If GOP Runs a RINO for President, The Party Will Crash and Burn
by Jim Kouri | View comments |
Print This Post
When the GOP articulates conservative values and strategies for the future, they win elections. When they try to be Democrats, they lose. The Democrats fear we might be “abusing” terrorists? Well so does Senator John McCain.
Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs, are a great asset to the Democrat Party and the news media. The liberals know they have little if any credibility, therefore when they wish to make a point they mention that Republicans also want what they want.
But by Republicans they mean RINOs. Democrats believe Iraq is another Vietnam? Well, so does Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Democrats are fearful that a Justice Alito may overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, so does Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee. The Democrats fear we might be "abusing" terrorists? Well so does Senator John McCain
Another example of RINOism is the breaking news by Matt Drudge and the New York Sun that after 10 years and over $23 million dollars the Independent Counsel investigation into Clinton Administration officials who may have used the IRS to intimidate or investigate threats to the Bill Clinton.
According to the Drudge Report, in Monday's edition of the New York Sun, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., gave readers a first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett.
The Sun outlines the reports details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involved former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun revealed that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration initiated investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington. Also, there were investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel's evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am. However, what's in those 100 pages that we won't see?
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day. That's understandable since they are hypocrites of the first order. However, where are the Republican outcries over this continued cover-up?
I know many fear the FBI, CIA, NSA and Homeland Security Department and they have concerns about surveillance and civil liberties. But I am more concerned about the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that can lock up an American for decades because he or she didn't fork over their hard earned money. If the President - any president - uses the IRS, which has more leeway than all the other agencies put together, to investigate, intimidate and perhaps incarcerate Americans, I for one want to know
about it.
But I'm not holding my breath for the Republicans to demand the full Barrett Report be released without redaction.
The GOP is in a lot of trouble and that trouble has nothing to do with Tom DeLay or Jack Abramoff or Scooter Libby. The Republican Party is being co-opted by liberals who call themselves "moderates."
When the GOP articulates conservative values and strategies for the future, they win elections. When they try to be Democrats, they lose. They may believe it's the "wacky right-wing" that's hurting their party, but it's actually the "wacky left-wing" that may cost them their power in 2006. When conservatives get all fired up, armed with the truth they are unbeatable. But the GOP is doing little to get them fired up.
COPmagazine@aol.com
http://jimkouri.us
Read more articles by Jim Kouri
But I am more concerned about the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that can lock up an American for decades because he or she didn't fork over their hard earned money.
Under what statutory and regulatory authority does the IRS do this? Which court approved such non-judicial incarceration. Could you provide the citation.
Thank you.
Comment by freelunch | January 9, 2008
Unless I am reading Mr Kourni incorrectly, I think he is referring to the IRS’s power to incarcerate as meaning the power to bring a prosecution. I doubt that he is suggesting that the IRS has any extra-judicial power to incarcerate without providing evidence etc.
But there can be no doubt that the IRS and it’s officials are instruments of oppression. They can and do hound people for years; they do prosecute and send people to prison (on conviction); people (and I expect many politicians) do ‘report’ those they dislike to the IRs, often thus provoking an investigation; the IRS does have virtually unlimited power to examine anyone’s financial affairs.
The only thing that amazes me is that the people put up with it.
Perhaps Huckabee has got a point – put them out of business – for good (although that would require a constitutional amendment, because otherwise those politicians who simply cannot resist doling out other people’s money will simply resurrect it – then we’d have the worst of both worlds).
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | January 9, 2008
Jim,
I agree that "RINOs" are taking over the party. As you define it, I'm a RINO…and proud of it.
If RINO's continue to redefine the GOP, what do neo-conservatives do? Do they become independents? Do they fight to recreate a neo-conservative majority within the party? Will, neo-conservatives form their own party?
The Republican Party's history has a long "RINO" heritage. Neo-conservatives are relatively new to the party. Twenty some odd years does not redefine the party. If the RINO's retake the party, where do the sheep go?
GreginNY
Comment by GreginNY | January 9, 2008
John McCain a RINO? Right. Take a look at his record.
Comment by ConservativePopulist | January 9, 2008
John McCain is an angry, arrogant elitist. Let's briefly examine his record:
* He strongly supports the man-made-global-warming mantra cooked up by radical leftists and cosmopolitan elites to co-opt the worlds economy and destroy capitalism. He supports chaining the US economy and subverting US sovereignty to binding international treaties to combat AGW.
* He opposes tax cuts.
* He co-authored the amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy.
* He co-authored the bill that shredded the First Amendment with Russ Feingold.
* He opposes the use of coercive interrogation techniques of terror suspects even if it means thousands of Americans die in a imminent attack. He would hold criminally responsible any US military or law-enforcement agent utilizing such techniques. He willfully distorts the Geneva Conventions to support this position - once again subjecting US sovereignty to international sanction.
There are those who would call Rudy Giuliani a RINO, but on the issues with which he takes a liberal position (abortion, gay-rights) the president has very little real power, and he has earnestly committed to appointing conservative judges (Ted Olson may very well be his first SC nominee). He will not harm the movement as president.
McCain's policy positions are anathema to conservatives in precisely those areas where he, as president, will do the most harm.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 10, 2008
Mr. Osonitsch, you write of John McCain that "He opposes the use of coercive interrogation techniques of terror suspects even if it means thousands of Americans die in a imminent attack. He would hold criminally responsible any US military or law-enforcement agent utilizing such techniques."
I, personally, fully support this. For one thing… can anyone point out any case, ever, where such a "Jack Bauer" situation actually happened? Seriously, when has there ever been a ticking time bomb and we just knew that this guy could tell us where it was, and he wouldn't cooperate, and so we reluctantly but manfully had to do what needed to be done, and…
If such a situation did come up, I'd want the people who did 'what needed to be done' to be prosecuted. And if the evidence showed they broke the law, then I'd want them convicted. And then I'd expect them to be pardoned, if the circumstances really warranted it.
But if you make pre-emptive legal exceptions, human beings will take advantage of them for non-"24" situations. You'll get things like innocent taxi drivers, who were turned over by militant warlords to
deflect suspicion from themselves, being killed - by U.S. troops - while chained and in custody. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ex=1270785600&
en=37bef79604f97228&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)
If our people are going to be torturing, ever, I want them to be willing to bet their life that they are justified in doing so. Anything less is just an invitation to abuse.
You also write, "He willfully distorts the Geneva Conventions to support this position - once again subjecting US sovereignty to international sanction."
Actually, the Geneva Convention is very, very clear on this. Read Article 5 yourself: (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590008?OpenDocument) "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Essentially, you have to extend Geneva Convention protections until a 'competent tribunal' has determined that they don't apply. And, yes, there's certainly plenty of doubt in most cases. Those people in Guantanamo? The majority, by far, weren't captured by U.S. forces; they were turned in by people looking for reward money or to suck up to U.S. forces: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj2.htm
Being "better than Saddam" and "better than a Soviet gulag" is nothing to brag about, and it's sure as hell not good enough for me. I expect the U.S. to be a shining example to other nations. At the end of World War II, the British and Soviets were all for summary executions of the Nazi war criminals. It was the U.S. that argued for the Nuremberg trials, and who prosecuted our own intelligence officers for waterboarding. How far we've fallen…
Keeping the moral high ground in any struggle against terrorism is critical. The British forgot that for a while when fighting the IRA. But when they started to focus more on a 'rule of law' approach, support for the IRA faded.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 10, 2008
Number 1: Nobody is advocating torture; waterboarding causes fear, but it does not cause physical pain or lasting damage.
Number 2: Which US city full of American families are you willing to concede to the enemy to protect your warped and priggish concept of justice? Perhaps NY, where I live, work, and raise my family? How about we draw a big bulls-eye on your hometown (or John McCain's) instead and then see how morally repulsed you are by waterboarding. The fact is waterboarding has already prevented attacks, so it clearly is not a fictional "Jack Bauer" fantasy.
Number 3: Under the Third Geneva Convention, the terrorists in question are explicitly excluded: they are unlawful combatants, not POW's.
Number 4: coercive interrogation techniques are not illegal, yet you want the men protecting your family prosecuted and convicted? Are you kidding me. Yet I'll bet you claim to 'support our troops!' You sure have a funny way of showing it.
George Orwell famously said we "sleep peaceably in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who would do them harm." Allow me to paraphrase this to fit our queasy politically correct modern sensibilities:
'people shouldn't be allowed to sleep well at night because jack-booted American thugs are getting poor disadvantaged freedom fighters from underdeveloped countries really, really wet. They even make them cold sometimes and keep them up past midnight.'
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 10, 2008
Mr. Osonitsch:
Number 1: Waterboarding is only one option, and the fact that so many 'detainees' have died in custody is an indication that other methods are in use, too. Still, I'm aware of many pundits claiming that waterboarding is no worse than fraternity hazing. I'd be far more impressed if they volunteered to undergo it themselves to demonstrate how refreshing it is. The United States government considered it an offense worthy of court martial in WWII, as I noted.
Number 2: I don't see where you actually produced a case where torture had averted an imminent catastrophe. You seem to have asserted this ("waterboarding has already prevented attacks") but I would like some references and cites, if you have them. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm not aware of any such cases. If they exist, please do bring them to my attention. (BTW, I work in Detroit, which is right next to probably the largest population of Middle Eastern extraction in the United States, and the site of one of the busiest border crossings in North America, so don't imagine that I think I'm less likely than others to suffer from terrorism.)
Number 3: Terrorists are, indeed, excluded from the Geneva Convention protections. I totally agree that they are, legally and morally, beyond the pale and don't have a claim to protections of the Geneva Convention or most other laws. But that wasn't my point. I have no problem with treating terrorist scum like terrorist scum - after it has been determined by a competent tribunal that they are, in fact, terrorist scum. That has very specifically and explicitly not been done by the U.S. in this case. That's the reason we have unlucky taxi drivers being beaten to death over the course of several hours by U.S. troops. Those protections aren't there because the guilty need more protection - they're there because the innocent do, and by the Geneva Conventions (and U.S. principles, which we are allegedly trying to spread) detainees are innocent until proven guilty.
Number 4: I do 'support the troops', and not just as a slogan. I've given money to help buy body armor that the U.S. government wouldn't pay for, and sent care packages, and so forth. I admire the hell out of 'em, in general. That doesn't mean I think they are being used wisely in all cases… and relevant to this case, that also doesn't mean that I forget that they are human beings, and human beings can do really horrifying things in the wrong circumstances. Using troops as MPs when they have not been trained for that purpose, giving them vague directions as to limits, and fostering the same kind of mindset I see here so often - "they're in custody, so they must be guilty" - is a recipe for disaster. Add in the stress of being actively attacked on a daily basis, and yeah, I think clear hard limits and strict discipline are mandatory.
Otherwise, you get cases like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml
Why don't you think our troops can live up to high moral standards?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 11, 2008
After KSM was waterboarded for 60 seconds he gave up critical info on at least 6 terrorists (including Jose Padilla) whom we captured based on his info. Terrorist plots foiled include: plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, ignite US gas stations, and poison water supplies. I never said these plots were imminent, however if they were, and we knew it via corroborating info, I would support a whole lot more than waterboarding to save an American city. Would you?
The US military is providing body armor and has done so throughout this war, and the Abu Graib incident was not torture. These are two bogus allegations you picked up from those other stalwart supporters of our military: The NY Times.
Two or three isolated incidents of over zealousness during a war is not a reason to indict our warriors (or their government) and strip them of the tools they need to keep us safe.
If you want to truly support our troops put your wallet away and stop monday-morning-quarterbacking. Save your moral outrage for our enemies! You know, those guys that are sawing off the heads of bound captives and dropping buildings on Americans.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 11, 2008
Mr. Osonitsch: I was hoping for links or something a little more detailed. I haven't been able to find any actual evidence of plots foiled - indirect claims that some items were in planning stages, but no specific 'ticking bomb' scenarios that I've been able find, which is what I asked for. (Improving our resiliency and internal security would go a lot further toward mitigating such threats. How about something as simple as the civil defense volunteers we had in WWII? I'm sure a lot of people would volunteer for training to help handle emergencies, provide first aid, triage victims, and so forth. That'd help with traffic accidents (which have only killed more than 40 times the number of Americans killed in 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined) as well as terrorist incidents.) And I'd not even have had a problem with what happened to KSM if there had been an actual tribunal, as mandated by the Geneva Convention, to determine his status beforehand.
If there actually were a "24" situation, then sure, torture would be morally justified. And if alien mind parasites possessed the inhabitants of a major American city and were poised to conquer the Earth, I'd be okay with nuking the city to stop their spread. Once you hop off into hypothetical-land all kinds of otherwise reprehensible things can be justified. So far as I can tell, and so far as anyone has been able to demonstrate with actual evidence, the number of times both have happened in reality are the same: zero.
As to body armor… the National Guard got flak jackets, but not the armor plates that go in them. That cost over $600 per. http://www.optruth.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=116
Abu Graib is not what I've been talking about; though it's a splendid example, thanks for bringing it up. The taxi driver I've been harping about? Afghanistan. The U.S. soldier with brain damage? Guantanamo. You might find the links I've provided to be informative. And why do you assume I'm "indicting" all of our "warriors"? Where, specifically, did I say that?
And why do you assume that I'm not outraged at terrorists? I fully supported our operations in Afghanistan. That was a foreign government that was deliberately harboring people (people who had attacked the United States and were demonstrably planning on doing so again), and had refused to hand them over despite repeated polite but firm demands. And, as expected, our military did their usual professional job and took over the place in short order without undue destruction.
As a bonus the 'international community' either supported our actions or did not oppose it. (I say 'bonus' because we should not condition our national defense on the opinions of other countries, but diplomatic considerations are not negligible either.)
We also pledged to reconstruct the place, and put in a democracy. The people were already tired of the Taliban and were in no danger of falling back into an Islamic theocracy. The infrastructure was in shambles thanks to years of Soviet bombing - any improvements we made at all would be positive steps, we wouldn't have to spend billions just to get things back to pre-war levels. The people even remembered that we'd helped them against the Soviets. (More in an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of way, but still…) The aforementioned approval of the 'international community' meant we could ask for and expect a certain amount of support from other nations. No more fertile soil for a reconstruction project existed in anywhere in the region.
Then… nothing. The Bush administration forgot about it (they literally put no money for Afghanistan reconstruction in the 2004 budget), and even forgot about pursuing al Quaeda (you know, the people who actually did attack the United States?), and decided to use the situation as an excuse to attack Iraq, which many 'policy wonks' had wanted to do for years.
I'm not at all opposed to violence, even overthrowing governments, when circumstances warrant, and - this may come as a shock to you - 9/11 actually did warrant that. In Afghanistan. Against people bearing arms in combat or captured and determined by a competent tribunal to be terrorists. I'd appreciate if you'd argue with what I've actually written, and not what you seem to wish I had written.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 11, 2008
A civil Defense Corps? What's next, we all plant victory gardens? That's an impressive war footing. What then, do we deputize the hall monitor in my kids' school? round up a posse? As a Sergeant in the NYPD, I assure you, we can, will, and have responded to terrorist attacks and major emergencies. The point is not to clean up the mess after an attack, but to prevent it in the first place. That's why we are having this debate.
The coercive interrogation techniques to which I have been referring and which are not torture, have been used only on a very small number of very high value targets (perhaps a few dozen). Our agents do not use these techniques on men who may merely be low-level terrorists, but those who we suspect (like KSM and Abu Zubaydah) to have operational knowledge of a number of plots. These men, picked up primarily on foreign battlefields and representing no government and wearing no uniform, are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They do not require tribunals: this is war, not law enforcement. We, in using such techniques as waterboarding are not attempting to coerce confessions, determine guilt or innocence, or mete out punishment. We are simply gathering intelligence to foil future attacks. This was both legally and morally justifiable. It is now, due to irresponsible public pressure from the likes of the NY Times, John McCain, and now you, no longer an effective technique and is no longer used. Nice going.
For the third time, I never said an imminent attack was foiled by waterboarding - only that John McCain would prohibit this technique even to prevent one. In this way, his warped and self-righteous conscience remains clean while thousands die.
Former CIA agent John Kiriakou has said to ABC News that waterboarding (which he calls torture, incidentally) broke Abu Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds and disrupted "a number of attacks, maybe dozens." http://WWW.TheHill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-13.html.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 12, 2008
Ray, I mis-typed the link above. Try this: http://www.thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 12, 2008
Mr. Osonitsch:
I've produced cites noting that the majority of the prisoners held were not picked up on foreign battlefields - do you have cites for your allegation of the direct opposite?
Even for those that actually were, a tribunal is necessary by the terms of the Geneva Convention to make "coercive techniques" - and just saying they're not torture doesn't automatically make it so - 'legal' as well as moral, and everyone's in agreement that that little codicil was not followed. Yes, this is war - though we're not really prosecuting it that way (why aren't we on a war footing at home?) - but there's a difference between combat and war. The Geneva Convention is for when you're at war but not in combat.
If the current administration had demonstrated that it actually believed in the rule of law - that the rules actually applied to them - I might be willing to cut them more slack. Haven't seen much evidence so far.
The FISA court, for example, allows retroactive permission for wiretaps up to 72 hours after they've been done, and has approved all but six out of tens of thousands of requests. And they couldn't even be arsed to do that.
And yes, preventing terrorist attacks is important, but minimizing the damage if and when they happen is at least as important and isn't really being paid attention to. You can't stop all of them.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 12, 2008
According to NBC News, "the most controversial of the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' including waterboarding, were used only on three detainees." These men are ID'd as KSM and Abu Zubaydah, (as I've already mentioned) and Hambali.
These men ran al-queda's training camps, planned the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings respectively. They are the only ones to have been interrogated by waterboarding, by which "several, maybe dozens of attacks" have been thwarted.
If you and John McCain had your way, these three animals would have stayed dry as untold thousands of innocents were slaughtered and maimed. Who occupies the moral high ground here?
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 13, 2008
I meant to link to the story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20752717/
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 13, 2008
No, to belabor my point yet again, Mr. Osonitsch, if I'd had my way, these 'animals' would have had a hearing in front of a competent tribunal before being subjected to any such techniques, and those 'techniques' would be clearly reserved only for people who had been found, by such a tribunal, to be outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Even then, there's a lot of controversy within the intelligence community about how effective 'enhanced coercion' actually is in real life. We don't know any details about the 'foiled plots' - were they even active plots, or things that people had talked about maybe doing, or even notions the 'subjects' made up on the spot to end the 'coercion'? It's human nature to overstate things when on the defensive.
I am also unconvinced that their application has been as limited as the article suggests. A healthy skepticism of government claims seems common on this site… until it comes to 'national defense', in which case agencies which have been caught in lies in the past are incomprehensibly given total confidence. But even granting that the off-the-record statements are accurate, no one has disputed that Article 5 was simply not being followed.
Again, the fact that quite a few detainees have died in custody… of the ones we know about… and their known causes of death, which I've describe above, doesn't exactly inspire my confidence.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2008
We'll have to agree to disagree on waterboarding it would seem. Because of a host of other issues, however (immigration, taxes, enviornment, campaign financing, etc.) I still feel that John McCain is not the best option for conservatives in 2008.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 13, 2008