible spin justifying the abuse and even torture of detainees in the so-called "war on terrorism".
Don't ya think it's important to note your source?
Founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., considered one of the godfathers of American conservatism, National Review, based in New York City, is one of the oldest and most influential conservative magazines in the United States. It regularly publishes the work of some of the nation's leading conservatives.
In the early 1990s they had with the Heritage Foundation a joint venture called 'Town Hall'. This BBS became a forum on Compuserve in 1994 and in June 1995 the web site 'townhall.com' went live. Currently it is only a Heritage Foundation project called 'Townhall.com'.
The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital.
Might be some spin here. Be careful don't want ya to get to dizzy...

Last edited by dante; 01-20-2006 at 05:05 AM.
Three in a row! Good job lefties - you didn't even take a position. Did you learn that from Kerry?
Crusty misquoting his president again. Here's the quote everybody. Please don't give too much credence to crusties "liberal" quoting practices.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
Mike Allen. I'm working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael.
Burying the statement in the rest of Bush's innane, incoherent and obdurate psycho-babble doesn't alter it one bit, as you would like to convince yourself. So, you can go back now and bury your nose nice and deep in your "commander and thief's" hole where it usually is. We've heard it all before.  Just a thought. After all the criminal spying on American citizens, guess when Bush heard about Bin Laden's latest threats. Yep..the same time we did. Ha!  Read it 'n' freep, RatTurd m'lad.
The top CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the United States could have captured the terrorist leader if President George W. Bush and the American military had devoted the necessary resources to the hunt and capture.
In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.
Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named "Jawbreaker" in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.
He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the Bush administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden to escape.
I have the video if you really want to strain gnats.
ROFLMAO, oh Raider will want to strain gnats. He'll strain them until he's convinced, (no time limit on that) he's won his argument. Whether or not he actually WON an argument is irrelevant, it's only what he perceives as victory that makes it a victory.
Isn't the entire timing on this Osama offer rather interesting?
1) President Bush is suffering from acute lack of popularity.
2) It's a voting year.
3) The war in Iraq is unpopular.
4) Trouble in the White House.
5) Illegal wire tapping under scrutiny.
6) Iran about to be sanctioned.
increase recruitment. Army takes an Asvap as low as 41 now.
8) Our own borders are woefully unprotected.
Now, all of a sudden, Osama says