Once again, the Left's echo chamber is on the stump to cut the war on terror and to sue telecoms; I can only offer these thoughts for consideration on said topics. 

 

President Bush has an easily justifiable reason for staying the Mid-East course: not all, but an element throughout the Arab world seems ensconced in a mentality such that they constantly use real and bluffed knives to the throats of each other and of the world at-large, seeming dependent on such element's sole militant bent that the way someone fails to use oil or share its profits is all it takes to get hit or threatened...gee, I wonder why some, part of or by circumstance in craven admiration of, such element wouldn't want the USA or anyone else so much as policing the area, since that alone makes it harder to bluff or come into real possession of real death-delivering capability or massings.
 
But fine...toss out all Mid-East money toute-suite! While many subfederals presently balk on accountability from SCHIP funds to infrastructure and blame Bush for needing mass housing of all foreign born folks more to pacify them than provide say jobs or otherwise notice those already here as nationals or legal residents, some subfederal non-Conservatives will be forthright in their intentions of what Iraq money should be used for in lieu of troops.
 
At http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-08-muslims_N.htm, there now appears a story re the Los Angeles Democrat Mayor wanting the LAPD to both cast an air of criminality over all Muslims there, while concurrently saying that if any are upset or open to recruitment by say bin Laden, then what you do is give them a house or otherwise bring them into the New Urban ways immediately...i.e., give candy to everyone who says they'll go jihad otherwise, and by all means invite as many more such folks as we can. Paragraph seven of the said link currently says verbatim: "If a community is isolated, it may be determined that it is susceptible to extremist ideology, Downing said. In such cases, he said, police could then go into those communities and try to head off potential problems by offering people access to government and social services."

Sounds like all along Democrats HAVE been saying Qaeda is justified in attacking troops and anyone in their diplomatic corner, Arab or not, and that Democrats will not only pay jihadists to hit our troops and Arab citizens et al abroad, they'll enforce extremist oil policies against the world AND help quarter their hitmen (oh gosh, that's not really a Democrat plan to win world respect, is it?).  

 

MoveOn says that if telecoms complied with parts of USA PATRIOT (written in part even by Senator Kerry) prior to Court rulings, and even though MoveOn supports H.R. 1955 which gives that same and way more power to Dems at local levels, Durbin et al should not indemnify telecoms to the point in time any alleged cooperation was in accordance with then applicable law (and even if say Dem Blago in Illinois or Daley in Chicago, via DHS chain power also got it); well, I can't tell someone as lofty as any Senator how to vote, but I would enjoy campaigning for Conservatives in 2008 if I could say Dems et al listened to MoveOn, make laws they want you sued and destroyed for obeying (and if you don't while in effect), and think drawing troops out of the Mid-East, ala Los Angeles Dem Mayor providing mass housing/social services to Muslims abroad showing jihad bent, and giving jobs/training/living expenses/ID for all jihadists and illegal immigrants even if felons abroad...without notation of their illegal presence...is the best way to promote life for all nationals and legal USA immigrants, even if again non-Conservatives first have to write laws that enable them to immobilize you socially then threaten to hurt those who did their work for them later. Anyway, a case could be made for that as somebody's agenda, especially where no abuse of ANYONE due to Bush DHS has been shown, and I suppose Senators voting MoveOn's way on this one will leave their party open to campaign questions at least re why would anyone want to sue people who did what they were compelled to under penalty of law. I support the opinion of President Bush on this matter, especially where it may be that some want to silence say subfederal Dems abusing privileges for their own purposes as they only claim Bush MIGHT have done...at this point, maybe all that claptrap of who might have done infinitely what re past manifest joyriding can be put to bed, water under the bridge, and we can all move forward
 
Wherefore, I continue to support President Bush re the whole war on terror, as having no troops in the Mid-East NOR the USA (see BRAC) and bringing in all Muslims who share bin Laden's fundamentalism, bin Ladenism being the AUMF enemy of the United States Of America...well, I have no sovereign immunity/police tactics to hide behind, and I respectfully submit that were I to endorse the bringing in and capitulating to operatives of al-Qaeda inter alia...group(s) the enemy of many people including peace-seeking Muslims...as a private USA national I would be left open to charge of treason against the United States Of America, and crimes abetting the martial enemy thereof and of USA allies...not to mention being put on other nation's watch lists for welcoming and coddling jihadists.