I've noticed that before with even many Republican politicians saying the same things you see cropping up. Such as I heard Norm Coleman talk about Obama's bow at a speech at Harvard on Wed..
Sure they do and a few Democrat politicians even indulge in some of the crazier aspects of the blogosphere but it strikes me as Republicans are more "on message." In fact that has been a traditional strength of the Republican party in keeping message discipline versus Democrats. Sometimes the message discipline can be bad when you get people like Norm Coleman complaining about Obama bowing at Harvard.
if you really think democrats are not playing the same game, at least in the Obamature era, then i think you haven't been paying close enough attention.
Apparently you missed the first part of my post. I don't deny the Democrats are playing the game by which I suspect you mean repeating talking points. I'm saying the Republicans do it better.
If Republicans were the ones trying to reform health care, you definitely wouldn't have GOP Reps & Senators stating things every few days that totally differed with what the leadership was saying. The GOP always has been stronger on party discipline and messaging than the Dems.
What are you talking about? The Dems still let Joe Lieberman caucus with them. They definitely aren't as focused on keeping members in line and on the party message.
when your only message is Government bad, Business good, its easy to stay on track. when you're actually trying to figure out ways to solve problems that require ideas coming together, then that requires diversity of actual thought
maybe holder is dumber than sam thinks. [rquoter]EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Obama Justice Department is having problems prosecuting terrorist cases because top department attorneys have conflicts of interest. According to documents obtained exclusively by The Washington Times, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, No. 3 official in the Justice Department, had to recuse himself on at least 13 active detainee cases and at least 26 cases listed as either closed or mooted. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, made waves Nov. 18 when he demanded that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. provide a list of all the suspected-terrorist detainee cases from which current Justice Department political appointees have had to recuse themselves. The extent of the conflicts at the department is still unclear. Mr. Perrelli's recusals presumably stem from the work that either he or his former firm, Jenner & Block LLP, did on behalf of detainees while Mr. Perrelli served on the firm's management committee and on its appellate and Supreme Court practice groups. And Mr. Perrelli is just one official; a number of other Justice Department officials apparently did private-sector work on detainee cases. This is an important topic. Even if each official who did prior work on detainee cases has indeed properly recused himself from those cases while at the Justice Department, there could be such a large number of affected officials that the department's prevailing ethos could be tilted strongly in the detainees' favor. Mr. Grassley's inquiry is pressing because it could ferret out any instance in which a department official should have been recused but wasn't. When the senator publicly requested information from Mr. Holder, the attorney general merely promised to "consider" the request. After some hemming and hawing and dodging, Mr. Holder eventually said he needed to make sure there was no "attorney-client privilege" involved before disclosing the list of recusals. This is absurd. Attorney-client privilege may extend to the substance of lawyers' discussions with detainees, but not to the mere question of whether the lawyers are doing such work. While the rest of the list of recusals has yet to be provided to the senator, The Washington Times secured the Perrelli recusal list, which previously had been distributed widely within the Justice Department. Herewith, consider this list of names of detainees whose cases are listed as "active" on the Perrelli recusal list: Saad Al Qahtani. Mohammed Zahrani. Achraf Salim ("Sultan") Abdessalam. Abdul Rahman Abdul Abu Ghityh Sulayman. Musaab Omar Al Madhwani. Jawad Jabbar Sadkhan (Al Sahlani). Majid Khan. Also listed as active are the cases of Anam v. Bush, Jabbarov v. Bush, Bronte v. Department of Defense, Al Odah et. al. v. USA, Boumediene v. Bush, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla. None of this is to say that Mr. Perrelli did anything wrong. His recusals are proper, but the extent of the recusals raises questions about whether the attorney general has enough unbiased advisers around him to have made good judgments about how to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other detainees. He certainly did seem terribly ill-informed when asked basic questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday about how Miranda rights for detainees would be treated in civil courts and if any enemy combatant from a foreign battlefield had ever been tried in American civil courts. Columnist Charles Krauthammer justly called Mr. Holder's responses "utterly incoherent." If the incoherence stems from an inherent bias among President Obama's appointees at the Justice Department, senators and the American public have the right to know it.[/rquoter]
Nice, thank you for proving my point - that long copy paste that nobody will read is officially: FREE REPUBLIC APPROVED http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391038/posts
and so it begins: Lawyer: 9/11 Terror Suspects To Plead Not Guilty [rquoter] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other suspected terrorists who will be tried in Manhattan for their involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks will plead not guilty, according to an attorney. Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer representing suspect Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the attacks, but "would explain what happened and why they did it" and share "their assessment of American foreign policy," according to the Post. Unsurprisingly, "their assessment is negative," according to Fenstermaker. While critics fear that the suspects will use the high-profile trial as a soapbox to publicize anti-American views, a spokesman for the Department of Justice told the Daily News: "We have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past." Meanwhile, the Times looks into the legal proceedings against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani — a suspected Al Qaeda operative implicated in the attacks against America embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Legal experts told the paper it's “a perfect transition case” before the terror trials because it could outline strategies that could be used by the defense. For example, Ghailani's lawyers just filed a motion to throw out the case because they claim their client wasn't given a speedy trial as is constitutionally-mandated. The article also outlines some of the measures taken to protect classified information, including rules that require defense attorneys to visit a “secure area" to access classified documents, and a policy that only allows information on the case to go public after it has been reviewed by the government.[/rquoter]
I'm not sure why people are afraid of the bolded part. Is our democracy so fragile that people nead to fear these ideas being expressed?
FranchiseBlade - you underestimate the power of a courtroom sketch - they drive people into frenzies and are beamed around the world. Let me tell you, there is nothing more emotional than a redacted trial transcript - it's like the most powerful propaganda tool ever. In basso math - this image cannot be used as propaganda, and represents freedom, democracy and rule of law: In basso math - this is propaganda central, it is a shameful sham justice, nothing more than trumped up theater and show trials:
these are the same people who need to recite the POA everyday as a child and wear flag lapel pins to to prove they're loyal citizens
a foreshadowing of things to come: Terror Suspect Says He Was Denied A Speedy Trial --- In a court case that might turn out closely foreshadowing the much-hyped trials of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other suspected 9/11 plotters, terror suspect Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani has asked a Manhattan judge to dismiss his indictment because authorities denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The suspect — who is charged with conspiring in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and is thought to have worked as a bodyguard and cook for Osama Bin Laden — claims that after being captured in Pakistan in 2004, he was subjected to cruel interrogation techniques "amounting to torture" and was denied a lawyer during his two years in secret CIA prisons before being moved to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Insiders anticipate that lawyers representing the suspects in the 9/11 attacks might use the same strategy. “We respectfully submit that this case presents possibly the most unique and egregious example of a speedy trial violation in American jurisprudence to date," Mr. Ghailani’s lawyers said in a document that, according to the Times, was heavily due to censored classified information. "This motion asks one primary question. Can national security trump an indicted defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial? We respectfully submit that the answer is emphatically and without qualification, 'No.'"
^ Post is FREE REPUBLIC APPROVED http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2398095/posts 1:1 ratio continues - good work basso.
The result of unintended consequences perhaps. The Federal prosecutors have no comment on the situation. But now that Obama has opened this can of worms, the same will most likely apply to all terrorists held since President Bush including KSM in New York City
