Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Resigns

andyring writes "In a move that will undoubtedly make many /. readers jump for joy (although perhaps not myself), Attorney General John Ashcroft announced he will resign, according to multiple news sources. While many here dislike him, others have more favorable opinions of him. He became the point man on the USA Patriot Act, which typically ignites harsh opinions on both sides of the aisle." Reader cnsc1rtr , referring to the AP's version of the story, writes "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'"

1,275 comments

  1. SAFE! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Funny

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    That is the BEST NEWS EVER! How come he didn't tell us about this before?

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:SAFE! by siliconjunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK. Here's the article. The statement in question occurs in paragraph three. Please explain how was it taken "out of context"?

    2. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How come he didn't tell us about this before?
      Because the election was November 2.
    3. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, they left out the first bit:
      "With my resignation the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

    4. Re:SAFE! by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hooray! Mission accomplished!

    5. Re:SAFE! by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

      This is and example of one thing the Bush administration understands, how to kill discussions. The trick is to say something so outlandish and WRONG that everyone who pays attention will know as wrong and the discussion dies there, while at the the same time, the less observant get the desired impression. The fun part is, if you have a valid argument that is even remotely related (rational or emotional level) against the individual, a lot of people will dismiss you without hearing you thinking 1. you are on the same level as them (that's just how politicians are) or 2. you're a conspiracy nut. (he's just reading too much into this political nonsense).

      Really impressive use of the media if you ask me. If you say enough factually wrong soundbites, people will dismis you AND the people who are after you. Those who don't dismis you will think you are amazing.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    6. Re:SAFE! by rbochan · · Score: 1

      How come he didn't tell us about this before?

      Because he was too busy on a nationwide tour promoting the USA PATRIOT Act - on the taxpayers' dime, of course.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    7. Re:SAFE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can now find another crypto-fascist, southern-baptist-taliban to keep eating the turds straight out of your ass!
      Signed, J.A.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:SAFE! by nizo · · Score: 1
      I think they were talking about the "Mission Accomplished" comment.

      BTW, Re: the statute behind him in the picture, I thought they had covered that statue up already?

    9. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of the liberal bias of the editors. It's ridiculous.

      Do you mean literate? I mean, the article is one click away; you can, as I did, verify that the sentence appears to be quoted in context, for all reasonable interpretations.

      Editors could post the sentences before and after in the synopsis, but that would sap the limited attention span of readers.

    10. Re:SAFE! by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Without Ashcroft around, who will there be to dilligently protect a woman's right to give birth? Or to protect a terminally-ill patient's right to keep living? Or an atheist student's right to participate in school-sponsored prayer? Or a muslim's right to be given a surprise trip to a tropical carribean island? Or even a pipe maker's right to have a long-term vacation to Huntsville?

      I fear for this country without Ashcroft around. Let the eagle soar, John. Let it soar.

      P.S.: If you need someone to annoint you with cooking oil for your next job, just give me a call. I've got a bottle of Wesson in the cabinet.

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    11. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahaha.

    12. Re:SAFE! by g3head · · Score: 5, Funny
      'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

      That is the BEST NEWS EVER! How come he didn't tell us about this before?

      well, he's just now resigning....

    13. Re:SAFE! by Caiwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AWESOME.

      So, can I have my rights back, now?

    14. Re:SAFE! by ajakk · · Score: 0

      The point was that the sentance could have been taken out of context from the five page letter that Ashcroft sent, not from the AP article that only cites the one sentance. Please show me the context in the letter where it appears.

    15. Re:SAFE! by The_Rook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not to be a killjoy, but has it occurred to anyone that ashcroft is resigning as attorney general so as to prepare himself for a nomination to the supreme court?

      --
      when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    16. Re:SAFE! by BrynM · · Score: 4, Funny
      BTW, Re: the statute behind him in the picture, I thought they had covered that statue up already?
      Nipple(s) are OK if you are and two of these:
      • Made of Stone
      • Made of Bronze
      • Made of Plaster
      • Standing behind a Bush Cabinet Member
      • The verdict is still pending for made of Silicone
      Being made of flesh and showing nipple(s) is strictly forbidden! Think of the children! No! Don't think of their nipples you perv! Think of their small impressionable minds! Without taboo they would be heathens.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    17. Re:SAFE! by Enahs · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't say that if you knew how much they had charged for, say, photos of this event. ;-D

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    18. Re:SAFE! by siliconjunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

      From Ashcroft's letter: The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons.

    19. Re:SAFE! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Rei + Wesson cooking oil + John Ashcroft = HOT!

      Let me know when the pay-per-view is happening. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    20. Re:SAFE! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2
      Ruuuuuummmmmmbbbbbbbbblllllleeee.........

      You are.

      A killjoy.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    21. Re:SAFE! by NaDrew · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you say enough factually wrong soundbites, people will dismis you AND the people who are after you. Those who don't dismis you will think you are amazing.
      It's called The Big Lie and it's a technique with quite a lot of history.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    22. Re:SAFE! by peawee03 · · Score: 3, Funny

      *choke*

      Wow. Every joy I had about this just left my body. I will now choke on my own tongue, thankyouverymuch

      --
      I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
    23. Re:SAFE! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "P.S.: If you need someone to annoint you with cooking oil for your next job, just give me a call. I've got a bottle of Wesson in the cabinet."

      Hey with a little notice, I think I can dig up a few barrels of oil and a lighter. Heck, I will even splurge on the "good" stuff.

      Much more impressive :)

    24. Re:SAFE! by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 3, Insightful
      'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

      That is the BEST NEWS EVER! How come he didn't tell us about this before?

      For the election we were supposed to be in fear of terror. There is no way Bush could get elected unless we were in fear.

      Now that the election is over, we do not have to be in fear any more.

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    25. Re:SAFE! by jemenake · · Score: 1
      The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'
      That is the BEST NEWS EVER! How come he didn't tell us about this before?
      Because they were hoping to save the surprise until the "Mission Accomplished" banner was flown in from the aircraft carrier.
    26. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone else notice the boob is back in plain view at the Justice department?

    27. Re:SAFE! by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, his replacement will certainly be even worse (if that's possible).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    28. Re:SAFE! by mefus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons.

      So he wants to sit on the Bench with the other SCOTUSes and burn heretics?

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    29. Re:SAFE! by crummynz · · Score: 1

      I think there's a bit on the end, too.

      "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved through prayer."

      --
      ~ Crummy
    30. Re:SAFE! by LilGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I heard about this from a couple of other sites. I was surprised it wasn't mentioned in the article.

      What else would you think he meant by saying he wanted to open himself up for new challenging areas?

      I thought it was awful that he was the Attourney General.. but I can't hardly fathom him as an SPJ. The country is no longer going to hell in a handbasket.. oh no, its going on a silver platter.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    31. Re:SAFE! by ashot · · Score: 0

      why is this insightful? That was the joke..

      --
      -ashot
    32. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Damnit, now who's going to clean up all this vomit? My keyboard is ruined!

    33. Re:SAFE! by kfg · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or even a pipe maker's right to have a long-term vacation to Huntsville?

      Screw Kevin Mitnick. Nothing against the man, per se, but he actually did shit that was a Bad Thing.

      Free Tommy Chong.

      KFG

    34. Re:SAFE! by Digitus1337 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that you'd have any trouble finding somebody to bring the complementing Smith oil.

    35. Re:SAFE! by dameron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the same thing as with "intelligent design." This administration will say -anything-, even the most blatant lie (like Ashcroft's victory lap quoted above), and use that as a position to -start- the "debate". Suddenly the "truth" has quotations around it and the lie get's equal play.

      It's not even a strawman, it's literally the fucking Chewbacca defense.

      That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.

      -dameron

    36. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Dude, if that isn't being a killjoy, I don't know what is. Let's only pray that he would not get confirmed.


      But his resignation is a problem. Now, how will I know the current threat level?

    37. Re:SAFE! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

      Say, John, you ever catch that person(s) who were mailing ANTHRAX all over the country? You know, ANTHRAX, that EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS disease?

      Anything at all?

      So, they could be roaming about right now, planning their next, even bigger anthrax attack?

      Right.

      Stupid fucktard.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    38. Re:SAFE! by demachina · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lets not forget that Ashcroft is the one that was telling his deputies to shut up every time they brought up a possible terrorism threat prior to 9/11. Ashcroft is the one that was seeking to slash counterterrorism funding in the DOJ prior to 9/11.

      In the country we call what he did for America "closing the barn door" after the horses are already running down the road.

      --
      @de_machina
    39. Re:SAFE! by zaphod123 · · Score: 1

      Kinda like "I did not inhale"..? :)

      Has there been a politician in the last 100 years who has not used this tactic?

      --
      :q!
    40. Re:SAFE! by Dick+Faze · · Score: 1, Insightful
      That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.

      Maybe that and things like electronic voting machines recording 4000 votes for W in a district with 600 registered voters in Ohio of all places. Amazing coincidence out of all 50 states that it should turn up there....

    41. Re:SAFE! by spazimodo · · Score: 3, Funny

      the other day after bush made his bogus comments about wanting to heal the country, one of the commentators on NPR made a pretty funny comment.

      as bush: "the first act of my second term is to nominate john ashcroft to the supreme court; now let the healing begin!"

      --

      Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
      Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
    42. Re:SAFE! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I think it means he's quitting while he's ahead. He knows perfectly well that there will be another major attack of some kind on American soil, knows that it can't be prevented no matter how many tax dollars are diverted to the OHS, and doesn't want to be the fall guy when it happens. Matter of fact, that worries me a little. He knows a lot of things that we don't but should.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    43. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Please explain how was it taken "out of context"?'

      And you link to...a press article with partial quote?! BRILLIANT!

      Gee, why NOT the text in its entirety? Because it's not up yet unencumbered from what I can see. Probably will be soon. At the very least, find something with the preceding sentences around the statement in question. THAT is at the very minimum context. Until then (and to note, at this time, I've only found one link to the text, subscription/registration only--in a red state newspaper, where are the esteemed blue state rags?), I will reserve *my* judgment as to what was written and what he was trying to communicate.

      I should also point out that context generally includes the reason surrounding the letter itself. A resignation note should not be taken as a declaration *of the administration* (like many have exclaimed) and most likely references the objectives he felt he met during his/Ashcroft's time of appointment, not a point blank statement.

    44. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So he wants to sit on the Bench with the other SCOTUSes and burn heretics?"

      Yes. Wouldn't you?

    45. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the link/article you reference is just that. It has a partial quote. In fact, that statement was ripped out from the middle of a paragraph. If you include the preceding sentence, he's talking about his record and how he feels such an objective was met.

      Not the smoothest way to say it, but also not the knee-jerk "holy *!@#, we won!?" serious sarcasm others have tried to purport either.

    46. Re:SAFE! by Moofie · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, Clinton was the master of the nuanced evasion. Bush and his handlers are the masters of doublethink.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    47. Re:SAFE! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      It is.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    48. Re:SAFE! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've heard it described that photographers will go through great contortions to get the boob in the frame with Ashcroft. Not that he didn't have that coming.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    49. Re:SAFE! by iocat · · Score: 1
      Well, that depends what your definitions of "are" are.

      For anyone to say that Clinton was anything but a liar is as ridiculous as saying the Bush team is always straight up with environmental facts.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    50. Re:SAFE! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If that's what you think I'm saying, you're nuts.

      Clinton was a liar.

      Bush is a liar.

      They lie very differently.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    51. Re:SAFE! by paganizer · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering how long it would be until someone pointed this out.
      To be optimistic, I think we have a little while; they have to get a scapegoat replacement in his place, and they will have to be there a little while before whatever they have scheduled happens.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    52. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean a lie? We're perfectly safe from terrorism. Bush authorized the 9/11 attacks. It was basically an inside job. There are so many holes in the story and the media refuses to ask questions. But we're not out of the woods yet, I suspect there will be another "terrorist" attack coming, maybe the next one will be the excuse to invade Iran?

      You know how many time zones there are in the Soviet Union?

      11

    53. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you and your friends are the people who are counting the votes... you're going to get elected.

    54. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, sadly that is the truth. Insightful is the correct mod.

    55. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Grandparent was accusing Slashdot editors of a "liberal bias", the AP article is what the post in question quoted. Hence, parent referred to AP article and questioned how a "liberal bias" on the part of the /. editors came into play.

      PLUS...even if you do reference the letter in it's entirety, there is still no "taking it out of context". Ashcroft made a stupid statement.

    56. Re:SAFE! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bush and his handlers are the masters of doublethink.

      Maybe his handlers are masters of doublethink, but Bush himself is master of nothink, and that's why his handlers picked him.

    57. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the smoothest way to say it, but also not the knee-jerk "holy *!@#, we won!?" serious sarcasm others have tried to purport either.

      Go find a dictionary and tell me what "objective has been achieved" means.

      Conservatives are the first to whine about "liberal bias" but then they defend stupid statements like "Mission Accomplished" and "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved" by saying that liberals are "taking it the wrong way". How is anyone supposed to take it any other way?

      The point is, is it WAS NOT taken out of context, it's just a plain stupid statement.

    58. Re:SAFE! by johnnyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see you are forgetting the fact that John Ashcroft fought for Muslim's right to wear clothing in keeping with their religion in schools.

    59. Re:SAFE! by DarkOx · · Score: 0, Troll

      Who will dilligently protect the Americans who would be murdered otherwise? Don't think unborn children are lives; then I guess a misscarriage would be a noneven in your family?

      Who will protect a terminally-ill patient who really wants to live out their remaining days from being pressered into giving them up by greedy relatives or physicians with a social agenda?

      Is it your suposition that Atheist students are so unsure of their quote faith that whitnessing others expressing this will shake it. Its it bad for someone born to an Atheist family to whitness others practing perhaps enjoinging their faith thus provinging opertunity to understand and perhaps decide personally if it might be for them?

      Even those in Camp X-ray are being given due process which since they are not citizens IMHO gives them no right to even that. The Constitution starts out "We the people of the United States ... secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our posterity" Yes its nice to give those rights to other and we should do that when we can but our founding document certainly does not demand it and instead says "secure to ourselves" I and most would take that to mean us first then everyone else.

      I don't even know where your going with that last one.

      We were lucky to have Ascroft, when you consider the stupid curpt bitch he replaced.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    60. Re:SAFE! by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 1

      The justic department isn't responsibile for investigating such crimes. That task belongs to the FBI.

      Not that I'm trying to take anything away from your "insightful" rant of course.

      --
      "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
    61. Re:SAFE! by dirty · · Score: 1

      "For anyone to say that [random US president] was anything but a liar..."

      Meh, I'm sure you get my point. Then again, lying about a joint, or who did what with which part of your anatomy is, imho, not really a matter worthy of public debate.

      --

      -matt
    62. Re:SAFE! by violently_ill · · Score: 1

      you just killed the hell out of my joy!

    63. Re:SAFE! by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      then I guess a misscarriage would be a noneven in your family?

      Well, with that same reasoning, how can you be sure it will be a life? At such an early stage you have absolutely no guarentee that it will survive. It could very easily have complications, especially if the parent wasnt happy having it (would have considered an abortion) and did foolish things while pregnant.

      so unsure of their quote faith that whitnessing others expressing this will shake it

      Not at all. Witnessing others express faith doesnt even come close to changint my mind, but its gonna piss me off if I am required to participate. The original poster was referring to school sponsored prayer, not kids praying in school which is not a problem.

      Its it bad for someone born to an Atheist family to whitness others practing perhaps enjoinging their faith thus provinging opertunity to understand and perhaps decide personally if it might be for them?

      Is it bad for someone born into a christian family to NOT witness atheism because everyone at school is required to participate in the same prayer? Is it bad for someone to be raised from birth with such an ideological faith that they don't believe dinosaurs existed? (I have known several people from different families like this but it seems a little extreme) Is it bad for a administrators with a religious agenda to restrict legitimate sex education on anything besides abstinance to a student body where a majority of them WILL NOT remain abstinate until marriage?

      he Constitution starts out "We the people of the United States"

      Correct you are. It says "people." It does not say "citizens" or "property owners" or "white males" all of which would have been probable at the time. People applies to everyone.

      Oh, and you left out some important parts of the preamble. After you end your quote, it goes "do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america." Combine that with the stuff you cut from the middle of the preamble, and it reads more like "We [the current powerholders] are creating this constitution to establish justice, promote the general welfare, etc. for all people in the united states" not "We are the leaders who get to write this document so we are going to make sure it favors us..."

      --
      Bottles.
    64. Re:SAFE! by catalina · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyone else notice the boob is back in plain view at the Justice department?

      The one in the foreground, or the other one?

    65. Re:SAFE! by ottothecow · · Score: 3, Interesting
      filibuster.

      There are people in the senate who, if the have to, will take turns ceding the floor to each other for 8 hours at a time until someone else gets nominated.

      Ashcroft will not sit on the supreme court (besides...he is clearly biased and has predetermined verdicts on many possible cases) as long as there is somone reasonable on the floor or the senate.

      --
      Bottles.
    66. Re:SAFE! by Valegor · · Score: 0, Troll

      AWESOME.

      So, can I have my rights back, now?


      Sure, if you can name one right that has been taken away from YOU.

    67. Re:SAFE! by spike+hay · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I repeat the grandparent, "Why didn't he tell us about this before?"

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    68. Re:SAFE! by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh and whatever happened to that investigation of the leaking of a CIA agent's name.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    69. Re:SAFE! by hedgefrog · · Score: 2, Informative

      The justic department isn't responsibile for investigating such crimes. That task belongs to the FBI. Which is parth of.... wait for it, the Justice Department
      Not that I'm trying to take anything away from your inciteful rebuttal.

      --

      I lost my copy of the green golf ball joke can anyone find it for me?
    70. Re:SAFE! by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know I should not feed trolls but....

      Who will dilligently protect the Americans who would be murdered otherwise? Don't think unborn children are lives; then I guess a misscarriage would be a noneven in your family?

      Given the realities of abortion in the US before Roe v. Wade, I don't think that it is any question that it is a good thing. But everyone should be happy because abortions are actually declining in the US.

      Who will protect a terminally-ill patient who really wants to live out their remaining days from being pressered into giving them up by greedy relatives or physicians with a social agenda?

      What about those with sound mind who plainly claim that they don't want to suffer any longer? Are you requiring their lives to be prolonged?



      Is it your suposition that Atheist students are so unsure of their quote faith that whitnessing others expressing this will shake it. Its it bad for someone born to an Atheist family to whitness others practing perhaps enjoinging their faith thus provinging opertunity to understand and perhaps decide personally if it might be for them?


      The issue isn't whether it is so horrible that an atheist might :gasp: observe someone's religious practices, but whether the state should be endorsing them. In a school setting, there is just too much pressure to participate. I also believe that schools should teach the "prevailing scientific view of the day" and to Hel with everyone's religious objections. Schools are here to teach people how to reason, not to be an accessory to the church.

      Look, I don't know if you actually believe what you are saying, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you seem to be arguing from the premise that everything should be organized around religeous principles. The only religion whose scripture teaches this is Islam, and this is only because Islam is the most pure (and extreme) form of monotheism. Indeed the idea that one can describe in any way the will of God perhaps leads one to this premise. And if you do this, then the clergy are the ones who are really in power (look at the role of the democratic institutions in Iran, for example).

      No thank you. I don't want to live in a theocracy, and this is one of the great things about Western society-- we inherited from our pagan ancestors a healthy separation of church and state. While the complex cosmology which was the foundation for this is now gone, we have retained the institutions.

      Abortion should be protected because it is good governance to do so. Evolution should be taught because it undermines the mission of our schools not to. School prayer should be banned in the interests of a more inclusive society. Marijuana should be legalized because it is good governance to do so. Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die in conditions of their own choosing, even if this is with the assistance of another, and simply because it is in the interest of the dignity of our people.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    71. Re:SAFE! by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      This quote is a lot like Bush's "Mission Accomplish" photo op....I likely about as accurate.

      The sad thing is that Osama has told us the game he is playing and we play right along. He has no dillusions that he will destroy us. His objective is to induce us to destroy ourselves. In a nutshell if we turn into a police state and spend a crippling amount of our GDP defending against the next "BOOO!!!" (9/11 was serious business and I don't mean to understate the horror of that event, but think of how disruptive every video tape and code magenta alert is).

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    72. Re:SAFE! by EightMillion · · Score: 1

      You can now find another crypto-fascist, southern-baptist-taliban to keep eating the turds straight out of your ass! Signed, J.A.

      I guess Ashcroft got himself some Solid Gold S.E.P.

    73. Re:SAFE! by pamri · · Score: 1

      Whitehouse.org has done a great interview (parody) job here.

    74. Re:SAFE! by Alexei · · Score: 1

      That's a different kind of lie, called a white lie, which is inconsequential in subject and is told to avoid unpleasantness (such as a multimillion dollar congressional inquiry).

    75. Re:SAFE! by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Then again, lying about a joint, or who did what with which part of your anatomy is, imho, not really a matter worthy of public debate.

      Maybe not. But once it becomes part of public debate it is entirely illegal to lie about it in court.

      I think we can all agree that virtually all politicians lie about something sometime. You are certainly deceiving yourself if you really believe those Clinton lies were Clinton's only or most serious lies. They just happened to be the ones he was stupid enough to utter under oath.

    76. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're reminding me of an article I read recently:
      Every president deceives. But each has his own style of deceit. Ronald Reagan was a master of baseless stories -- trees cause more pollution than cars -- that captured his vision of how the world should be. George H.W. Bush, generally conceded to be a decent fellow, tended to lie only in two circumstances: When running for president, or to save his own skin, as in Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton famously lied about embarrassing details of his private life, and his smooth, slippery rhetorical style made some people suspect he was lying even when he was telling the truth.

      ...

      Read the rest here.

    77. Re:SAFE! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I wish I would have read your post before the stock market closed. There is going to be a spike in clean underwear sales and I'm not going to a dime in that market. :(

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    78. Re:SAFE! by lewi · · Score: 1

      Er, um, since we are now safe from terror, is the war on terror over and I didn't see the headline?

    79. Re:SAFE! by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 3, Funny

      So he's a shoe-in then?

    80. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Or maybe -1 revolting.

    81. Re:SAFE! by lewi · · Score: 1

      Aiiee!!! Whew it was just a dream...

    82. Re:SAFE! by uradu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the Nazis championed animal rights. Yet somehow they don't seem to be much remembered for that.

    83. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm... he never lied under oath. If you read the complete transcript of the case, you'll note that prior to making his infamous statement he requested an explicit definition of 'sex' from the judge, who stated that it meant sexual intercourse. Getting a blowjob is not sexual intercourse.

      Clinton didn't lie under oath, he was asked the wrong question(s).

    84. Re:SAFE! by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      :)

      yeah...I cant vouch for any senetors...I could, but then Wellstone's plane crashed :(. I can vouch for a good congressman though...but he isnt allowed to filibuster

      --
      Bottles.
    85. Re:SAFE! by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1
      "the first act of my second term is to nominate john ashcroft to the supreme court; now let the healing begin!"

      OMG! Don't say that! Might be TRUE...

      --
      "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
    86. Re:SAFE! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think the judge should have told him "Bend over and I'll show ya, Billy boy."

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    87. Re:SAFE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Goes with the shroud he stuck on Justice's tits.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    88. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need someone to annoint you with cooking oil for your next job, just give me a call. I've got a bottle of Wesson in the cabinet.
      I guess tolerance doesnt apply to everyone.

      Its ok to hate him for wanting to push his views on everyone and being intolerant though.

    89. Re:SAFE! by cmaley · · Score: 1
      Bush and his handlers are the masters of doublethink.

      There is quite an insightful essay in the British magazine Prospect discussing how many of the things Orwell was worried about in 1984 resonate in today's U.S.

      - sigless in Seattle

      --
      - living sig-free and proud
    90. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am about ready to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights now. Herr Asscroft on the Supreme Court guarantees it!

      Freedom comes in boxes:
      Jury, Ballot & Ammo.

      Looks like we're down to that last box, folks...

      Mal the Elder

      Hey, what's that at the door?
      Dunno, but they got brown shirts and armbands with funny crosses...oh, fu...

    91. Re:SAFE! by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget the rights of folks on federal death row to be executed in Puerto Rico, where it's against their constitution.

    92. Re:SAFE! by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "What else would you think he meant by saying he wanted to open himself up for new challenging areas?"

      The same thing every politician means when he or she says that: private enterprise. As members of Congress keep grousing about every time they (unconstitutionally, IMO) pass yet another "cost of living" adjustment to their own paychecks, the private sector pays better.

    93. Re:SAFE! by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right to counsel. Right to trial. Right to confront witnesses against me. Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Protection against unwarranted searches.

    94. Re:SAFE! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Yes, very. Ascroft was at least incompetent. Bush also has several investagations pointed directly at him that have apparently borne fruit. Ascroft wasn't able to kill them off, so we can expect a real hatchetman.

    95. Re:SAFE! by feidaykin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sure, if you can name one right that has been taken away from YOU.

      How about the right to know if the government has peaked at my medical records, or noticed what books I've checked out at the library? Now, I can't prove they have, but no one can prove they have not since I simply don't have the right to know. I would like that right, and I would like the right to not have to think "Anything I check out here can be used against me" while I browse for books.

      If the US government wants freedom to be "on the march" shouldn't we, as an example to the nations we wish to make free, be steadfast in preserving our own rights and freedoms? While the death of 4,000 on 9/11 was of course a tragedy and measures need to be taken to make us safer, is sacrificing freedom worth it? About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, yet we don't have a "war on cars" that I am aware of, and I'm pretty sure in every state you can drive before you are legally an adult.

      Americans are still very emotional about 9/11, and will likely remain that way for years to come, just as it was with Pearl Harbor. However we can learn from history, and I tend to believe that perhaps half a century from now the PATRIOT Act will be viewed almost as negatively as the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor is viewed today.

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    96. Re:SAFE! by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Well, if they are shooting him they always get at least one boob.

      ~S

    97. Re:SAFE! by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      it is entirely illegal to lie about it in court.

      Technically (which is what counts in court) he didn't lie. He asked beforehand what the phrase "sexual relations" was defined as, got the answer that it specifically meant intercourse and proceeded to tell the narrowly defined truth: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". He omitted "She did suck my dick once and I did push a cigar up her pussy which I then proceeded to smoke with great pleasure, but y'all didn't ask about that, now did'ya?".

      Then again, it's more serious if the President almost lies about if he got a blowjob or not than if he lies to invade a sovereign nation, killing 100,000 ragheads and a few thousand GI Joes in the process.

      They just happened to be the ones he was stupid enough to utter under oath.

      Clinton is many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He's like a combination of Nixon's slickness, JFK's libido and the fiscal sense of FDR. Bush OTOH has Nixon's malice, no libido, no fiscal sense and Quayle's brainpower.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    98. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the International War Crimes tribunal?

    99. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, he is going to be heading up the new Department of Jesus which should go nicely with the inquisition, I mean war on terror.

      I heard from his cousin (who's in my church choir) that after we finally get a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, their going to push for a constitutional ban on divorce, adultry, fornication, and even necking and petting!

      I can't wait!

    100. Re:SAFE! by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

      Now that the election is over, we do not have to be in fear any more.

      Oh, I don't know about you, but I think my four years of terror has just started :)

    101. Re:SAFE! by Young+Master+Ploppy · · Score: 1
      'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

      Really? Cool! In that case, can we have our civil rights back now please?

      /me holds breath...

      --
      http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
    102. Re:SAFE! by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've heard it described that photographers will go through great contortions to get the boob in the frame with Ashcroft.

      I don't get it. Why do photographers want to get pictures of Bush and Ashcroft together?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    103. Re:SAFE! by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      While he would have been on the wrong side for this one I nevertheless want to remember of Strom Thurmond's 24 hour 18 min filibuster in 1957. This whole rule allowing filibusters is as crazy as it is cool =)

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    104. Re:SAFE! by Thecarpe · · Score: 1

      Show me...offend me...do your worst!

    105. Re:SAFE! by MartinB · · Score: 3, Insightful
      this is one of the great things about Western society-- we inherited from our pagan ancestors a healthy separation of church and state.

      *cough*EnlightenmentPhilosophersNotPagans*cough*.

      You lot took it, along with much of the rest of the founding principles, from the French, specifically Voltaire and Montesquieu. Those gentlemen were informed in turn by Paine, Hume and Locke, none of whom could be called pagans in the sense of a pre-christian heritage.

      In the 17th and 18th Centuries, a secular state was a novel, radical concept, not some underlying thought from over a thousand years before (ie the time before Christianity became a state-sponsored religion). And even before that, state religions were standard practise, if only to deify the king/emperor.

      --

      The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's

    106. Re:SAFE! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. But once it becomes part of public debate it is entirely illegal to lie about it in court.

      No it isn't. You can get up on the stand and lie your ass off. It isn't perjury until you lie about something material to the case. Personally, I think he should have refused to answer, but I'm comfortable with his honorable not quite lie.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    107. Re:SAFE! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1


      Humor! Ar ar ar ar!
      </Mork>

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    108. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure I can.

      My right to ask for information that is in the public domain.

      I was told by the FBI agents and Federal Marshall that came to my door that while "Yes, you're completely right that the county clerks office is required to give you copies of various maps if you request and pay the copy fee, but the PATRIOT Act makes it illegal for you to ASK for them."

      Now, last time I checked, that was a violation of Free Speech. To say I can't ASK for something is the wrong way to go about things if you're worried about the "wrong" people to get this kind of information. (Maps of zoning, municipal buildings, etc)

      The reason I got maps at the County office: I was recreating my home town in SimCity2000.

    109. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he did. After all, if they didn't wear their traditional clothing, how would they all be found and rounded up whenever there was a threat to the nation?

    110. Re:SAFE! by Valegor · · Score: 0, Troll

      Right to counsel. Right to trial. Right to confront witnesses against me. Protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Protection against unwarranted searches.

      How that got modded insightful I will never know. Again I asked what rights YOU have lost. I'm better you personally have not been affected at all by anything Ashcroft has done. As for the unwarranted searches, they still have to have approval by a judge before they can do any kind o search. It may not be an actual warrant, but they still have to show a cause before any judge would approve it. Try reading the Patriot Act before just throwing out the standard propaganda against it.

      Right to confront witnesses against you? Since when has that been a right? I don't see that in the Bill of rights anywhere.

      Face it you have not been effected one bit by anything Ashcroft has done.

    111. Re:SAFE! by Papatoast · · Score: 0

      I thought Sgt. Schultz was the master of 'nothink'.

      I know nothink...nothink!

      --
      We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - HST
    112. Re:SAFE! by Valegor · · Score: 1

      Sure I can.
      My right to ask for information that is in the public domain.
      I was told by the FBI agents and Federal Marshall that came to my door that while "Yes, you're completely right that the county clerks office is required to give you copies of various maps if you request and pay the copy fee, but the PATRIOT Act makes it illegal for you to ASK for them."
      Now, last time I checked, that was a violation of Free Speech. To say I can't ASK for something is the wrong way to go about things if you're worried about the "wrong" people to get this kind of information. (Maps of zoning, municipal buildings, etc)
      The reason I got maps at the County office: I was recreating my home town in SimCity2000.


      There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says that you could not ask for maps. If someone has denied you maps based on the Patriot Act then they themselves have not read it. I doubt the truth in your example, but if it did happen to you, you were either talking to someone with no understanding of his job, or you were lied to plain and simple. This is not the Patriot Act effecting you, it is an employee not understanding thier job effecting you.

    113. Re:SAFE! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Shit, that's good, a perfect code name for the white house occupant.

    114. Re:SAFE! by Valegor · · Score: 1

      How about the right to know if the government has peaked at my medical records, or noticed what books I've checked out at the library? Now, I can't prove they have, but no one can prove they have not since I simply don't have the right to know. I would like that right, and I would like the right to not have to think "Anything I check out here can be used against me" while I browse for books.
      If the US government wants freedom to be "on the march" shouldn't we, as an example to the nations we wish to make free, be steadfast in preserving our own rights and freedoms? While the death of 4,000 on 9/11 was of course a tragedy and measures need to be taken to make us safer, is sacrificing freedom worth it? About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, yet we don't have a "war on cars" that I am aware of, and I'm pretty sure in every state you can drive before you are legally an adult.
      Americans are still very emotional about 9/11, and will likely remain that way for years to come, just as it was with Pearl Harbor. However we can learn from history, and I tend to believe that perhaps half a century from now the PATRIOT Act will be viewed almost as negatively as the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor is viewed today.


      You are safe in assuming that your records have not been looked at because that particular clause does require notification after use. Once again a reply getting modded insightful for just spewing retoric. Hasn't anyone here actually read the Patriot Act? It is not necessary, but it is also not nearly as bad as the media would have you beleive. Most of the abilities that are given were already there for certain other kinds of accused criminals, just not terrorists.

      I agree with your second paragraph. We should be steadfast in protecting our own freedoms, we should also be informed about what we are fighting for or against. Anyone who wants to complain that the Patriot Act violates thier freedoms needs to actually read it for themselves. All the Patriot act really does is give law enforcement the tools they need to investigated suspected terrorists. Many of these tools were already available for law enforcement, but not clealy defined. For example "delay notice search warrents" existed prior to the patriot act, but not there is a set way of obtaining them. Take a look at United States vs Dalia or United States vs Freitas for examples of this being used long before there was a patriot act. These tools are nothing new and have already stood the test of Constitutionality when used in non-terrorist investigations.

      If the media continues to publish the current factless propaganda on it you are probably right.

    115. Re:SAFE! by ultrasonik · · Score: 1

      That is the BEST NEWS EVER! How come he didn't tell us about this before? Because if people knew this a couple weeks ago it could have costed Bush the election.

    116. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, was that before or after the whole "raise-a-dog-from-a-puppy-then-shoot-it-to-test-yo ur-desensitization" thing they did for the soldiers?

    117. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron. Just because it has not happened to you directly doesn't mean it isn't a very bad thing. So abusing the rights of others is o.k. as long as it doesn't interfere with your day? How about if they come to your block and decide that your neighbor is an "evil doer" and lock him up without a trial? He then says hey the guy down the street is the one you really want so they lock him up. Who is going to stand up for you when you get wrongly accused?

      Right to a speedy and fair trial along with the right to confront your accusers in court is right there in the bill of rights. As is the right to protection against unwarranted searches and seizures.

      Damn, I fed the troll.

    118. Re:SAFE! by BigJimSlade · · Score: 1

      That is the BEST NEWS EVER!

      Is anybody else worried about him possibly being appointed as a Supreme Court justice? I haven't heard this mentioned in the news yet. Scares the crap out of me.

    119. Re:SAFE! by elhaf · · Score: 1

      Yes, and without Ashcroft having ever secured a single conviction on terrorism. How effective!

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    120. Re:SAFE! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Ok, then I'll be the Killjoy :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    121. Re:SAFE! by PeanutGallery · · Score: 1

      I sense much hatred in you, young Jedi.

      --
      -- Just another unsolicited opinion... from the Peanut Gallery.
    122. Re:SAFE! by pthisis · · Score: 1

      [Replying to 2 parent posts in one here because I'm lazy-grandparent in bold, parent in italics]

      we inherited from our pagan ancestors a healthy separation of church and state

      You could make a good case for "deist" here, but many pagan religions were absolute theocracies and there aren't any particularly strong pagan influences in this respect.

      Is it your suposition that Atheist students are so unsure of their quote faith that whitnessing others expressing this will shake it.

      No, but suppose that the school suggested everyone should worship Zeus, or had a student lead such a service? That is essentially what you're doing (not only to Atheists, but to those of other religions) by having school prayer.

      School prayer should be banned

      Replace that with "school-sponsored or sanctioned prayer". Individual students should be allowed to pray non-intrusively so long as the school isn't encouraging it (overtly or tacitly). And I have no problem with a moment of silence at the start of the day--our elementary school had one, and it did NOT feel like prayer was expected or encouraged (or discouraged) during it. I would be for restoring the pledge of allegiance to its original form.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    123. Re:SAFE! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      When I refer to our pagan ancestors, I am referring to our Greek, Germanic, Celtic, etc. ancestors. In these groups, theocracy as such was unknown. Rome had it, but it imported theocracy from Egypt.

      For a very interesting look at the concept of sovereignty and religion in traditional Indo-European cultures, I would highly suggest reading "Mitra and Varuna" and "Gods of the Ancient Northman" by Georges Dumezil. Don't read what others have to say about him, read his works for yourself.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    124. Re:SAFE! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that this whole concept of secular v. religious is something which we get from our Indo-European heritage. It was encoded in classical mythology, Norse and Celtic myths and legeds, and survived nominally in social institutions until being given new form by later groups (French, American, etc)

      If you look at it, there has always been a nominal separation of church and state in Europe with the exception of Rome after they imported theocracy from Egypt, and those areas controlled directly by her successor, the Catholic Church. The kings in Europe may have ruled by "divine right" but they were not religious figures themselves. It is true that religion played a strong role in politics in the Middle Ages and Renaisance, but to a large extent this was because the Catholic Church was still largely unchallenged as a moral and political leader (creating effectively a new Roman Empire).

      The pagan Indo-Europeans did have religious intererance in politics in the sense that some groups had organized priest/magician classes (Druids, Brahmans) which were entrusted with the order of the unseen and played an important role, and occassionally these became theocracies through decay of social order. In other cases (the Germanics and the Greeks, for example) the social structures of the secular leadership became stronger while the religious institutions began to fail. In some cases, this lead otherwise secular leaders to become de facto priests (as in Iceland) while in many other cases, it lead to very strong separations of church and state (look at the classical Greek city-states for example).

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    125. Re:SAFE! by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Americans are still very emotional about 9/11, and will likely remain that way for years to come,

      I wonder how many are like that because they think its expected? I, for one, feel very little emotional impact from that event. I still think we ought to do something to prevent it, but I'm sure not loosing any sleep over the loss of life.

      Maybe I'm just pragmatic about it. People die all the time, many in much more painful and tragic circumstances, and this has been happening to perfectly good humans for at least 50,000 years. Drop in the bucket.

      Of course, its also possible that I'm just a cold-hearted bastard with little empathy for my fellow man. I prefer to think of myself as rationally motivated.

    126. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to believe that perhaps half a century from now the PATRIOT Act will be viewed almost as negatively as the Japanese Internment after Pearl Harbor is viewed today.

      I tend to agree - and the fact that the more-or-less vague threat of the U SAP AT RIOT act has taken the place of mass internment, is an undeniable proof that we are making serious progress. Even Noam Chomsky admits that he can say things in bible-belt Kansas that he couldn't have gotten away with in Berkeley 30 years ago.

    127. Re:SAFE! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      By Chewbacca defense I assume you mean "he'll tear your arm off." That's argumentum ad baculum (argument by walking stick, i.e. threat of force). The big lie technique does not fit into that category.

      Ashcroft is a nut case; his statements should be discarded without further consideration.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    128. Re:SAFE! by freqres · · Score: 1

      Try the sixth amendment...

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    129. Re:SAFE! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Prayer in state (public) schools is government endorsement of a particular religion. For a youngster not a member of that particular religion, such prayer is a chilling reminder that he is opposed by the ruling clique.

      It's only been a couple of years since a man in Texas was jailed (!) for refusing to take a God-oath for jury duty.

      School prayer is obvious evidence of a threat to the life and liberty of atheists.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    130. Re:SAFE! by tbannist · · Score: 1

      "That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged."

      No it's a matter of subjective validation (only noticing what reinforces your current viewpoint), selective thinking (only accepting evidence that matches your current viewpoint) and communal reinforcement (grouping yourself only with people who agree with you).

      It's very easy to get wildly inaccurate world views through the combination of these three processes. Of course, conservatives are no less affected by these forces, and social conservatives are especially vulnerable to them, as they have a tendency to try to isolate themselves from "corrupting influences".

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    131. Re:SAFE! by superflippy · · Score: 1

      this whole concept of secular v. religious is something which we get from our Indo-European heritage

      Actually, religions all over the world have the concept of the "sacred" being separate from the "profane" or ordinary. For example, Native American rituals taking place in a lodge which is sacred space, as opposed to any ordinary building or somewhere outside. This separation of the sacred from the ordinary is something which is not only common to all religions I can think of, one could argue that it is what makes a religion.

      Recommended reading: "The Sacred and the Profane" by Mircea Eliade
      Dense, but interesting in parts

      (BTW, I saw your recommendations in the earlier post, and plan to check them out. Sounds interesting.)

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    132. Re:SAFE! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Ex-Fed-DA writes, "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved"?

      I guess there's no drug testing required to get to the oval office.

    133. Re:SAFE! by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      Nah, watch more South Park. The Chewbacca Defense is a defense whereby an unrelated fact is brought in, the inconsistency of that fact is brought up, and thereby innocense is proved. It's a distraction.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    134. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe its just a stock photo.

    135. Re:SAFE! by Valegor · · Score: 1

      Now how about a quote from the Patriot Act that takes away this right?

    136. Re:SAFE! by drew · · Score: 1

      That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.

      Actually, I would say that the opposite is true. The fact that so much of the electorate falls for a stunt like this so easily is what makes it plausible that Bush could win by such a margin without resorting to tampering with the electoral process itself. If the electorate as a whole showed signs of critical thinking and making decisions based on facts rather than soundbites, then I would think that the only way Bush could have won this election was through fraud. However, that is obviously not the case, and so far I see no reason to believe that Bush's victory was anything but legitimate.

      Yes, there are indications of irregularities, but there always will be, and I suspect there are irregularites in Kerry's favor as well (although I doubt we'll ever hear about those) And even if Bush had gotten enough fraudulent votes to swing a key state in his favor, I doubt that he could have created the 3 million odd margin in the popular vote through fraud. Not that popular vote means anything in our electoral system, but on the off chance it turns out that Kerry legitimately won the electoral vote, it will be amusing to see all the people who complained about gore getting 500,000 more popular votes but losing the electoral vote happily accept kerry as the winner of the electoral vote despite losing by 3,500,000 in the popular vote.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    137. Re:SAFE! by ghereheade · · Score: 1

      "Or an atheist student's right to participate in school-sponsored prayer? Or a muslim's right to be given a surprise trip to a tropical carribean island?" What about the Muslim student's right to participate in an official school-sponsored Christian prayer?

    138. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and notice that the statue behind him as a bare tit showing!

    139. Re:SAFE! by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      FYI, that investigation is still going strong. Last I heard, the suspects could get off because, as it turns out, they might not have had access to any classified information.

      In related news, the Senate Intelligence Committee found Joe Wilson to be a liar who uncovered nothing and used his wife to get him sent to Niger.

    140. Re:SAFE! by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Learn something every day. My bad.

      --
      "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
    141. Re:SAFE! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Huh? OF course they had access to classified information, they probably worked in the president's office.

      As for joe wilson I think you are lying. Not that it would surprise me that a republican controlled senate would try and smear him.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    142. Re:SAFE! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You and I don't have those rights anymore, since they can be denied by the administration at anytime without apparent recourse.

    143. Re:SAFE! by Valegor · · Score: 1

      Simply put, the original commenort asked for his rights back and I am pointing out that he has not lost any. The person who replied to me pointed out how he thought others had lost thiers. Regardless of the correctness of his statement, it was not an answer to the question posed. The original comment was not can these other people that are not me have thier rights back, it was can I have my rights back. I'm pretty sure it was an offhanded joke that represented how he felt, as was my comment. My comment was thus relevant to his, the reply to mine attempted to be but was slightly off subject, yours was completely irrelavent. If anyone has fed a troll, it was myself for repling to your obviously charged comment.

      I have also been trying to point out that most of the people who bash the Patriot act have not read it and do not really know the facts about what they are bashing. I have issues with it too, but it is not the huge affront to civil liberties that everyone seems to think it is. MOST of the powers granted by the Patriot act were already there, just not cleanly laid out on paper. It actually created more regulations on some of them than were previously available. There are valid reasons to hate it, and there are many that have read it and still feel very strongly against it. I seriously doubt most of the posters replying to this story have though based on their comments.

    144. Re:SAFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No it isn't. You can get up on the stand and lie your ass off. It isn't perjury until you lie about something material to the case.

      It was material to the case.

    145. Re:SAFE! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From my reading of the situation, the entire line of questioning was improper - the whole ken starr investigation was a giant fishing expedition (link). The only thing that Ken dug up was a sexual dalliance which, according to the definition provided by the judge, was not sex. Further, the grand jury is supposed to meet in secret, not release tapes to the public. Yes, it looks bad, but it's hard to look good when somebody spends $40M to smear you.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    146. Re:SAFE! by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      Your argument is meaningless. There are already thousands of people that HAVE had their rights violated; you seem to be saying that I shouldn't complain until they actually come to take ME away.

    147. Re:SAFE! by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      This may surprise you, but not every Tom, Dick, and Harry (and Monica?) who work "in the White House" have access to classified CIA information.

      Also, I'm not surprised that a hardline Bush-basher would smear the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.

    148. Re:SAFE! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Recommended reading: "The Sacred and the Profane" by Mircea Eliade
      Dense, but interesting in parts


      OK, I was not specific enough....

      Eliade is always an interesing read...

      What I was referring to is the concept among monotheistic religions to organize every aspect of society around religion. Read the Koran sometime (or Paul's Epistles, for that matter) and you will see what I mean. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenant make another interesting read regarding this general tendency, and it exists in virtually every society to date which is overtly monotheist as a culture (when people talk about Christian or Muslim culture, for example.... Jewish less so because there is a strong ethnic component).

      The Indo Europeans went so far as to have a mostly secular state figure (King) who did have ceremonial roles, but these were not in connection with the "sacred" as Eliade would say. Secularism as an organizing principle is therefore something that European culture got from it pagan rather than Christian heritage.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    149. Re:SAFE! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "This may surprise you, but not every Tom, Dick, and Harry (and Monica?) who work "in the White House" have access to classified CIA information."

      Everybody in there has a security clearance. Name the person and then we can talk.

      " bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee."

      Only a republitard would believe that commission was bipartisan. Only a republitard knows so little about how senate comitees work.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    150. Re:SAFE! by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

      Now that the election is over, we do not have to be in fear any more.

      I wouldn't be so sure of that.

      Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. -- Niccolo Machiavelli

      --
      I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
      If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
      Courage.
  2. Today Ashcroft by rbochan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tomorrow Cheney!

    oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please

    --
    ...Rob
    The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    1. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you're stuck with Cheney. :-)

    2. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you kidding?!? Cheney is Bush's life insurance! (Think about it...)

    3. Re:Today Ashcroft by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to be mean.... On one hand I want Bush to leave.

      On the other hand, I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation. Nothing against you, but if you wanted a president who has more involvement in Iraq than your own country, you mind as well turn in your U.S. citizenship. Before you mod me down to -100, I am just fighting for the U.S middle class.

    4. Re:Today Ashcroft by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      i'll miss the CRAB acronym! someone told me those letters stood for the order in which the USA was run :D

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    5. Re:Today Ashcroft by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Can we meet in four years and check how each other has fared?

      And just for the long term, can you provide your definition of "middle class"?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you enjoying your $100 a month tax cut? That's some serious cash man.

    7. Re:Today Ashcroft by rhakka · · Score: 1, Funny

      So says a fellow using the word "fag", showing exactly how seriously his opinion should be weighed.

      Go back to jesusland, redneck.

    8. Re:Today Ashcroft by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
      Tomorrow Cheney!

      The American Dream isn't an SUV and [...]

      You left out "yet" after "SUV"- Cheney still has work to do.

      See, Ashcroft wasn't hiding in those Secret Undisclosed Locations. That's why he got his shit done.

      (no, he didn't really- he's just trying to claim he did. The nation will NEVER be "secure", which is why we should be wasting time on all that shit anyway. Risk is the price you pay for freedom).

    9. Re:Today Ashcroft by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Bush tax cuts HELP the middle class, or are you so dumb you can't even read the IRS stats? To wish gloom and doom on your own country is just totally sick. You also take a VERY short-sighted view of things. A stable Iraq will be very helpful in the long run in the Middle East. What if we had just left Germany and France all alone after WWII like we did after WWI, we might be fighting THERE right now. Kids these days playing on the parents PC's and posting to /...Sheesh..

    10. Re:Today Ashcroft by UltraSkuzzi · · Score: 0, Troll

      You sound like the person who doesn't want to live here, why don't you move out. To Sealand or somewhere. I'll even buy you a ticket. :)

      --

      ~UltraSkuzzi
      This comment is liscensed by SCO.
    11. Re:Today Ashcroft by hey · · Score: 1

      Who is going to eventually pay of that huge debt...
      to be long sighted. Yup, the middle classs tax payers.

    12. Re:Today Ashcroft by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Aren't you enjoying your $100 a month tax cut? That's some serious cash man.

      Yes, and they go straight into paying for all the things that have gotten more expensive in the last few years.

      Unfortunately my health care costs have gone up more then $100 per month. Starting next year, my employeer and I will be paying over $12,000 combined for my health insurance (Two adults, one infant, middle tier coverage), just for medical, not including dental, glasses, life insurance, etc.

      And my insurance is actually cheaper then what many of my friends pay.

    13. Re:Today Ashcroft by deanj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Fighting for the US Middle class? Give me a break. You're trolling.

      Wishing financial destruction just because your guy lost? This from a party that supposed to have all this compassion for their fellow human beings? Give me a break. It's just partisan blah-blah-blah.

      And it's exactly that sort of thing that lost the Democrats the election, seats in the House, and in the Senate.

      If you really want to win, get the Democrats to come up with some ideas that will actually help the country. Not the crapola from the last election because that obviously didn't work. If you don't you'll still be see as running around like Chicken Little, and no one will listen.

    14. Re:Today Ashcroft by idiotnot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah, just like a socialist.....spread the misery equally.

      One of the reasons I voted for Bush is I knew that Ashcroft wouldn't be back. Janet Reno was pretty bad on civil liberties, too, and she wasn't fighting an international terror threat.

      John Kerry's senate record isn't sparkling when it comes to liberty, either.

      Whoever modded this interesting is a fool. But, as this election cycle has shown, there's lots of those around.

    15. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And The day after tomorrow Bush will sign Kyoto protocol!

    16. Re:Today Ashcroft by deanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So says a fellow using the words "Go back to jesusland, redneck", showing exactly how seriously his opinion should be weighed.

    17. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The meager tax cuts have been completely obliterated by higher oil prices and the crash of the US dollar vs the euro and gold.

    18. Re:Today Ashcroft by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Will you pay my first month's rent and all that too? If so I'll take you up on that offer, because I couldn't move otherwise.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    19. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just for the long term, can you provide your definition of "middle class"?

      If we're talking lifestyle:

      In the Midwest, $60,000 to $150,000 annual gross income. $150,000 to $250,000 would be "upper middle class". $250,000 to $1,000,000 would be "lower upper class". I say this because a "middle class lifestyle" should be supportable on a single income, and that income should be enough to house, clothe, raise, and send off to college two to three children. Like it was through the 50's and 60's.

      Now if we're talking actual gross income (look here for these numbers):

      $33,314 to $83,500 would be "middle class": 40th percentile to 80th percentile, covering 40% of the population. $83,501 to $150,498 could be "upper middle class", making anything over $150,499 "upper class".

      Do you feel middle class now?

      But according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Edward Prescott, if your household is making less than $200,000 annually, you must be pretty lazy since it's "easy" to do.

    20. Re:Today Ashcroft by gb506 · · Score: 1

      You're a perfect candidate for a health savings account. Stop dumping all that money down the rathole and start saving it.

    21. Re:Today Ashcroft by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What IRS stats do you refer to - Bahrain's? The middle class in America has been being soaked into the lower class. Don't believe me? Is the US Census Bureau good enough for you? Here's an article:

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty. ap /

      "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday."

      It was the third straight annual increase in a row under Bush. Just like during Reagan and Bush Sr., the wealthy have been doing very well, and the poor very poorly. And these numbers are actually worse than they sound, because many other expenses have been going up at the same time, largely due to administration policies (college tuitions due to state aid cuts, gas prices due to a tight reserve policy and the weak dollar policy (and that whole "invasion" thing), etc)

      A stable Iraq? What, you mean like there was BEFORE we made it a terrorist haven and gave the middle east a rallying cry?

      What if we had left Germany and France after World War II? You mean, we shouldn't leave countries that aren't resisting our occupation of them? Good idea! Now what are your ideas for countries that *are* resisting our occupation of them?

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    22. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. The government/military gets all its money from taxes. No, acutally. I lied. They take out what are essentially loans from the commercial banks through the federal reserve. How are these paid off? The people "pay" it off through inflation. By losing purchasing power. Your money is worth less and less every year, it's losing value. Where does that value go? Into a pit of debt from loans. What you pay in taxes is just one part of how you pay for government spending. Part of a larger, chaotic economic system.

      And to claim to know wether the "Bush" economic plan is better or not, is to claim to have prescient knowledge of the whole economic system.

    23. Re:Today Ashcroft by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We are considering the HSA. My employeer (a Fortune 500 health company who will benefit greatly from this sort of consumer-oriented healthcare) ironically won't contribute to the plan probably until 2006 or later.

      The HSA seems like a good deal, especially since I can roll it out from year to year.

      One big downside to the HSA: With homeowner and auto insurance, I can increase my deductable to reduce my total costs, but I basically have the same coverage. I can't do that with any of my health plans, in order to get a higher deductable, I would need to switch plans, which means switching to a plan with substandard coverage.

      Another big downside is that the costs come out of my own pocket, even if I do save on taxes. And good doctors are still really expensive (Several hundred dollars for a typical visit to the Pediatrition, including labs, shots, etc), so I still need help from an insurance company to help with my baby's basic coverage (not to mention the actual birth).

      But I'm at the point now where my family needs more extensive medical coverage, and HSA only helps me to save taxes on some items.

      I can move to another health plan or tier in my same health plan, but that also (I can't select my own doctor, out-of-network coverage is much worse). My company also won't give us money to opt-out of insurance (They're getting rid of that option in 2005).

      HSA is great for a young healty individual or young couple who don't need extensive coverage anyways. Catastrophic insurance for real emergencies, HSA to help with smaller stuff.

      And I think that the consumer-oriented healthcare will hopefully help to control the costs. Once people see how much they are actually paying for healthcare, maybe that will help to push the prices down.

    24. Re:Today Ashcroft by espo812 · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately my health care costs have gone up more then $100 per month.
      Thank John Edwards.
      --

      espo
    25. Re:Today Ashcroft by dhakbar · · Score: 1

      Wow, it was sure classy of you to respond to a bigot with bigotry of your own.

      I hope you realize you're a tactless asshole.

    26. Re:Today Ashcroft by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Bush tax cuts HELP the middle class, or are you so dumb you can't even read the IRS stats?

      Since these tax cuts were accompanied by increased spending, they help the middle class in exactly the same way as a fresh rock helps a crack addict.

      The so-called "cuts" are just pandering to the segment of the population that doesn't understand basic math. Government spending has been increasing, and the spending + interest will all be paid for with even more taxes and/or heavy inflation. These tax cuts have mainly been a mechanism to funnel capital from the American public to foreign bond holders.

    27. Re:Today Ashcroft by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I guess "separate but equal" works better for you? I am amazed that you cite the deprecation of civil liberties as a problem but in the same breath defile the concept of equality.

      You were taking a gamble if you were voting for Bush because Ashcroft was leaving. I'm not saying voting for Kerry would have been any less of a gamble, but, well, it's red (scalding hot) or blue (freezing cold) with the populace it seems. Warm just doesn't seem to cut it.


      as this election cycle has shown, there's lots of those around.


      We certainly agree there.

    28. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true patriot would stick it out and work to return the country to their vision of it's ideals. I worry that a lot of the 'losing team' this time around are just going to cop-out and give up.

      -- AC because I am not a resident of aforementioned country. I am, however, a patriot of my own.
    29. Re:Today Ashcroft by rhakka · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I hope you realize there is a difference in slamming someone for chosen behaviour than in slamming someone for their sexual preference. Much like me calling you an idiot for not seeing the difference would be based on your actual behaviour, rather than calling you, say, a "fag".

    30. Re:Today Ashcroft by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Middle class, definition:

      A mythical group of people who are neither rich nor poor, generally believed to own real property of significant, if minor, value. They would have reasonable balances in savings accounts and/or retirement accounts, and the means to retire to a comfortable life before they die of old age. In much the same way that biology can prove that there isn't enough fish in Loch Ness to support a sea serpent, simple economic theory relegates a supposed "middle class" to works of fiction such as sunday paper editorials and presidential campaign commercials.

      See also: compassionate conservatism, journalism, projected deficit

    31. Re:Today Ashcroft by jemenake · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On the other hand, I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation...
      I feel you, man.

      In Clinton's last year in office, the national debt actually went *down* (when adjusted for inflation) for the first time in ages... probably my lifetime or even longer. Then, during Bush's first term, it has skyrocketed. It has increased by almost 50% (*not* adjusted for inflation... but inflation isn't anywhere *near* 50% per 4 yrs.)!

      Every election season, there's a call to reduce the deficit, and it always seems to fall on deaf ears. I think that most Americans have no idea what it really is, but (because they keep hearing politicians mention it so much), tacitly agree that we need to keep it down. However, I think that their level of conviction to that belief ranks right up there with trying to not consume quite so much saturated fat and salt: "Yeah, yeah... I know... I need to cut down one of these days.".

      With this latest election, I think I'm finally giving up. So, this is where I agree with you. I think I'm now going to support any legislation or budget that swells the deficit even further. Up until now, I've been telling people that, if the deficit is left unchecked then, someday, the interest on the debt will be more than our total tax revenue... at which point, there will be no way to stop the meltdown. However, they all seem to look at me as though I'm talking about an asteroid hitting the earth. They've never experienced it happening, so they don't really believe that it *can* happen.

      Well.... okay. If it can't happen, then I have no qualms about bringing it about as soon as possible. I'll start moving my assets to a country with a sensible fiscal policy, and then we can start doing what we can to make sure that the national debt swells into a runaway freight train as soon as possible.

      And.... to be quite honest, I'm sincerely curious to see what *does* happen. Will the gov't default on all of its loans and have the dollar become worthless overseas, or will our own economy (and gov't, too) implode as well? - Joe
    32. Re:Today Ashcroft by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      I am amazed that you cite the deprecation of civil liberties as a problem but in the same breath defile the concept of equality.

      There are lots of people like me around. I do not believe in "social justice" at all. I don't see where separate but equal enters the discussion at all. Ensuring equal facilities at the government level is one thing. Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether. If you have a right to eat, and I have a responsibility to provide your meal for you, I am your slave. Last time I checked, we don't do slavery in the US.

      You were taking a gamble if you were voting for Bush because Ashcroft was leaving. I'm not saying voting for Kerry would have been any less of a gamble

      Getting rid of Ashcroft wasn't the only reason I voted for Bush, but the realization that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that he'd be back made the decision a bit easier. The point is....Democrats, historically, have been better on civil liberties than Republicans. The Clinton Administration threw all of that away, and they were worse than Reagan or GHW Bush. So, is it a milquetoast Republican, or a Janet Reno disciple? Still, it's only a small part of the equation. There were other good reasons I supported Bush (and I didn't vote for him in 2000).

    33. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not wrong, you know.

    34. Re:Today Ashcroft by vandan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ah, just like a socialist.....spread the misery equally.


      You surely are an idiot, aren't you? If wealth were distributed more evenly ( as the socialists you are taking a shallow shot at argue for ), then there wouldn't be anywhere near as much misery to spread around. And you do realise that the current amount of miserly can be directly attributed to the policies of the neo-conservatives arseholes controlling the Republican party at the moment?

      I agree with the grandparent post ... Americans have brought this one on themselves. If they were too stooooopid to realise it this time around, perhaps another 4 years of Dubya and the neo-cons is just what the doctor ordered. Pitty about the effect on the rest of the world, but you have to look for the silver lining, no?
    35. Re:Today Ashcroft by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Huh? Wasn't an earlier World Trade Center attack under Clinton's watch? Clinton and Reno spent more time attacking freedoms and liberties in the guise of a War on Drugs (tm) instead of Terror (tm). The terrorists just achieved their most spectacular success under Bush.

    36. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to spread misery, since it's already everywhere. You must be some rich CFO capitalizing on the middle class too.

      And No, you didn't know Ashcroft was coming back. You are just regurgitate news. I have never seen a candidate with a sparkling record. Why does Kerry need one, and Bush don't.

    37. Re:Today Ashcroft by vandan · · Score: 1

      I 100% agree.

      If people are too comfortable with Dubya and the neo-cons now, let them have another 4 years and see if they change their tune.

      The only problem with this argument of course, is that within 4 years the neo-cons will have stirred up plenty more people, some of whom will attempt a terrorist attack, and the oh-so-enlightened American public will swing even further towards their beloved president as the protector of all that is good.

      But if it wasn't for this last point, I say let them have it!

    38. Re:Today Ashcroft by big+daddy+kane · · Score: 1

      actually, in my eyes the way it boils down is that slamming race and slamming sexual orientation are the same thing. the struggle for gay rights now isnt any differnt than the struggle for civil rights in the 60's.

    39. Re:Today Ashcroft by rhakka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they are the same thing, agreed.

      they are not the same as slamming someone for chosen behaviour. I.E. calling someone a bigot, or a jesus freak is not the same as slamming their race or sexual orientation.

    40. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't cite obviously biased sources. Everyone knows that CNN is the Clinton News Network and spouts as much liberal bs as their presses can muster.

    41. Re:Today Ashcroft by teromajusa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry to break this to you, but according to the latest election results, we live in jesusland.

    42. Re:Today Ashcroft by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether.

      This is a silly soundbite that is repeated over and over again becuase it sounds right. No one ever brings up the point that the wealthier people are the more they benefit by having a stable society (i.e. if there was civil war tomorrow the people with no money would be less affected economically--they got nothing to lose).

    43. Re:Today Ashcroft by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Don't let the fact that lawsuits account for only a small fraction of the cost of health care stop you from blaming Edwards. Pay no attention to the pharmaceutical company behind the curtains!

    44. Re:Today Ashcroft by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      If you have a right to eat, and I have a responsibility to provide your meal for you, I am your slave.

      By your reasoning parents are the slaves of their children.

    45. Re:Today Ashcroft by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      Having kids is a choice.

    46. Re:Today Ashcroft by uhlume · · Score: 1

      59,054,087 of them, to be exact.

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    47. Re:Today Ashcroft by rhakka · · Score: 1

      maybe you do, I live in the united states of canada ;)

    48. Re:Today Ashcroft by Rei · · Score: 1

      For God's sake, they're just quoting the Census bureau.

      http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases /a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

      Can't you people do your own fact checking if you doubt something instead of insinuating? This took all of 20 seconds.

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    49. Re:Today Ashcroft by rsax · · Score: 1

      Why should they have to deal with pesky facts and statistics when it's so easy to dismiss anything critical of Bush as liberal bias? It's a good thing there is the almighty Fox News Network taking all that dirty liberal bias out of news reporting. Mmmmmmm fair and balanced.

    50. Re:Today Ashcroft by famebait · · Score: 1

      A stable Iraq will be very helpful in the long run in the Middle East

      Not compared to how much the anger the whole thing has incited will hurt you in the long run.

      What if we had just left Germany and France all alone after WWII like we did after WWI

      A better analogy to world war 2 is how the situation in the US resembles the one in Germany leading up to war.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    51. Re:Today Ashcroft by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      So is living in a society, for a rich person. If you don't want to pay for being rich, go, buy an island, and try to build a country there.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    52. Re:Today Ashcroft by SirBogus · · Score: 1

      There are lots of people like me around. I do not believe in "social justice" at all. I don't see where separate but equal enters the discussion at all. Ensuring equal facilities at the government level is one thing. Robbing Peter to feed Paul is another thing altogether. If you have a right to eat, and I have a responsibility to provide your meal for you, I am your slave. Last time I checked, we don't do slavery in the US.

      You correctly state this as a believe, because you're using flawed logic to base it on. But at least the USA today cannot be accused of a lack of social injustice. Or wasn't that your goal of not believing in Social Justice?
      There were other good reasons I supported Bush (and I didn't vote for him in 2000).
      Please state these, I'm very interested in any good reason to vote for him. I have learned that he is good for social issues, but I disagree on those.

    53. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Jesusland picked the dead guy.

    54. Re:Today Ashcroft by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      I am just fighting for the U.S middle class

      Isn't the US supposed to be a "classless" society? As a brit, I've lost count of the times that I, personally, have been accused by North Americans of single-handedly upholding the class-system, and also lost count of the times that Hollywood pokes fun at the existence of the class system in the UK.

      So please can I have an apology from every yank who on one hand takes pride in the US being a classless meritocracy, and on the other hand casts their vote to protect their middle-class lifestyle (and "values")?

      I'm having a bad day (and it's only 8am) so I'm taking it out on /. as is my right as a toffee-nosed limey who emigrated to North America.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    55. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually the neocons just get a kick out of making other people waste 20 seconds of their day to dredge up these facts. In reality, the neocons are just drooling idiots who repeat whatever their holy leader tells them is truth, and they don't care about anything else.

    56. Re:Today Ashcroft by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1
      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    57. Re:Today Ashcroft by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Great, so you want everybody to pay for the bad decisions of a "majority".

      You must be one of those people who actually believe that the people and the government are one and the same.

    58. Re:Today Ashcroft by cheese_wallet · · Score: 1

      "I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation....Before you mod me down to -100, I am just fighting for the U.S middle class."

      That's odd. Most of the US Middle class voted for bush. Just look at the map, and checkout the red vs blue.

    59. Re:Today Ashcroft by alnjmshntr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As GBS pointed out in The Intelligent Women's Guide to Capitalism and Communism crime and many social ills are directly related to poverty. Rich people are the most affected by crime. Therefore it is in the interests of the rich to subsidise the poor. Even if the poor are lazy bastards who just don't want to work (there will always be a % of the population with this attitude, making them poor doesn't make them want to work), it is still in the interests of people who want to live without crime to keep them above the poverty line via handouts.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    60. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn some basic economics. In Clinton's last year in office the economy did pretty good for most of it. Just before (not after, before!) he left things took a sharp downturn. This is a part of normal economic cycles. However it means that the government (which takes a percentage of GNP more or less) gets much less money in. Also, when things are good the government should pay down dept, perhaps raise taxes and raise interest rates, all to prevent inflation. (there are many complex concerns, these are the big ones, but there are little factors all over) When things are bad you lower taxes, lower interest rates, and spend more than you take in, to prevent things from getting worse.

    61. Re:Today Ashcroft by Betaman · · Score: 1

      Not me, I live in a blue state! w00t!

    62. Re:Today Ashcroft by PhilipMckrack · · Score: 1

      I like how people think Bush is the one that "stirred the pot" and "made" Osama do 9/11 and forget he bombed the trade centers and the USS Cole while Clinton was President. He would have done 9/11 regardless of who was President and he will continue to do what he does regardless of who is President. If you think terrorism would have gone away if Kerry was elected you are wrong.

    63. Re:Today Ashcroft by localman · · Score: 1

      Not to pick nits, but only just a hair over half of the voting public wanted this. Yes, that's still depressing, but about 50% of the voting americans know very well how stooooopid it was to put Bush back in office. It's just that we're slightly outnumbered by morons.

      Cheers.

    64. Re:Today Ashcroft by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      And neither one is acceptable in the sense that's being done here. Surely you can see that?

      -Billy

    65. Re:Today Ashcroft by rhakka · · Score: 1

      Not acceptable?

      I do not believe in being bound by the rules of civility when confronted with malicious ignorance. You can smile and nod and disagree politely if it makes you feel better. I, however, will call a steaming hunk of bigoted shit a steaming hunk of bigoted shit, and I won't feel the least bit apologetic about it either.

    66. Re:Today Ashcroft by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0

      Damn, is anyone on /. capable of doing anything but beleiving all the media and your liberal professors tell you? Do your OWN research, or do they not teach that skill anymore? I really would like to see how many of you actually know how to THINK about anything but technology. Maybe that ability is something that comes with age, and I suspect the average age of the /. poster is about 21-25. Go look at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type= 1 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inplim.pdf (see page 11) The stats show that (in 2002) 2.4M folks made incomes of over 200K and they paid 330.6M in taxes, while the "Middle Class" (50-100K) paid only 206M spread across 26.5M taxpayers. Liberals get so blind in your hatred of anything that doesn't put money in your pocket for doing nothing you can't even see the plain facts. I don't like taxes either and wish I could pay less but I'm not getting all bent about it. The Only good Terrorist is a dead one. Those people don't beleive in sitting down and talking thru the differences.

    67. Re:Today Ashcroft by kippy · · Score: 1

      I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation.

      So you want some 59+ million Americans to suffer financial and economical devastation so you can say "I told you so"? Now that's patriotism!

      How selfless of you.

    68. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding huh, this is how stupid Bush voters are. They think $100 tax rebate is worth voting for. Next time Bush fights for more reelection, democrats should offer $200 rebates + free magazine subscriptions.

    69. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't make any sense of your numbers. You seem to say 2.4 million people with incomes over 200,000 dollars paid a total of 330.6 million in taxes. That means each paid 330 million/2.4 million = 137 dollars in tax ??? If you meant 330 billion (US 10 to the exponent 9) rather than 330 million then the result is 137,000 dollars. So someone earning 200,000 dollars pays 137,000/200,000 = 68.5% of their income in taxes ??? Your middle class figures are way off in a similar way.

    70. Re:Today Ashcroft by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not asking for civility. I'm asking for some compliance with the rules of evidence, debate, and reason. Calling every citizen in a state that sent its electors for Bush a bigot isn't rational. Calling every person who voted for Bush an idiot isn't rational.

      Civility doesn't enter into it. Civility is what happens when you want to convince people, beyond simply arguing with them.

      -Billy

    71. Re:Today Ashcroft by j_snare · · Score: 1

      Hell, give me someone who scares me *less* than Bush, and I'll vote for him in an instant. I can't stand the guy, but Kerry *really* scares me.

      Both parties sucked big time this year.. Again.. Can we get some decent people next time? Please?

    72. Re:Today Ashcroft by rhakka · · Score: 1

      ok, you are an idiot. I called someone using the world Fag a redneck; how did this turn into calling everyone who voted for bush an idiot, even though now that you mention it, they are?

    73. Re:Today Ashcroft by mutterc · · Score: 1

      That's been the bright side I've been able to see about the Republican victories (President & Congress) in the election... the US is probably going to collapse into a Third World nation anyway, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats control it, but at least this way I can blame it on the Republicans.

    74. Re:Today Ashcroft by CKW · · Score: 1

      What should we have done had there been a Nazi resistance movement in Germany?

    75. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Tomorrow Cheney!

      Jeez, didn't you watch the debates? If there's one of the pair to get rid of, its Bush.

    76. Re:Today Ashcroft by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Once people see how much they are actually paying for healthcare, maybe that will help to push the prices down.

      Only if they are spending their own money on it, and their treatment decisions directly effect how much they pay.

    77. Re:Today Ashcroft by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Very true, but I think that is part of the point behind the HSA-- your put in your money, and your employeer might contribute to your HSA if you get a health plan with a high deductable.

      But I'm not sure that the HSA is enough to put a dent in the high prices.

      But it's way better then the previous plan, those Flexable Spending Accounts where you lost all of the money if you didn't use it by years end. What a scam.

    78. Re:Today Ashcroft by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      >>On the other hand, I want to see Bush-voters who cheered "4 more years" to suffer financial & economical devastation.

      Tolerance is now how you treat your friends, it's how you treat your enemies. Wishing someone who doesn't agree with you finanical ruin doesn't seem very nice to me.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    79. Re:Today Ashcroft by sfjoe · · Score: 2

      I think that most Americans have no idea what it really is,...

      It's actually very simple: A budget deficit is a tax levied against future taxpayers.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    80. Re:Today Ashcroft by localman · · Score: 1

      dual party suckage: vigorously agreed.

      But I guess I'd rather have an ineffective wishy washy politition in there than a guy who really thinks God wants him to invade other countries and turn our nation into a theocracy.

      Cheers.

    81. Re:Today Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your either with us or against us.
      Anyone who questions this administration is unamerican.
      Enemy combatant.
      Thereat of removal of citizinship.
      The era of hate against Clinton and other non Republicans.
      War on Terror
      War on Drugs
      Etc.

      Yah, there has been an abundance of tolerance and fine examples of treatment of the enemy coming from the Republicans these last 20 years.

    82. Re:Today Ashcroft by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      I never claimed Republicans are tolerant, and neither do they. But Democrats DO claim to be tolerant.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  3. does that mean... by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Funny

    does that mean i can take off my tinfoil hat?

    1. Re:does that mean... by josh3736 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Blastphemer!!!

      As most other tinfoil hat wearers are aware, the only reason Ashcroft has resigned is so he can catch a lift up to the mind-reading satellite and read your mind directly! It's all a part of their global domination plan.

      (Sadly, that last bit has some truth to it. [tinfoil hat securely back on])

    2. Re:does that mean... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      No... thats what he wants you to do, it was the plan all along with his so called "Resignation"

    3. Re:does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they want you to think!

    4. Re:does that mean... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

      You're all fools!

      Ashcroft was never Attorney General. He was merely acting as the front man for the Trilateral Commission. Didn't you read the headlines? "Kerry concedes to Bush" How could it be more obvious? They're all in it together.

      The only way to escape their mind control is to keep your hat on at all times. Also, you should see some of the things I've been reading about tap water and the chemicals in it. Drink only bottled water (from outside the U.S. if you can get it).

      Ciao, brothers.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    5. Re:does that mean... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering what to do with brown shirt now.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    6. Re:does that mean... by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      The first rule of tinfoil hat is, you don't talk about tinfoil hat. Expect the black heicopters any second.

  4. I'm Confused! by Steve+B · · Score: 4, Funny
    He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

    I thought that it was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that did that....

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    1. Re:I'm Confused! by w1r3sp33d · · Score: 2, Funny

      no, this means someone found the stockpiles of WMD's...

    2. Re:I'm Confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush doesn't read anything; he relies on others to tell him things......

    3. Re:I'm Confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

      So "mission accomplished"?

    4. Re:I'm Confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

      I thought that it was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that did that....

      No no, it was when the STATUE of Saddam came down that Americans were safe from etc. etc.

    5. Re:I'm Confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He mentions securing the safety but does not mention freedom. The PATRIOT Act will remove your freedoms for said security. Welcome to hell boys.

    6. Re:I'm Confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that it was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that did that....

      No, it was winning the election.

  5. He's encouraging criminals. by readpunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to commit crimes just to spite him.

    --

    ./revolution
    1. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I plan to celebrate by ordering sushi and not paying for it!

    2. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Ba3r · · Score: 5, Funny

      kazaa loading.....
      eDonkey loading...
      bitTorrent whirring...
      cds ripping...
      dvds burning...
      firefox running... oh wait, a couple months too early to call that illegal

    3. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I'm going to commit crimes just to spite him."

      I can top that. I'm going to have gay sex just to spite him.

    4. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by interiot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or if you're a hetero male like me, you can simply ogle Lady Liberty.

    5. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Davorama · · Score: 1

      Don't you try to out-obscure me buddy. Pablo Picaso may have been an asshole, but I'm no chump.

      --

      Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.

    6. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah. Kazaa? The AOL of file sharing, and spyware-ridden to boot. eDonkey? Sloooooooooow. BitTorrent? Great, but hard to find anything more than a week old for download.

      Try WinMX, you get BitTorrent speeds and the widest range of files I've found anywhere.

    7. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Ashcroft is a fag. He is too, you boys. I installed two-way mirrors at his pad in Brentwood...and he come to the door in a dress.

    8. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is gay sex any more dangerous than straight sex (assuming same precautions, of course)?

    9. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't leave out lesbians, who can also exercise their patriotic libido by imagining what it'd be like to bump uglies with the feminine personification of freedom. Oh yeah...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Admit it. You were going to do that anyway.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, suprnova.org is the best p2p out there.

    12. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Funny

      If HBO's OZ has taught me anything...

      1. Commit crime
      2. Go to prison
      3. ????
      4. Gay sex!

      Unless you're a chick. But with a name like "Barlo Mung" ... I'd be afraid.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    13. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by 808140 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shhh. Everyone knows AIDS is a disease only faggots get. Didn't you get the memo?

      Good, god-fearing Americans abstain from casual sex. That's why information regarding birth control and condoms doesn't need to be taught in school.

      Yes, my friend, faggot-sex will be the end of America as we know it. Luckily, George Bush has a plan to save the butt pirates. Through love, Jesus Christ, and make-you-straight boot-camp, we will teach these homos to do what's right for America, Jesus, and themselves.

      Or we'll kill them, I guess. That works too. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch NASCAR.

    14. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by djlowe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um, that statue is called the Spirit of Justice.

    15. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by bujoojoo · · Score: 1

      "I'm going to commit crimes just to spite him."

      I can top that. I'm going to have gay sex just to spite him.


      Ok, you win.

      --
      This space for rent
    16. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm going to commit crimes just to spite him."

      I can top that. I'm going to have gay sex just to spite him.


      Oh yeah??? Well...uh...I'm going to have gay sex WITH HIM just to spite him.

      Yeah that's the ticket!

    17. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      A comedianne said that we should not refer to it as "gay marriage" because it puts the image of men having sex in the supermarket into your average joes head. Instead we should call it "lesbian marriage". That would put the image of hot lesbians having sex in the supermarket into his redneck head and he would be all for it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    18. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did it say that straight sex isn't equally health endangering?

    19. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      this is bittorrent

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    20. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by feidaykin · · Score: 1

      You reminded me of The Daily Show's coverage of the election... Ed Helms said that with the re-election of Bush, if you want to have gay sex or visit a library it's probably the last night to do that. Then he said "Personally, I'm planning to kill two birds with one stone" and the audience went nuts.

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    21. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can say whatever the PC crowd has brainwashed you with, but anal sex is a de facto high-risk activity.
      Never mind the facts, how can you put your penis where 5 minutes earlier a big turd came out from? I'll never understand that. Ever. There are 3.5 billion women on earth, all shapes, sizes, colors and ages, and a rectum is what you want?
      Homosexuality is arrested development, pure and simple. Children grow out of that phase where they only socialize with their own sex. Some don't. It's a disease, like dwarfism and diabetes. You don't see short diabetics parading in the streets.

    22. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, full of strawmen and ad hominems. Look, you can get as hysterical and emotional as you want, but pushing turds back up a colon is not even sex. It's just misguided. Do you drive your car in the wrong lane while you're at it?

    23. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by caudron · · Score: 1

      same diff. :(

      --
      -Tom
    24. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I say add a constitutional ammendment that bans anal sex across the board. I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with it, but I bet there are a lot of folks who voted for Bush that would consider it none of their business.

      By the way, if I was to have anal sex, I think I would request that my partner have an empty colon and clean down there first. She'd probably want to do that anyway ;)

    25. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by ostrich2 · · Score: 1

      If you have gay sex with a criminal, that would really chap his hide.

    26. Re:He's encouraging criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "kazaa loading.....
      eDonkey loading...
      bitTorrent whirring...
      cds ripping...
      dvds burning...
      firefox running... oh wait, a couple months too early to call that illegal"

      Actually, all the other things are perfectly legal (well, CD burning anyway) for those of us who CREATE content rather than leech.

  6. There is a GOD. by DeepFried · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good riddance! I wonder how long it will take to undo what he has done.

    --


    Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
    1. Re:There is a GOD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your people are calling him bush
      we just call him satan

    2. Re:There is a GOD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why anyone would mod that up.

      (mod me up as well, if you mod the parent up, because i'm saying just as much).

    3. Re:There is a GOD. by Yorrike · · Score: 2, Funny
      I think it's a bit of a cop-out. I would have preferred he's retired for health reasons, like acute cancer of the dick.

      We now need:

      Cheney to get locked in his coffin as he sleeps after feeding on the blood of the living as I've been told he does on a daily basis.

      Bush to go for a world pretzel eating record, choking in the process.

      Rumsfield to get bitten by a rabid dog, contracting rabies and going slowing and humorously insane.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    4. Re:There is a GOD. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Rumsfield...going slowing and humorously insane

      Umm, Hello! McFly!

  7. Wow by shockingbluerose · · Score: 1

    Guess he thought it was better to stop while he was ahead..... or as ahead as he could be.

    --
    My name is a variety of floral rose, and no, it's not blue :)
    1. Re:Wow by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This being Slashdot, I'll likely get modded down for expressing heretical opinions,

      No, you'll get modded down by attempting to preempt.. (but not by me, obviously)

      but I approve of Bush's hardline foreign-policy stance. It's his domestic policies I don't like -- cutting taxes while there's a war on, raising (some) trade barriers, and of course, the Patriot Act.

      This isn't K5, the commies haven't yet taken over the asylum.

      I'm heartily glad he's gone.

      I am as well, largely because I felt his religious enthusiasm created an appearance of nonsecularism in the judiciary leadership, and even though I don't know enough of what he did to see whether or not he ended up weakening secularism the appearance of hostility to secularism is enough to cause concern.

      OTOH, I find Spencer Abraham more obnoxious, and him in concert with Cheney have halted any useful conservation, tax, etc policies on energy, which I find stupid and inexplicable.

      Now, if Arafat would only hurry up and die...

      They _still_ are having difficulty figuring out what brought his illness on.. I wouldn't put it past the Mossad (the CIA is too incompetent IMHO), but yeah, I think Thomas Friedman got it right in his last editorial on Arafat's legacy.

      I have issues with Bush and his policies, but I have to say, watching leftists mope, wail and gnash is much more entertaining. I recall rightists during the Teflon Don Juan (Clinton) administration going off the deep end, but I don't think they have the mercurial creative bipolar thing that the more touchy-feely, sensitive leftists have. Also, watching naive college students who really REALLY care get deflated is kind of entertaining in a purely guilty Nelsonian-Schadenfreude way.

    2. Re:Wow by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1
      Arafat dead, or as good as

      He's not dead. He's resting.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a block of ice?

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He's pining for the Fjords.

      ~~~

  8. We Won! by dasheiff · · Score: 5, Funny

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    Yey we won! Now we can pull out of Iraq. No more airport security lines. I just hope W. can read script.

    1. Re:We Won! by Elizabeth007 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Hey, wait just a damned second here.

      I voted for that Bush guy because we weren't safe, and less than two weeks later we are?

      That was sarcasm. I swear.

    2. Re:We Won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      W. can read? wow respect

    3. Re:We Won! by DarkMantle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Safe from terrorism and criminals.... But not the Oil Lords... you forget what this ware is really about!

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    4. Re:We Won! by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      It looks like your vote really worked!

      That also was sacrasm.

    5. Re:We Won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I voted for that Bush guy because we weren't safe, and less than two weeks later we are?

      He's just that good, all he needed was the two weeks.

      Oh wait... the letter was dated on election day...

    6. Re:We Won! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      It's something for the Electoral College to ponder next month, I imagine.

    7. Re:We Won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now we can pull out of Iraq.


      I hope you know that that's one of the least effective methods of birth control.
    8. Re:We Won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That was sarcasm. I swear.

      Well, obviously. You can use a computer and type complete sentences, so we know you didn't vote for Bush :)

  9. So .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when are Collin Powell and Condoleeza Rice resigning? No, seriously. They seem to have taken a hit in their personal status because of these last 4 years.

  10. I Don't follow politics much .. by Vardamir · · Score: 1

    But even so, I never would have seen this coming.

    1. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by eln · · Score: 4, Informative

      He resigned because of health problems and exhaustion. Apparently he has been having various medical difficulties over the past year or so. I don't think this one was Bush's decision.

    2. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by MadMorf · · Score: 0, Troll

      He resigned because of health problems and exhaustion. Apparently he has been having various medical difficulties over the past year or so.

      Too bad he wasn't sick enough to just DIE ALREADY!

      There were predictions even before the election that he would be asked to resign. Apparently he was too much of a lightning rod, even for this administration.

    3. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by andreMA · · Score: 1
      health problems
      Shit... you mean he might not live to be executed? Party pooper...
    4. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Of course he's exausted because of all you Bush-bashers who keep on critizing the administration for no good reason unrelentlessly. John Ashcroft has done a stellar job securing our nation. Who could have seen 9/11? Everyone makes there mistakes but, this administration has made much less than a Gore Lieberman one would.

    5. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Too bad he wasn't sick enough to just DIE ALREADY!

      Wow. Serious.

      I don't care which side of this supposed divide you are on, why would you wish death on someone?

      I am against the death penalty. I thought only right-wing nut-jobs went around wishing people would die. Whichever side you are on, I hope I'm on the other.

    6. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, we've got plenty of reasons. You just don't pay attention to them.

    7. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I thought only right-wing nut-jobs went around wishing people would die"

      I guess you haven't been reading the Gaurdian in the UK or the NYTimes in the last couple of days. These 2 right wing papers want Bush dead.

    8. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Finally Ashcroft saw what God was trying to tell him: switch jobs! Preferably one where you don't have any responsibility over other human beings.

    9. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
      NY Times right wing? Your joking right? Or are you living in La La Land?

      Even the Public Editor of the Times said it was Liberal newspaper.

      http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0726.asp

    10. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you adjust your sarcasm detector.

    11. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmm....
      voodoo working.... *poke* *poke* *ken doll like you long time* *poke* *poke*

    12. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Necroist · · Score: 1

      Alright, fess up! Who's using the voodoo doll!

    13. Re:I Don't follow politics much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he dies a horrible, slow, painful, and messy death.

  11. Slow first posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I spent 30 seconds reading the lead before posting.

    I think the collective response from slashdot has been "shock and awe" - so much so that we don't see the typical "first post" crap.

    Either that or everyone's popping a beer to celebrate.

    --AC

  12. Good Riddence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not anytime too soon !

  13. Huh? by Blue+Neon+Head · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

    Phew! Finally. Guess we don't need a DoJ anymore.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither we need a president!

  14. Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    At what cost?

    1. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      currently total: more in 4 years than Clinton spent in 8.

    2. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A buck oh five.

    3. Re:Mission Accomplished by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1
      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:Mission Accomplished by snol · · Score: 1

      Sales tax instead of progressive income tax?? Way to fuck over everyone but the super-rich.

    5. Re:Mission Accomplished by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Progressive income tax? Way to fuck over everyone but the poor.

      Why don't you do what my signature says, and educate yourself before you look like a moron. (Too late.) The FairTax does not fuck over any economic class, due to the monthly rebate that covers any tax paid on subsistence items. The FairTax, as its name implies, is fairer than both the current income taxes and the proposed flat taxes.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    6. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom.

    7. Re:Mission Accomplished by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      At the cost of extending legal tools used against the mafia to also cover terrorism suspects? (patriot act)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Mission Accomplished by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are implying that his statement was correct. But in fact, it was exactly incorrect. By waging the "war on terror" -- and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process -- the US government has created a new foundation for even more hatred and resent.

    9. Re:Mission Accomplished by snol · · Score: 1

      Rebate or no, a sales tax simply won't scale up so that the rich are paying a decent share. If one has enough income so that one only feels inclined to spend a fraction of it while saving or investing the rest, that's only a fraction of your income you're getting taxed on. There's no reason why consumption rather than actual income should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed; no matter what it's some amount taken out of the economy and it might as well be from those who can afford it.

      Plus, calling it some all-one-word double-capitalized name makes it sound like you're advertizing it. Let it stand on its merits, or lack thereof.

    10. Re:Mission Accomplished by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Rebate or no, a sales tax simply won't scale up so that the rich are paying a decent share.

      Please define "a decent share." The rich pay way more than anyone else in taxes right now. They will continue to pay way more than anyone else with a national sales tax system because they spend way more than anyone else. Since "the rich" are also the nation's source of job-producing companies and investments in the stock market and banks (giving you equity in your retirement account and low-interest loans), perhaps you ought not to try and extract every fucking cent from them? They pay way more than you do in taxes, and will continue to do so under the fairtax.

      Similarly, everyone else will pay far less in taxes under the national sales tax. Yet it is revenue neutral with the income taxes now. If you don't understand why, then perhaps you ought to read more about the FairTax.

      There's no reason why consumption rather than actual income should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed

      There's no reason income rather than consumption should be the metric for the amount one gets taxed.

      that's only a fraction of your income you're getting taxed on

      Rich people spend more money and thus pay more taxes either way. The system will collect the same amount of money for the government, but will save money for everyone across the board. (How? Because you are eliminating the waste of the IRS and income tax system.)

      calling it some all-one-word double-capitalized name makes it sound like you're advertizing it.

      That's good, because I AM advertising it. FairTax is not the only national sales tax idea, it is a specific one and therefore has a distinguishable name that you can use to refer to it.

      It is the best tax plan I've heard of, and that they've named it something memorable and accurate means it has a good shot of being branded into the minds of the people that hear about it.

      Let it stand on its merits, or lack thereof.

      This is the stupidest fucking statement I've read in a while. I am really trying to understand the point of it. My signature links to a shitload of data about FairTax, which you have taken absolutely no time to read before opening your mouth and, instead of asking questions, assuming the wrong thing and making yourself look stupid. Yet you are trying to tell me to let something stand on its merits?

      IT DOES.

      I have no problem with people that don't understand the national sales tax idea and want more info, but have no patience for morons that won't educate themselves about it and instead try to tout the most assassanine tax collection system ever concocted... US federal income taxes.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    11. Re:Mission Accomplished by snol · · Score: 1

      The point you're missing is that it's not a question of education, it's a question of priorities and choice of which claims one believes. Everyone agrees it would be nice to have a tax so simple that we wouldn't need an IRS and that the system today is 'assassinine'. However I don't buy the argument that a tax that reduces the top possible bracket to 23% (for infinite spending) and the 95th-percentile tax bracket to around 15% would be revenue-neutral. Nobody likes the current US income tax structure but that doesn't mean income is the wrong basis for determining tax liability. It's the right metric, because it measures how much one can afford to pay. Consumption is the wrong metric because people who can afford to save a larger portion of their income pay a correspondingly smaller portion of their income in taxes, and that's true after some point no matter how big a rebate you offer. After a point it winds up more regressive than a flat tax; a flat tax with rebates would be a much better starting point, though a simple progressive income tax would still be preferable.

  15. Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the USA PATRIOT act isn't a good mark on anyone's resume. John Ashcroft was a good, Christian AG. He respected the RKBA and went after child pornographers.

    I'm sad to see him go.

    1. Re:Mixed Feelings by Chundra · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that the words "good", "Christian" and "John Ashcroft" are actually in the same sentence. No wonder you're posting anonymously.

    2. Re:Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have an account. I find it interesting that your account didn't stop you from attacking people's religous beliefs.

    3. Re:Mixed Feelings by Chundra · · Score: 1

      Have you heard the good news, brother?

      The King Ashcroft bible is shaped like a dildo and shoots cash from its tip.

  16. Ashcroft by ZX81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In all honesty I can only say good riddance.

    It's almost unbelievable that the USA would allow him to work on bills such as the Patriot act.

    What I don't understand is why are you guys not protesting?

    Have you given up?

    --
    -={ Security does not exist - give up }=-
    1. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead, protest the bill, but realize that it won't do any good. The senators/representatives didn't all read the bill. I'd be surprised if a majority read it.

      No amount of protesting is going to make a lazy politician unlazy.

    2. Re:Ashcroft by Keifer · · Score: 1

      We don't protest for the same reasons we re-elected Bush. =\

    3. Re:Ashcroft by ZX81 · · Score: 1

      :-)

      So I take it that's a confirmation of giving up...

      So sad guys. Why are you letting this happen? If they tried it in New Zealand, we'd have 30-40% of the population on the streets.

      Maybe we are just a hardcore protesting nation, but I thought that instinct was built into every human.

      Do you think there are particular events that have caused you to lose faith in the act of protesting?

      --
      -={ Security does not exist - give up }=-
    4. Re:Ashcroft by Drilian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's that Americans as a whole don't notice what's going on in their (our) government. It's a sad state of affairs, really.

      But yeah, I'm glad he's gone, too. Maybe we can finally uncover the statue of Justice.

    5. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people tried to institute NZ policies in the U.S., people would protest. Maybe we have different cultures?

    6. Re:Ashcroft by danheskett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not trendy to dissent on the Patriot Act around here, but probably a solid 90% of the bill accomplished SORELY needed reforms.

      There were literally hundreds of pathetic attempts to seperate government agencies for a no good reason.

      The rest of the bill that you hear so much about is what really burns most civil libertarians.

      Everyone should be asked to read the whole act at least once in their lives. Most people would be surprised how much stuff the government *couldn't* do that just made sense before hand.

    7. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      yeah well, you know, its only like a couple of thousand people died in one moment on 9/11...along with our government having attempted to be decapitated. not that that would be any cause to panic, right?

      or despite the fact that thousands of terrorist cells _have_ been operating in the USA? or that we have had biological agents (anthrax) used against us, and having been threatened several times over with worse things?

      does anyone really care what you guys do in new zealand, i mean seriously? you guys have nothing to worry about, not with us superpowers keeping you guys nice and safe so that you can bask in the sun.

      let us folks who know what is going on handle the "big boy" stuff.

    8. Re:Ashcroft by wattersa · · Score: 1

      > Have you given up?

      Yes, actually :-(. It's been 4 years and nothing has changed. The only hope was to have the Act sunset in 2005 but the election would seem to have sealed its renewal...

    9. Re:Ashcroft by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to understand... the US government has done an EXCEPTIONAL job of keeping its people scared and ignorant. Hence, the election results. People in this country have no fucking clue as to what's going on, and those who do, get it from TV, which just spews out gov't propoganda designed to keep people fucking terrified. It's very Machiavellian, actually.

      We don't have an educated, informed population. Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    10. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Amen. Now let's go to the races....

    11. Re:Ashcroft by ZX81 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't think you guys would like our anti-nuclear policy! :-)

      --
      -={ Security does not exist - give up }=-
    12. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      yeah well, you know, its only like a couple of thousand people died in one moment on 9/11...along with our government having attempted to be decapitated. not that that would be any cause to panic, right?

      And why did that happen?

      or despite the fact that thousands of terrorist cells _have_ been operating in the USA? or that we have had biological agents (anthrax) used against us, and having been threatened several times over with worse things?

      The anthrax attacks were by your own country! :-)

      does anyone really care what you guys do in new zealand, i mean seriously? you guys have nothing to worry about, not with us superpowers keeping you guys nice and safe so that you can bask in the sun.

      I think it's more the fact that we don't blow up other countries and don't send troops to meddle in other country's affairs that keeps us safe.

      let us folks who know what is going on handle the "big boy" stuff.

      Since you're doing such a good job of it!

      Do you realise how many terrorists the USA has created in the past few years? Hint: a hell of a lot more than it has killed.

    13. Re:Ashcroft by f8free · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ummm, we are. Been to a "free speech zone" lately?

    14. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, it's a bad law.

      90% good means 10% bad.

      You should judge a law by its failures, not its successes.. any idiot can write a law that achieves some desired goal, but it takes a lot of work to come up with good, narrowly-defined laws that achieve their goals with minimal collateral damage.

      I hope the Patriot act is fixed so that I can someday call it a good law.

      But you're right. There is a problem on both sides of the issue. People don't understand that the PATRIOT act is a *big* law with many parts. Some are good and some are bad and should be removed.

      What scares me the most is how the *president* seems to think it's a single monolithic thing. I know that's good PR to reduce everything to a sound bite but I sure hope he knows deep down that it needs some repairs.

    15. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two admitted to reading it.

      Those happen to be the same ones that voted against it.

    16. Re:Ashcroft by xlv · · Score: 1

      but probably a solid 90% of the bill accomplished SORELY needed reforms. [...] The rest of the bill that you hear so much about is what really burns most civil libertarians.

      It was also an agregation of various security ammendments grouped together by staffers without any serious review or discussion by the House or Senate in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. That's why there was a sunset provision in it to make sure it could be adapted later on. But I guess that's the kind of John Kerry nuances that proponents of making the Patriot Act permanent cannot understand or refuse to debate for political reasons...

    17. Re:Ashcroft by imuffin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone should be asked to read the whole act at least once in their lives. Most people would be surprised how much stuff the government *couldn't* do that just made sense before hand.

      Well, according to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the members of congress weren't even allowed to read the PATRIOT act before voting on it.

      From the article:

      Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

    18. Re:Ashcroft by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      that 10% bad stuff is all sunset stuff

      so, it is a good law with some bad provisions that will be gone shortly.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    19. Re:Ashcroft by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but probably a solid 90% of the bill accomplished SORELY needed reforms.

      If I were offered a drink that was 90% fruit juice and vitamins, and 10% stricnine, I would choose not to drink it.

    20. Re:Ashcroft by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      your first two points are not counter points as to the reasons for the patriot act, in fact, they are reasons FOR the patriot act.

      so, what was your point in responding to them?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    21. Re:Ashcroft by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Troll

      the fact that your major green house gas problem is sheep flatulence might indicate to terrorists that you really have nothing they want, symbolically or otherwise.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    22. Re:Ashcroft by fleener · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have we given up? No. Big Media simply avoids reporting on most protests.

    23. Re:Ashcroft by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 1

      Everyone should be asked to read the whole act at least once in their lives. Most people would be surprised how much stuff the government *couldn't* do that just made sense before hand.

      No kidding. But with a name like Patriot Act, most wouldn't bother to go beyond the title. After all, how can something called the Patriot Act be bad?

      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
    24. Re:Ashcroft by arodland · · Score: 1

      You've got a point. Just wait for someone to draft up the Uniting and Strengthening America by Putting Army Tanks Right In Our Towns act! ;)

    25. Re:Ashcroft by mzs · · Score: 2, Informative
      Everyone should be asked to read the whole act at least once in their lives.

      I did, or rather I tried to. It was one gigantic mess that looked mostly approximately something like this:

      Section 6.6.73.8898 replace "warrant" with "court order"

      Really, I cannot understand how anyone could understand this. To me it was like trying to understand a huge body of source code solely by looking at diff output.

    26. Re:Ashcroft by MacDork · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I don't understand is why are you guys not protesting?

      Have you given up?

      Google for 'Miami Model'. Then mod Fleener and F8Free up.

    27. Re:Ashcroft by DynamiteNeon · · Score: 1

      If someone gave you a really nice, juicy steak and then threw 10% of horseshit on it, would you still eat it?

    28. Re:Ashcroft by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      How about if you were given treatment for a lethal illness that guaranteed 90% chance of cure (not just survival) and 10% chance of death?

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    29. Re:Ashcroft by bryane · · Score: 1
      Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law ... was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote


      ... and this is different from other bills how?

    30. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet almost all of them voted for it. Including the Democrats. Whose fault is that, exactly?

    31. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great. Let's see. Half of the country is made up of bigots. And yet, your entire post is an ad hominem attack. You make a thinly veiled assertion that Christians and Nascar fans are stupid. But YOUR half is right, while the other half is bigoted. I see.

    32. Re:Ashcroft by mindriot · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      Then why the hell would anyone in their right mind vote for something they've never seen?!?

      I mean, do you sign a contract from some door-to-door salesman that you weren't allowed to read beforehand?

      The sarcastic me thinks that it might be exactly the same people that voted for Bush who might do just that.

    33. Re:Ashcroft by MacDork · · Score: 2, Informative

      Section 213, among others, doesn't sunset. The word "sunset" doesn't even appear in the VICTORY Act (Patriot II) that Bush signed on the Saturday Saddam was captured. Now that he has been re-elected, what do you think the odds of changing that are gonna be? C'ya liberty. Nice knowin' ya.

    34. Re:Ashcroft by xlv · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but I thought we were discussing the initial Patriot Act not its extension...

    35. Re:Ashcroft by thogard · · Score: 1

      maybe we should run an ad campaign in DC along the lines of "if you vote for it, you've signed it" and "don't sign anything without voting for it"

    36. Re:Ashcroft by MacDork · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry if that sounded vague. Section 213 of the original USA PATRIOT Act does not sunset (Black Bag searches). Several other sections of USA PATRIOT do not sunset. No provision of Patriot II sunsets either.

    37. Re:Ashcroft by goldspider · · Score: 1
      "Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots."

      And you wonder why they resent you and everything you stand for?

      Somehow, Liberals don't understand how destructive that kind of rhetoric is to their own cause. That's the true cause of the election results.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    38. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots.

      Oh yeah??? Well, just to spite Ashcroft and Bush, I'm going to have gay sex with Jesus Freaks and NASCAR worshipping bigots!

      After all, they've been bending over for the Bushies for 4 years and taking it in the ass. I see no reason they shouldn't allow me to add some more ice cream to their anal milkshake.

    39. Re:Ashcroft by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Fruit juice is actually no healthier than soda.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    40. Re:Ashcroft by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. We liberals should instead call you guys traitors, terrorists and haters of america. Because when you call us those things it gets your guy elected.

      So come on everybody, the red state voters are not jesis worshipping bigots, they just america that's all.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    41. Re:Ashcroft by slashdot.org · · Score: 1

      "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

      I'm sorry, but I just don't get that. Why the hell did they vote? It's similar to the whole paperless evoting. Why would you vote on such a machine? I would simply refuse, _and_ make a BIG fucking whoopla about _why_ I refused to vote.

      They're just lame excuses. If you are voting for something you'd better make damn sure that (a) you know what the hell you're voting on and (b) you're vote gets counted as it's supposed to.

      It's about time people stood up for themselves. The whole freaking world is in the shits because of all this...

    42. Re:Ashcroft by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      Everyone should be asked to read the whole act at least once in their lives.

      You are joking, aren't you? I mean, have you read it? It's worse than an 802.11 standard. It is full of stuff like this:

      Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--

      (1) in subsection (a)(1)--

      (A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:

      `by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';

      I can't even submit the quotation I wanted to because it violates Slashdot's text processor says "there is too much whitespace."

      Forget it. You have to be a scholar to understand it.

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    43. Re:Ashcroft by LMariachi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or what if someone offered you an analogy that was 90% bullshit and 10% stupid? Or maybe vice-versa...

    44. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What if your sworn protectors are the true cause of that illness? What if they have done potentially harmful or amoral things in your name without telling you, and as a direct result, you are now sick?


      And in this case, what if the very same entity was offering you this 'cure all'. Think about it.

    45. Re:Ashcroft by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Depends. Do you see any stories about "yellow ribbons", etc? Not too many, and usually at the end of the broadcast when they have dead air to fill.

      But get a couple of hundred people together in downtown, barricading the federal building, and it's a Big Deal, at least for about an hour, until they run out of gas.

    46. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked my parents if the concept of a Free Speech Zone was a new one. It isn't. Such things commonly existed in the 60s and 70s. Now im not saying that the existance of such zones is a good idea, just that it is not a new one, and is certainly not the original idea of Mr. Ashcroft. Im sure you dislike the man, but the particular evil you pointed out was not caused or created by him.

    47. Re:Ashcroft by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Think about it. America had been attacked. America looked weak, open, an inviting target. America's "liberal" openness was implicated in it (not withstanding YEARS of Airline industry fighting and lobbying against stronger security measures on their planes).

      To vote against it seemed to be voting in favor of what happened. And no politician in their right mind wants to ever create a sense that they are a tool of the boogeyman.

      Head like a hole
      black as your soul
      I'd rather die
      than give you control

    48. Re:Ashcroft by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Hey now, don't be insulting the parent post ;-p I mean, if you're gonna insult anyone, insult my post for being an analogy about an analogy that's 100% bullshit, okay?

      Glad we got that all cleared up...

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    49. Re:Ashcroft by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      If I were offered a drink that was 90% fruit juice and vitamins, and 10% stricnine, I would choose not to drink it.

      What if somebody told you it was good for you, and refused to tell you what was in it?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    50. Re:Ashcroft by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "There were literally hundreds of pathetic attempts to seperate government agencies for a no good reason."

      It's called "federalism." Part of it is the belief that centralization of power is a Bad Thing in and of its own right.

      If you want a single, centralized, monolithic republic, move to France.

    51. Re:Ashcroft by Woody · · Score: 1

      That's because you probably have principles. Remember, these are politicians we're talking about...

    52. Re:Ashcroft by slashdot.org · · Score: 1

      Think about it. America had been attacked. America looked weak, open, an inviting target. America's "liberal" openness was implicated in it (not withstanding YEARS of Airline industry fighting and lobbying against stronger security measures on their planes).

      To vote against it seemed to be voting in favor of what happened. And no politician in their right mind wants to ever create a sense that they are a tool of the boogeyman.


      Well, I can perhaps understand that argument. But my point actually was that the "we weren't allowed to read it before we voted" argument is just BS. If that's the 'excuse' that people make for voting for PATRIOT, then I think that's just lame.

      In fact I would lose all confidence in such a person because they apparently are not willing to stand up and say 'no, this is not right, we have to read it first'. They had that power. Perhaps after they had read it they would have still voted for it, but again, this is just a terrible excuse.

    53. Re:Ashcroft by Boronx · · Score: 1
      That's so much bullshit. They hate us because they live in a cocoon of lies that says we are going to ban the bible, force them to have gay sex, vote for osama, turn Hillary into a Dictator, and surrender to the French.

      This same cocoon paints Kerry, a man whose been fighting terrorists his whole life, and his voters as terrorists sympathizers. While Bush, a prep school cheerleader who ignored terrorism for 9 months, tried to cover it up, and has been in bed with rich Saudis his whole life, is portrayed as a tough cowboy.

      It's a very comfortable, polished, persistent and efficient cocoon.

    54. Re:Ashcroft by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "the US government has done an EXCEPTIONAL job of keeping its people scared and ignorant."

      I'm not sure which to comment on: the way you assume that only the US government could make people ignorant, or the way you believe that those who disagree with you are ignorant.

      "Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots."

      What about the bigots in places like Michigan and Oregon that voted for Kerry on the same ballot on which they supported a "defense of marriage" amendment to their state constitutions? Would you say they were somehow more enlightened than those that voted for Bush?

      Look, if you insist on living under a single, large representative government with these people you're going to have to learn how to get along better with them, at least able to think about them in a way that is a little more constructive than "Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots." Part of living under a democracy means having to put up with the will of the majority, whether you happen to be a part of it or not.

      Personally, I think we might be able to get along better if we went back to living under 50 smaller representative governments instead of all of us fighting for control of a single large one, but uttering something like "states' rights" tends to get one labelled as a " Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigot."

    55. Re:Ashcroft by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "This same cocoon paints Kerry, a man whose been fighting terrorists his whole life, and his voters as terrorists sympathizers"

      And this meant how much to all those voters that said they were voting based on "moral values" as opposed to the "war on terrorism?"

    56. Re:Ashcroft by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
      "Why are you letting this happen? If they tried it in New Zealand, we'd have 30-40% of the population on the streets."
      When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small nation, it is more galling than elsewhere, because, as it acts within a narrow circle, every point of that circle is subject to its direct influence. It supplies the place of those great designs which it cannot entertain by a violent or an exasperating interference in a multitude of minute details; and it leaves the political world, to which it properly belongs, to meddle with the arrangements of domestic life. Tastes as well as actions are to be regulated at its pleasure; and the families of the citizens as well as the affairs of the State are to be governed by its decisions. This invasion of rights occurs, however, but seldom, and freedom is in truth the natural state of small communities. The temptations which the Government offers to ambition are too weak, and the resources of private individuals are too slender, for the sovereign power easily to fall within the grasp of a single citizen; and should such an event have occurred, the subjects of the State can without difficulty overthrow the tyrant and his oppression by a simultaneous effort.

      (...)

      All the passions which are most fatal to republican institutions spread with an increasing territory, whilst the virtues which maintain their dignity do not augment in the same proportion. The ambition of the citizens increases with the power of the State; the strength of parties with the importance of the ends they have in view; but that devotion to the common weal which is the surest check on destructive passions is not stronger in a large than in a small republic. It might, indeed, be proved without difficulty that it is less powerful and less sincere. The arrogance of wealth and the dejection of wretchedness, capital cities of unwonted extent, a lax morality, a vulgar egotism, and a great confusion of interests, are the dangers which almost invariably arise from the magnitude of States.
      --Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
    57. Re:Ashcroft by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      To me it was like trying to understand a huge body of source code solely by looking at diff output.

      Well, yeah. That's because that is exactly what it is.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    58. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously study the Anne Coulter school of argument - misquote or take out of context or ignore the previous statement.

      "going to ban the bible, force them to have gay sex"

      This is what they claimed to get the voters who voted on "moral" values. Although how Bush can take the high ground whilst sending thousands to their deaths, defending torture and preventing a large number of prisoners of war from getting their basic rights under the Geneva convention is beyond me.

    59. Re:Ashcroft by famebait · · Score: 1

      No, you see there is a difference between being a christian and being a Jesus freak.

      That half the country are bigots is clear simply from looking at what they voted. No explanation is necessary; the facts are there for anyone to see.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    60. Re:Ashcroft by goldspider · · Score: 1

      While I agree that both sides slung excessive mud this election season, it would seem that Democrats did so as a substitute to outlining an agenda.

      Say what you will about the Bush's agenda (I think it's misguided too), but at least his was clear. The only thing Kerry effectively communicated was how bad a job Bush did.

      I think Kerry's wife epitomized a lot of Democrats by calling Bush supporters "scumbags". I may not be an expert in politics, but I'm pretty sure that's not a real good way to win those people over to your side.

      If Democrats expect to win any national election in the future, they'd better drop the holier-than-thou elitism that has crept into their party.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    61. Re:Ashcroft by SirBogus · · Score: 1

      Didn't you mean finally recover the state of Justice?

      Hans

    62. Re:Ashcroft by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      We don't have an educated, informed population. Apparently, half of the US really IS made up of Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots.

      Take a look at: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html

      1st two paragraphs says it all:

      Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

      Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

      Oh, and yet another simple example of how much of a dumbass bush is, take a look at this url:

      A nice quote can be found towards the end of the page:

      "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

    63. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a conversation recently with a reporter who was saying something very similar. I asked her if she was ever frustrated by the way she, as a member of the media, is characterized by some as deviously eager to distort the news for political motivations.

      She said it was very frustrating, particularly since she honestly just tried to do her job. She wished that those who cast her in this stereotype would try to understand her and realize she was more complex than they assumed.

      I pointed out that many (not all) of the "Jesus Freak, Nascar worshipping bigots" (I didn't use that term, but was referring to the same people) are just people who have similar complexities, and that it was as unfair to assume the worst about them as it was to assume the worst about her.

      She said she'd have to think about that. Thinking is good thing. I'd suggest you try it.

    64. Re:Ashcroft by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      What outlining did Bush do? Everything I saw was just a bunch of fearmongering.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    65. Re:Ashcroft by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's nonsense -- the record is open, and you can see which sections of the Act were not only discussed, but _rewritten_, and by which senator. Kerry himself wrote part of it (title IV, I believe).

      -Billy

    66. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were offered a drink that was 10% stricnine, I'd have to stand around looking stupid and going "Uh, what the hell is Stricnine?"

      Now, Strychnine, on the other hand, is bad stuff...

    67. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but there is no other way to put this: You are a freaking idiot.

    68. Re:Ashcroft by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "This is what they claimed to get the voters who voted on "moral" values."

      Seems to have backfired in Oregon and Michigan though, where they voted for Kerry as well as banning gay marriage.

      "Although how Bush can take the high ground whilst sending thousands to their deaths,"

      In an all volunteer army...

      "defending torture"

      By punishing torture through courts martial?

      "preventing a large number of prisoners of war from getting their basic rights under the Geneva convention"

      Long argument short: The Geneva conventions only applies to those who wear uniforms and openly carry their weapons. Deliberately trying to blend in to the civillian population places you wholly outside the realm of the Geneva conventions.

    69. Re:Ashcroft by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Seperation is not always waranted, and not always good. There was a lot of *intra-departmental* seperation. Having people work on the same goal, in the same building, on the same floor without being legally able to talk to each other is foolish.

      I agree that we do not want a large monolithic government - although we have just that for 50 years - but what also do not want is a government that encourages inter-departmental squabbles at the expense of real security. That's pretty much exactly what has been going on.

    70. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the Fsck does NASCAR have to do with Bush/Election/Left/right/what ever?? You have never been to a NASCAR race. NASCAR is not a cheap sport. Many fans drive RVs worth more than a nice house. And before you start, its not their only house, their real house is worth even more. The people at a race are there to have fun. 100k drunk people all cheering for different drivers, and no violance (not as much as the RNC). This is just one more case where you have no idea what you are talking about.

    71. Re:Ashcroft by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1

      That'd be great!!!!

      Anybody know how to hotwire a tank?

      --Ender

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    72. Re:Ashcroft by fleener · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least you're seeing the stories about yellow ribbons on broadcast TV. When 500,000 (or more) people march on Washington or New York or wherever, and I don't live in that state, I have to read independent news web sites to find out what happened. Pathetic.

    73. Re:Ashcroft by mink · · Score: 1

      It should have been required that all the people voting on it actually read it back to front before they were allowed to vote. I think all bills should be that way. but it wont happen.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    74. Re:Ashcroft by mink · · Score: 1

      Hum, First time I had ever hear dof one was in the 200 Bush rally sense.

      Is there any good reason for them to be in existance? In the 60's it was probably just a lame excuse to beat up some protesters. Oh wait, there is no difference.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    75. Re:Ashcroft by mink · · Score: 1

      Crud, corrections as follows:
      hear dof should be heard of
      200 should be 2000

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    76. Re:Ashcroft by mink · · Score: 1

      After some searching I cant find any referance to "free speach zones" as such being common (or at all) in the 60's and 70's.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  17. Will Bush appoint a more conservative replacement? by mind21_98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it possible that Bush will appoint a more conservative replacement for Ashcroft? That's been the danger, especially since up to four Supreme Court positions may open up this term. How would a more conservative Attorney General affect the US?

  18. Bush's Army by Lordofohio · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Although I am afraid of the person that will replace Ashcroft, it is certainly a good thing for civil liberties and freedom that he is leaving. I think this brings to light the fact that Bush is only a part of the worry when it comes to the Bush administration, it is the goons behind him whispering in his ear that cause much of the worry.

  19. Damn by legLess · · Score: 1

    Damn. This means that my site is obsolete. Hope the next guy is as photogeneic ...

    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
    1. Re: Damn by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Hope the next guy is as photogeneic ...

      I hope we get to see Lady Liberty's tit again!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Damn by Moofius.the.Cow · · Score: 1

      Niiiice. Maybe put in a redirect to one of the fed prison sites in the meantime? The BOP perhaps?

  20. nobody wants to comment on this story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    as it may win you a long holiday in cuba.

  21. And now Bush has his first Nominee by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the Supreme Court...

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that cut *my* cheering short...

    2. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by stinerman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you dare joke about things like that.

    3. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Elizabeth007 · · Score: 1
      Now I'm gonna have nightmares at that thought.

      *shudder*

    4. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Umm, shouldn't a Supreme Court justice actually have spent some time being a judge? Seems unlikely you'd be able to ram a prosecutor through...Asscroft has no qualifications for the job other than being a religious right wackjob.

    5. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush will resign and have Cheney nominate him. It'll give him something to do. We'll be stuck with his decisions for the next 30 years.

    6. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Elizabeth007 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree with your point.

      But what qualifications did he have for this post? Also, he lost an election to a dead guy before Bush appointed him.

      It appears that being a "religious right wackjob" is the only qualification needed for this administration. :-/

    7. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Thomas had 1 (one) year as a judge; prior to that he was a mid-level official in the Reagan administration, not even close to the rank of attorney general. The right-wingers feel they have been burnt by Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor, so they put right-wing fanatacism over actual judicial experience or legal scholarship.

    8. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by thisissilly · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, only requirement for being on the supreme court is for the President of the US to nominate you, and be confirmed by the Senate.

      IIRC, if you look back at history you will find several ex-state governers were made Supreme Court Justices.

    9. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing that doesn't really match with the offical reason for resignation, health. Bushies want a young, healthy, long living wack job in the supreme court.

    10. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      For the Supreme Court...

      I sure hope the current members of the Supreme Court can stay alive another 4 more years. I feel sorry for some of them, who probably wanted to retire years ago. If they retire or die in office, Bush gets to pick replacements.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    11. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? The Democrats can hold Ashcroft up in the Senate for a thousand years.

    12. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, judges are appointed. Of course there are still enough Democrats to block such appointments, for now at least. (Who knows come 2006.)

    13. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it is a joke- but don't worry, with Specter the Great and Most Liberal as committee chair for judicial, confirmation may well be a long time in coming.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see...state attorney general, US senator, state governor. What sort of qualifications were you looking for? As far as AJ qualifications, I think his resume looked pretty good.

    15. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was AG of Missouri jackass. That is one of his qualifications.

      Except for his support for certain unconstitutional portions of the patriot act I think he did a great job.

    16. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by drawfour · · Score: 1

      No there aren't. The Senate had 51 Republicans in it before this election, they will have 55 after the new terms are started. Unless it requires more than a simple majority, there are not enough Democrats to do anything regarding a Supreme Court Justice appointment. ESPECIALLY if Bush waits until the new terms start...

    17. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      So? Do you think Bush cares? He controls the congress. He is accountable to no one and will do as he pleases.

    18. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And who's to prove that "health" was the real reason for this resignation? Sounds kind of like an excuse to me- one worthy of the BOFH excuse book.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    19. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by ajna · · Score: 1

      It requires 60 votes to bypass a filibuster, which the Republicans do not have, so the Democrats can and will do that if GWB and co. nominate Ashcroft for the SCOTUS.

    20. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Elizabeth007 · · Score: 1
      And was so bad at that, he lost a bid for re-election to a dead guy.

      I'm still wondering what his qualifications were in the first place.

    21. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Well, we COULD let a few of the more conservative ones go- especially the ones with terminal cases of cancer.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    22. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Ah, I'd forgotten about the age-old little-kid "If I can't have my way, I'm gonna cry until I get my way" filibuster.

      BTW, I don't think in any way that G.W. will nominate Ashcroft to the SC, but I think filibusters are ridiculous.

    23. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nope, only requirement for being on the supreme court is for the President of the US to nominate you, and be confirmed by the Senate.

      That might be the only official requirement, but I agree with the parent post: a Supreme Court justice should have spent time as a judge. And the Senate is likely to agree with me, whether or not the President does.

      IIRC, if you look back at history you will find several ex-state governers were made Supreme Court Justices.

      Any in recent history? Did their decisions stand the test of time? Was that their only experience?

    24. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by jafac · · Score: 1

      John Ashcroft judges us all the time. He's PERFECT.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    25. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by jeblucas · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Any in recent history? Did their decisions stand the test of time? Was that their only experience?
      Actually, Burger was named Chief Justice by Nixon, and he was never a judge (law professor, though). His Court made some decisions like Roe v. Wade and that Nixon shouldn't be able to keep his tapes. You might have heard of those.
      --
      blarg.
    26. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bizarre system, to be sure. Are there any safeguards to protect against many of them needing replacing in a few years by one government, or is that considered acceptable?

    27. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by thisissilly · · Score: 1
      a Supreme Court justice should have spent time as a judge. And the Senate is likely to agree with me, whether or not the President does.

      You forget: John Ashcroft was a member of the Senate from 1994-2000. How likely might the Senate be to confirm one of it's own?

    28. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Don't you dare joke about things like that.

      What makes you think anyone's joking?

      /evilgrin

    29. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by sleazyrider · · Score: 1

      Seems unlikely you'd be able to ram a prosecutor through. You misspelt persecutor. Shame on you. ;)

    30. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, Burger was named Chief Justice by Nixon, and he was never a judge (law professor, though).

      Interesting; thanks for the link. But he was on the DC Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. I'll count that as previous experience.

    31. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Michael_Burton · · Score: 1
      Don't you dare joke about things like that.

      You just pray that it's a joke.

      I used to think that this administration would fatally overreach eventually, and that the American people would clip their wings for that. Instead, they're rewarded for overreaching. There is nothing I would put beyond them.

      --
      When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
    32. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Duh, it takes 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster in the senate.

      Of course, the dirty trick will be labelling all democrats very well as "obstructionists". Do they not remember what happened to Congress half-way through Clinton's first term? Contract with America anyone? Do you not think that perhaps some level of this could bounce back the other way?

      The DNC needs to study Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, et al.

      "Moral values". WHAT 'moral values'?

      What ever happened to "I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those that do"? Are those not fundamental moral values as well?

      Kerry "lied" about his medals? Hmm... It was Vietnam! It's hard to lie about being on a river boat in-country, rather than really lying and obfuscating about a purported National Guard "career". If I'm not supposed to worry about that, "aww, he was a young guy", then why should i give a flying fuck about what Kerry did when he got back to the US?

      Besides, getting medals like Kerry got during that time was almost a political excercise as well, in order to manufacture heros. Yes, there were some amazingly valorous acts that were recognized. And there were other, less valorous ones, that were lionized as well. How long exactly did the My Lai massacre convicts actually spend in prison?

      If you think that half of the shit that happened in Vietnam made sense, had any basis in reality, was not warped or perverted to extremes, well...
      The only things real were people getting shot and killed.

    33. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by mzs · · Score: 2, Interesting
      IIRC, if you look back at history you will find several ex-state governers were made Supreme Court Justices.

      You are probably thinking of Earl Warren. He was appointed as Chief Justice after being the Governor of California. Because of his influence in getting the Californian delegation of the Republican National Convention to nominate Eisenhower, President elect Eisenhower promised Warren that he would be appointed to the Supreme Court with the first vacancy in the Court.

      When Chief Justice Fred Vinson died, Warren expected Eisenhower to be true to his pledge. There was considerable out-cry about this because the nation was at the cusp of the Civil Rights movement and Warren was seen as too liberal by many at the time. They brought forward the argument that Warren had never been a judge in his life and that to make him the Chief Justice was clearly political graft. In the end Warren was a recess appointment and later confirmed.

      Earl Warren is best remembered for his hard work to make sure Brown v. Board of Education was a unanimous decision and a(n in)famous quote attributed to Eisenhower about Warren is, "The biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made."

    34. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by khallow · · Score: 1

      I also seem to recall that Ashcroft has some experience as US Attorney General. That probably would be helpful.

    35. Re:And now Bush has his first Nominee by drew · · Score: 1

      Also, he lost an election to a dead guy before Bush appointed him.

      although it is rather amusing, this is not really relevant in any way. although it was the late governor mel carnahan's name that was printed on the ballot, the acting governor of missouri had made it well known that if carnahan won the election, he would appoint carnahan's wife to fill the position. mrs. carnahan said that she would accept the appointment and even filmed a campaign commercial.

      in short, ashcroft didn't really lose the senate seat to "a dead guy", he lost to the late (and i believe well respected) governor's wife.

      and, as many other people pointed out, as the former attorney general of missouri, he had just as much qualification to be the attorney general of the united states as any state governor has to be president of the united states.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  22. Uncover those breasts! by SmilingMonk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Set them free. Freedom is a good thing, right? :-)

    1. Re:Uncover those breasts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the pic in the story is current, the breasts are free as we speak.

    2. Re:Uncover those breasts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you need a dose of Emergency Boobies!

    3. Re:Uncover those breasts! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      I guess it's OK, as long as the breasts are in a 'Freedom Zone' (not to be confused with the end zone, as Janet found out).

  23. I have IN MY HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a letter! A five page letter!
    With names of KNOWN TERRORISTS
    in the US Senate.
    Due to the dangerous nature of this information I cannot disclose it until the end of my term. But I will need additional powers.

    And, if you should ever notice a Senator missing - do not worry - it is for their safety. We will furnish a replacement as soon as possible. Please don't infer anything about their loyalty, or let this affect your voting!

  24. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by darnok · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear there's a former Iraqi Information Minister who's still looking for a job.

  25. Much ado about nothing by dbavirt · · Score: 1

    I pulled this from one of the first google links I found.

    "...customary practice is for the entire cabinet to resign at the end of the term and the POTUS then reappoints those who he wants to stay on."

    1. Re:Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well specifically, the cabinet members resign, and the President decides whether to accept or decline (worked out in advance) the resignation. In this case Bush has accepted Ashcroft's resignation, so this is the real deal.

    2. Re:Much ado about nothing by Chatmag · · Score: 3, Informative

      The resignation was written November 2nd. Election Day. You're right, this is a custom that's been going on for many years.

      In this case, I think it to be true. I just saw it on CNN'S site. It mentions some remarks by President Bush in regards to the resignations of Ashcroft and Evans.

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  26. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! by SledgeHBK · · Score: 1, Redundant

    nm

  27. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa...this is the PATRIOT ACT (TM) guy. Is a "more police-statist" candidate possible, short of ?

  28. Goodbye... by John+Seminal · · Score: 1

    Glad to see him go. He is probably one of the most dangerous people to American civil liberties. Lets not forget this is the guy who takes Americans and holds them without legal help. And lets not forget this is the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead man. If Missourians elected a dead man over him, what does that say about the president appointing him? Gesh... dumb republicans.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Goodbye... by dafunn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sheesh, I am getting so tired of hearing this "dead man" crap. It reminds me of the dirty hippie "the sky is falling - I mean, floating away - I mean, evaporating" environmentalists.

      Yes, Ashcroft is a choad. Yes, it's a good thing he resigned (maybe - we'll have to wait and see if he ends up on the Supreme Court which would suck even harder). But please - there are FAR better reasons to call Ashcroft a nimwit other than this stupid whiny "but he lost to a DEAD MAN! *gasp*" nonsense.

      For anyone who hasn't heard the full story - the dead man referenced above died shortly before the election. His wife said she was going to fill his seat but they couldn't replace his name on the ballot with her's because of a procedural holdup (apparently he died too close to the election). It was very well publicized that his wife was going to hold the seat and the governor went so far as to declare that he would appoint her to the seat if her recently deceased husband won the election and she was still, somehow, procedurally barred from filling his seat.

      Jesus, get the story right - Ashcroft lost to a dead man's wife (w00t! Go Dead Man's Wife!).

    2. Re:Goodbye... by HolyCoitus · · Score: 1

      Losing as the incumbent in a very strange situation and then getting one of the highest and influential positions in the United States government isn't good any way you look at it though.

      --
      That's scary.
  29. Re:uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mission Accomplished"

  30. Good, but.... by Elizabeth007 · · Score: 1

    Glad to see him gone, but what worries me is who are they going to get to replace him? I seriously doubt it is going to be someone better than him (and, at this point, I do belive Atila the Hun would be better).

  31. Shit's perfect, mission accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cheney is real, he don't give a fuck

  32. Horray! Now he'll be free for his true passion... by Disperz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one can't wait for his music career to jump off!
    "LET THE EAGLE SOAR, LIKE SHE'S NEVER SOARN BEFORE!"
    http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/a shcroft.si ngs.wbtv.med.html

    --
    Do you see how my mind works? It's like a laser!
  33. Ashcroft wasn't so bad by mveloso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, when you look back Ashcroft wasn't so bad. He turned the FBI around and changed its mission radically. While the FBI has had a lot of false positives, it hasn't had many false negatives.

    Compare that to the last AG, Janet Reno. The only thing I remember her doing was frying a whole bunch of fellow citizens down in Texas...and refusiing to prosecute/investigate a bunch of Clintonistas.

    1. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You know, when you look back Ashcroft wasn't so bad. He turned the FBI around and changed its mission radically.

      Yeah, he did change the FBI. They no longer need search warrents, and they have no respect of our civil liberties. If you ask me, he damaged the USA. We were a more free people before he came to power. And don't forget, Ashcroft was the guy who lost his senate seat because the people of his state elected a dead guy rather than have 6 more years of him.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, when you look back Ashcroft wasn't so bad. He turned the FBI around and changed its mission radically

      You're aware that Ashcroft doesn't run the FBI, aren't you? Robert Mueller does. He's not a lightning rod because he's not a religious zealot with no respect for the constitution, see?

      Compare that to the last AG, Janet Reno. The only thing I remember her doing was frying a whole bunch of fellow citizens down in Texas...and refusiing to prosecute/investigate a bunch of Clintonistas.

      Again with the AG. All the Clinton investigations, incidentally, yielded one conviction. On a plea. Let's look at Reagan's stellar administration for contrast, shall we?

    3. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by PapalMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "While the FBI has had a lot of false positives, it hasn't had many false negatives." In other words: they may have arrested a lot of innocent people, they didn't allow any terrorist attacks (after that first one). "Compare that to the last AG, Janet Reno" Ok: We didn't arrest nearly as many innocent people, but still didn't allow any terrorist attacks (after that first one). Call me crazy, but I'll take the government that arrests less innocent people.

    4. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by zerblat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      While the FBI has had a lot of false positives, it hasn't had many false negatives.
      And that's supposed to be a good thing? You know, it isn't hard to eliminate all false negatives if you aren't concerned about the false positives. Just assume all cases are positive.
      --
      Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
    5. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by krimkra · · Score: 1, Informative

      Now let's examine your statement: "the FBI no longer need search warrants" That is a false statement. You know perfectly well the FBI still needs to seek search warrants. So what are you here to do? Make false claims or get at the truth?

    6. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reno let the rabid dogs have a special prosecutor, who spent seventy millions bucks to mount an impeachment fishing expedition. What else would you want?? JEEZ.

      And it all came up empty.

      Now Aschroft? Snatched defeat from the claws of victory, and completely let Microsoft walk after it was convicted, fried, toasted by the Reno Justice Department. Dragged his heels on the Enron investigation -- helped Bush run interference as the billions were stolen. Slow-walked the Valerie Plame treason investigation past the election. Didn't investigate massive election interference in both 2000 and now 2004. Let the Pubs walk on using Homeland Security apparatus to interfere in the Texas redistricting. Won't instruct Bush to comply with the Supreme Court's stunning orders to let the concentration camp prisoners have access to a fair trial - they are ignoring the law of the land and performing show trials. He rammed the Patriot act into law, effectively repealing at least three ammendments in the Bill of Rights.

      And the FBI was gutted by Freeh, the Clinton appointee who turned for the impeachment elves and committed 50 full time agents to investigating Clinton's sex lives while Al Queda was moving into position. Freeh "reformed" the FBI by eliminating an entire middle level of analysts, and "streamlining" the flow of information from below into the executive offices - ie, him. The warning from field agents were ignored because experienced analysts no longer existed to read the damned reports.

      The FBI was "changed around" by Freeh. I doubt much that Ashcroft did didley to restore the analysts back to duty. Waht Bush/Ashcroft are doing, really, is to make every information asset we have responsible to and report to the executive, ie Bush. Not only do we not have the middle level of analysts back, we instead have a pack of political true-believers distilling info for the President's consumption. It's a wreck.

      His resignation was rumored for over a year. no surprise. However, his replacement will be much worse.

    7. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      Now let's examine your statement: "the FBI no longer need search warrants" That is a false statement. You know perfectly well the FBI still needs to seek search warrants. So what are you here to do? Make false claims or get at the truth?

      Not according to the patriot act. Not only do they not need search warrents, but they can search without you knowing. There have been storeis about the FBI demanding bank information about people, and then ordering the bank to never release the fact that information was released.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    8. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by pyros · · Score: 1

      The PATRIOT Act grants FBI search/seizure authority in some cases without a warrant issued by a judge, allowing warrants issued by clerks to suffice. Mostly in regards to financial history. In other words, it removes judicial oversite, which is the whole freaking point of requiring warrants. You seem to be comfortable with the loss of the judicial oversite of the executive branch, but I am not.

    9. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now let's examine your statement: "the FBI no longer need search warrants" That is a false statement. You know perfectly well the FBI still needs to seek search warrants. So what are you here to do? Make false claims or get at the truth?

      You're both off. Yes, warrants are still required for many things, but not for as many as they used to be, and secret warrants and gag orders for things like library checks and sneak and peak searches are bad.

    10. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by krimkra · · Score: 1
      OK, so you claim search warrants are a thing of the past.

      You are detached from reality. I don't know whose propaganda you've been listening to, but search warrants have not been done away with.

    11. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget seizing a Cuban child with assault rifle-carrying agents.

    12. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by krimkra · · Score: 1
      "in some cases" you said. So it's not a blanket ending of judicial oversight. It is something done in "some" cases.

      If you think September 11 was fun, good! Then you should be against changes in our laws to help prevent more terror. Go ahead and fight the Patriot Act. Nothing could make the terrorists happier than having Americans like you on their side.

    13. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by cje · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only thing I remember her doing was frying a whole bunch of fellow citizens down in Texas.

      While I have no strong opinions about Janet Reno (pro or con), I think you're leaving some basic facts out of the equation here. The Branch Davidians (the "fellow citizens" you're referring to here) were in violation of several firearms laws at varying levels. Law enforcement authorities obtained a proper warrant and served it on February 28, 1993. If you're keeping score, that was almost two weeks before Janet Reno was even sworn in as Attorney General on March 12th. In the resulting raid, four federal agents were murdered by these same "fellow citizens" that you are (at least tangentially) defending. These were men with families, and they were just doing their job. I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers.

      Janet Reno made the best of a bad situation. Even though she had only been in office for a couple of weeks when the final raid happened and had very little to do with its planning and how it was executed, she took full responsibility for it. She was, after all, the Attorney General at the time that it happened. But there's a certain amount of logical inconsistency here; we are told that we cannot blame President Bush for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 because he had only been in office for eight months before it happened, but we can blame Waco on Reno even though it started before she became AG and she had only been in office for a couple of weeks. (For the record, I don't blame 9/11 on President Bush.)

      You know that the FBI/ATF bent over backwards to bring the Waco siege to a peaceful conclusion, don't you? They repeatedly tried to negotiate with Koresh, offering food and other basic supplies if he would just release some of the children from the compound, to which he replied (literally) "kiss my ass." The way that the situation resolved itself was tragic and there will probably always be questions about it, but the basic fact of the matter is that the Branch Davidians had 51 days to end the standoff peacefully and they chose not to. And I've never understood the mindset that can dismiss the murder of law enforcement agents, particularly in the post-9/11 era.

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    14. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      OK, so you claim search warrants are a thing of the past. You are detached from reality. I don't know whose propaganda you've been listening to, but search warrants have not been done away with.

      Lets examine your statement. You said that search warrents are still needed. I said the government does not have to get them. So what is the end result? Government has taken away a safegaurd people have. And I am the one listening to propaganda? Do you watch the news? Do you see how government is treating american citizens? All government needs to do is suspect you, and they can lock you up without legal help and search your stuff. What is next? If there is another terror attack, do we lose more freedoms?

      What scares me the most is the idea government can pick you up off the streat and send you away somewhere without notifying anyone they have taken you into custody. No lawyers. Nothing.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    15. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but he wrote that cool "Let the Eagle Soar" song.

      let the eagle sooooaarr

    16. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by burns210 · · Score: 1

      No, they haven't been eliminated, they have, however, been made useless in certain situations.

      If you are 'suspected' of being a terrorist, the FBI can search your, for instance, library records or bank records and put a gag order on the library/bank to not admit(publicly or privately) to ever giving the feds that information... All without a judge-signed warrant. What is the point of warrants if not for judicial oversight? If the case demands a search for certain records, like bank statements, then the judge will give the feds a warrant. If not, he won't.

    17. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by achbed · · Score: 1
      I believe the "some" cases you refer to require an agent to simply state that the warrant is for an "ongoing terrorist investigation". How many cases are now classified as "terrorist investigations" simply to get the warrant without any review?

      On top of that, all wiretaps and surveillance warrants are issued by a judge housed in the FBI main offices, and have been for years. The Patriot Act simply made bypassing this speed-bump a lot easier.

    18. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      While the FBI has had a lot of false positives, it hasn't had many false negatives.


      How do you know what's a false negative? What percentage of the false negatives do you ever find out were false negatives? Probbably pretty low, that would entail catching the guys you couldn't catch previously.

      I'm really tired of all these claims of great success on stopping terrorist attacks. The first WTC bombing was in 1993, a lag of 8 years between attacks on US soil. International attacks haven't stopped either. The march 2004 Madrid bombings are suspected to be of Al-quaida origin. Wikipedia lists many attacks reportedly from Al-quada. While the justice department doesn't have much control over other countries, it sure seems to indicate the rest of US foreign policy hasn't done a whole lot of damage to Al-quaida.

      --
      AccountKiller
    19. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Reno let the rabid dogs have a special prosecutor, who spent seventy millions bucks to mount an impeachment fishing expedition. What else would you want?? JEEZ.

      And it all came up empty."

      Clinton was impeached jackass.

    20. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ATF had been infamous for decades for being the shit-hole of federal law enforcement. It was full of unprofessional cowboys and jerks who did some pretty despicable things to innocent citizens. Waco was just another example of their dishonesty and incompetence.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    21. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you think September 11 was fun, good! Then you should be against changes in our laws to help prevent more terror. Go ahead and fight the Patriot Act. Nothing could make the terrorists happier than having Americans like you on their side."

      we HAD laws in place on Sep 11 to keep it from happening. The fact that NORAD stepped down & LET 911 HAPPEN should be a clue to everyone watching that theres mroe going on than crazy nutjobs hijacking a plane.

      NORAD had orders on the morning of 911 that they were to IGNORE any strange goings-on that morning, as the defense department was allegedly running some sort of exercise. And so the F-16s that are normally dispatched whenever an airliner ventures too far off course remained grounded on the morning of 911.

      We were safe before 911, however someone went out of their way to make sure it could still happen anyway. However, the current admin would rather not investigate who, or why. (we spent 4 times more funds investigating Clintons BJ than we did the killing of thousands of Americans on 911)

      NORAD works, & it wouldve saved thousands of lives on that day, if it had been allowed to do its job. PATRIOT act isnt protecting anybody but W & his cronies.

    22. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > His resignation was rumored for over a year. no surprise. However, his replacement will be much worse.

      I hear Jeb Bush has been put forward. ;-)

    23. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where the hell have you been the past 4 years?


      Jesus you been living under a rock?

    24. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Grym · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ...I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers.

      Revengefully lighting a place on fire and watching its inhabitants burn isn't enforcing the law--it's setting an example for those who would consider resisting (regardless of the validity of the reason) in the future.

      I would have no problem with the Waco incident if the police had killed only the men resisting, but they didn't. Their actions killed EVERYBODY. If John Ashcroft had done the same, liberals would be screaming Nazi analogies and for impeachment of Bush himself. And for the first time, they would be right in doing so.

      -Grym

    25. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by cje · · Score: 1

      Well, in that particular case, I agree that Reno did not act properly. If I had been the Attorney General, the INS would have gone in and taken the boy back to his father about nine days sooner.

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    26. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by graikor · · Score: 1

      I think Tommy Chong might feel a little bit less positive about Ashcroft's tenure.

    27. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Missouri hated him so much that they elected a dead guy. That's why he was ahead in the polls until his opponent died in a plane crash. But hey, don't let truth get in the way of making a point.

    28. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the FBI has had a lot of false positives, it hasn't had many false negatives.

      Whatever happened to "better ten guilty men go free, than an innocent man be wrongfully convicted"?

    29. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have have even one link to a coherent account of what you claim?

    30. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget: Ashcroft was also a hypocrite. Check the war on drugs section..

    31. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its unfortunate you buy into "If you're not with us, you must therefore be against us." rhetoric. A story isn't limited to merely two sides.

    32. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by jafac · · Score: 1

      Can I mod this post up;
      +1 Hell Yeah! Fuckin-A!!

      6000 Constitution-rending detentions.
      Not. One. Single. Conviction.

      This is what happens when you appoint cronies based on ideology instead of competence.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    33. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Ok that's it. Seeing that comment marked as both Troll and Overrated really sickens me.

      I can't read politics on slashdot with this type of crap from "open minded" liberals who like to mod down any comment they disagree with. /rant

    34. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he Branch Davidians (the "fellow citizens" you're referring to here) were in violation of several firearms laws at varying levels."

      If a facist like Ashcroft passes a law banning something you like to do you would be in violation of the law too.

      "had 51 days to end the standoff peacefully and they chose not to."

      Why should they ?
      They were at their own place minding their own business.
      You are a fucking hypocrite of the worst kind.

    35. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yes, and acquitted.

      empty.

    36. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by cje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Revengefully lighting a place on fire and watching its inhabitants burn isn't enforcing the law--it's setting an example for those who would consider resisting (regardless of the validity of the reason) in the future.

      "Revengefully lighting a place on fire?" Where on Earth are you getting this from? G. Gordon Liddy? The Montana Militia? The idea that the FBI would purposely and "revengefully" light fire to a compound containing young children and then gleefully watch it burn to the ground in full view of countless news cameras might sound perfectly plausible to those people, but to those of us with both feet grounded firmly in reality, it is the worst kind of delusional, black-helicoptered paranoia.

      I would have no problem with the Waco incident if the police had killed only the men resisting, but they didn't.

      The truth is that we will probably never know what caused the Waco fire. I do agree that the official government report (which concluded that the fire was intentionally set by the Davidians) was likely a whitewash. It's far more likely that the fire was started by kerosene lamps that the Davidians were burning inside the compound, but like I said, we'll never know for sure. Incidentally, it bears repeating: The whole reason that there was a 51-day standoff to begin with was that the Branch Davidians murdered 4 law enforcement officers and wounded 20 others. You call this "resisting", but I'm more of an old-fashioned kind of a guy; I say we call murder "murder."

      Their actions killed EVERYBODY.

      There were nine survivors.

      If John Ashcroft had done the same, liberals would be screaming Nazi analogies and for impeachment of Bush himself.

      On this we agree. The loony left and the radical right both have their fair share of idiocy.

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    37. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Koresh should have let the children out at least. He could have given up at any time, he could have sent the women and children out. But no he wanted to hide behind innocents.

      BTW this is the exact same tactics terrorists use in Iraq. Right now, this very moment the US govt is bombing the shit out of a city with hundreds of thousands of human beings in it in order to kill a few thousand terrorists. Like koresh those terrorists are hiding behind inncents. Like Reno Bush is burning the place down to get at them.

      There is no difference between the way reno handled koresh and the way bush is handling falujah.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    38. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by BrodeCo · · Score: 1

      The raid on the Branch Davidian compound came right on the cusp of a massive investigation; they needed something BIG to draw attention away from this. Right before Waco happened, Koresh took ATF officers out shooting for fun. Not really a normal man, but I believe burning children alive is worse than marrying them. It was a debacle, and is rightly remembered as a genuine (non-trifling-blowjob-related) terrible moment in the Clinton administration.

    39. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Forbman · · Score: 1

      So, spreading fuel around the inside of my house, while egging on the cops to the point that they fire teargas and flash-bangs in it, which sets the house on fire, this is the police's problem?

      David Koresh's actions killed the people in Waco.

      My wife had to deal with a kid who grew up in there while she was still a psych nurse.

    40. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Grym is right on this one. Grym knows that I am far left of center and even I can see the mess that this was. Why didn't they arrest Koresh in town when they had the chance? Why not wait them out? Why not put a 20mm round through their water supply and wait for them to run out of water? Truth of the matter is that there are about a million things that could have been done, but the whole thing was run by a bunch of yahoos who were given too many guns and too little supervision. As one poster stated -
      the Branch Davidians murdered 4 law enforcement officers and wounded 20 others. You call this "resisting", but I'm more of an old-fashioned kind of a guy; I say we call murder "murder."
      I say that if you show up in the middle of no where and drop a poorly marked assault force with no real plan other than "rush" and no back up or contingency plan of any sort you are asking for trouble. The man that ordered that mess should be sitting in prison.Besides anyone knows why the cops who outnumber a lone gunman 20:1 dont rush in, or sniper him immedialty - it is amuch about the safty of the man on the inside as the cops on the outside.

      I have actually seen the "proof" tapes that still circulate the far right about what "really" went down that day - and I got to say there are some odd bits that could use some better explaination.

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    41. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by krimkra · · Score: 1

      My name's not Jesus.

    42. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      FBI need a warrant, but they don't need to get it by a local judge. Any judge will do. They also don't need to tell you that they got a warrant, nor do they need you to be there when they are searching.

    43. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1) We're talking about BATF stormtroopers here. The folks who played fast and loose with civil liberties for over a decade. You know. Little things like going in and kicking a storeowner out of his own store for three days while they browsed his sales records... Without bothering to obtain a search warrant first. Or to observe/enforce privacy laws. Etc. Go browse the web. There are tons of really nasty stories out there.

      2) Both sides claim the other fired first. I doubt we'll ever know for certain. Given the nature of both sides, there's no particular reason to believe one over the other.

      3) After the shooting started, the BATF fired randomly into the building. How many people were in there? How many women? How many children? Yet they strafed the building from helicopters with fully automatic machine pistols, firing blindly through the roof into those women & children. Anyone in the vicinity was considered fair game. They murdered one kid on top of a nearby water tower. Oh, and then they denied it! Listen to the tapes. When negotiating with Koresh they denied shooting from helicopters, only to later admit it.

      4) It's been well established that the forces outside the Davidian compound held the viewpoint of "we are going to kill that guy" long before the place burned down.

      5) One guy did leave the Davidian compound. He surrendered. He was unarmed. He was killed by nice FBI/BATF guys after surrendering. Never even made it to jail. Died in the sands outside the house.

      What a way to encourage the rest Davidians to surrender...

      6) There were reports that, in the morning hours before the fire, US officials called up all the local hospitals to determine how many beds they had available for burn patients. THIS WAS BEFORE THE FIRE!

      7) There were reports that two of the shells fired by government forces were incendiaries. The spent shells were reportedly found in the rubble afterwards.

      8) The government forces tear-gassed the building with that tank while spraying bullets everywhere from a machine gun on the tank. All while claiming on a loudspeaker "this is not an attack".

      Then they did nothing.

      Quick clue check here folks: The government gases your home with tear gas, burning your eyes and month, while firing fully automatic weapons at you. What do you do? Do you run out into the line of fire to surrender? Or burrow down?

      The Government didn't invade the building after gassing it. They just backed off and waited. Why? I mean, if you were in there, would you have come out?

      Or was the tear gas itself only a diversion for the real attack?

      9) Check the tapes again. Notice how the tank goes far further into the Davidian compound than it needs to just spray tear gas. It creates those big gaping holes.

      Now check the wind patterns for Waco that day. What was it? Twenty mile-per-hour winds? Someone was using that tank to create a chimney effect. Hey, give me a 20 MPH wind tunnel, and I can get anything to burn. Ever try to light a barbecue with an electric fan?

      10) It's been well established from multiple sources that the tear-gas tank was highly exothermic. Its muzzle, you know the part they kept sticking 10 feet into the house, was well beyond the temperature needed to ignite paper. And of course the exhaust system... Well it goes without saying that's exothermic. (DON'T touch the muffler of your car to verify it. You'll burn your hand off.)

      11) Some months after Waco was over, several of our local police officers had occasion to meet with a couple of the FBI boys. Those FBI boys cracked a few jokes about Waco. Our local officers had to take them aside and explain that they though Waco had been handled atrociously. That such jokes were in exceptionally poor taste. And that they didn't care for them. Little weird to have the local boys reprimanding the FBI over this...

      There is no doubt in my mind that, regardless of how this whole thing began, the

    44. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Unfscking believable! Don't you realize that by changing our laws, reducing our civil rights, and keeping us in a constant state of fear, that the Government is giving Osama the biggest victory he could have ever hoped for? The terrorists have won because the US Government, and Shrub in particular, have allowed them to win by reacting to the attacks just the way they wanted us to.

    45. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Mostly in regards to financial history.

      Sounds like part of the money-laundering section, then. Which was authored by...Senator John Kerry (and proudly advertised as his contribution to PATRIOT during the recent Presidential campaign).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  34. *more* conservative? by Goonie · · Score: 3, Funny
    Are you trying to tell me that there are *more* "conservative" (they're really radicals) people Shrub could potentially appoint than Ashcroft? Just how scary do your wingnuts get?

    In any case, I don't know whether you were intending to but you've alluded to an interesting point. Justice Ashcroft anyone?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:*more* conservative? by tji · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ashcroft ensured our safety by covering the breasts of statues in the justice department.

      His more radically conservative replacement will complete this initiative, furthering American safety, by requiring burkas for all female statues.

    2. Re:*more* conservative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol :-) wish i had mod points today

    3. Re:*more* conservative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you check out the pic in the article? Boobies!

    4. Re:*more* conservative? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No, they're staunchly conservative in their views, but not radical. Listen to Savage Nation once in a while (for as long as you can stand it) to find someone you can really label 'radical.'

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:*more* conservative? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      There is a more radical one I can think of:

      John Kerry said this "[O]ne would be hard-pressed," he wrote, "to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one"

    6. Re:*more* conservative? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Are you trying to tell me that there are *more* "conservative" (they're really radicals) people Shrub could potentially appoint than Ashcroft? Just how scary do your wingnuts get?

      I hear Alan Keyes is looking for a job, right now...

      --
      That is all.
    7. Re:*more* conservative? by bladernr · · Score: 5, Funny
      Listen to Savage Nation once in a while (for as long as you can stand it) to find someone you can really label 'radical.'

      Want a Democratic majority in this country? Make all Republicans listen to Mike Savage for a solid 4 hours. 90% of Republicans would think "THIS GUY is on my side?" and switch sides.

      (No I'm not kidding. How many Republicans really agree with those talk-radio whack-jobs?)

      Of course, I could also make 90% of Democrats become Republicans by making them listen to Air America for a day. You think the ring-wing guys are paraniod tin-foil hatters? Listen to Air America for a while.

      That's the beautiful thing about American politics: I can choose either major party and be guaranteed to be in horrible company.

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    8. Re:*more* conservative? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      From the linked article:

      He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.

      ``The attorney general was not even aware of the situation,'' he said. ``Obviously, he has more important things to do.''


      The article did say though that Ashcroft didn't like being photographed in front of the statues. One statue was female with a single breast exposed, the other was male.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    9. Re:*more* conservative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that the Supreme Council of Iran endorsed Lil Bush. Maybe he can find someone, just maybe, who would be moral enough.

    10. Re:*more* conservative? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No I'm not kidding. How many Republicans really agree with those talk-radio whack-jobs?

      More than there should be (and I tend to lean conservative). Judging by who is on what stations, I can see roughly how popular they are here. Savage is on a relatively small network in Los Angeles, while Rush is on the largest (KFI). Larry Elder is on KABC, which is of respectable size (and Larry is generally more respectable than the other two, though since his registration as a Republican, he's sounding too much like an apology outlet for my tastes).

      I'd say something about Air America, but I heard about two minutes of it one day on the way into work, and had to turn it off because I had arrived. It was pulled the next day over the legal and financial squabbling. I've not heard good things about it, though, from either political side. Those few friends who have been in areas where they can listen to it turned it off because it was mostly emotional bashing of the right, whereas the right-wing talk show hosts at least try to be on topic. (There are those on the left that do get to the facts. Mr. KABC is one of them, but he's not syndicated.)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:*more* conservative? by justins · · Score: 1
      Are you trying to tell me that there are *more* "conservative" (they're really radicals) people Shrub could potentially appoint than Ashcroft? Just how scary do your wingnuts get?

      Two words:

      Ed Meese
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    12. Re:*more* conservative? by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Of course, I could also make 90% of Democrats become Republicans by making them listen to Air America for a day.

      How, by making them fall asleep?

    13. Re:*more* conservative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the person I see named to fill the position thinks the Geneva conventions are Quaint and that tourture and loss of civil rights is a good american thing.

  35. While many here dislike him... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 0, Redundant

    While many here dislike him, others have more favorable opinions of him

    In other news, while many disapprove of the war in iraq, some do not...while many people enjoy eating meat, others do not, while many people are cat people, others are not and while many parts of a sentence are not redundant, others, in fact, are.

  36. So, Mission Accomplished eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems I saw that somewhere else as well....

  37. Poor Mr. Ashcroft by agent+dero · · Score: 3, Funny

    "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated"

    I have a new found respect for John Ashcroft, it's pretty respectable that he thinks Bush will read five-pages of his letter.

    At least he "still believes"

    ;)

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
    1. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 3, Funny

      s/will/can/

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    2. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by jpetts · · Score: 0, Troll

      "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated"

      Actually, that's a typo: it should read "five-letter, handwritten page"

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    3. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by jd · · Score: 1

      I'm impressed he could write that much, in between running from cats, holding Bible studies in his office and terrorizing the nation. It must have taken him months! Especially using that old quill pen.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      "I quit" :D

    5. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five pages... front and back!

      Apparently, Bush thought they were on a break.

    6. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by FFFish · · Score: 1

      five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated...

      See John.

      John is going.

      See John go.

      Wave goodbye to John.

      Bye, bye, John.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    7. Re:Poor Mr. Ashcroft by boggartlaura · · Score: 1

      Hee. I wish I had mod points rihght now....

      --
      http://www.caretoicedance.com
  38. Self-fulfilling prophecy by jinxidoru · · Score: 5, Funny

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    Am I correct in assuming that his resignation is what is bringing this achievement to pass?

  39. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Pyrion · · Score: 1

    Giuliani.

    Well, I can dream, can't I?

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  40. I'm not one who would tear his hair out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...over Ashcroft, but he did remind me of the type of person who was mortally afraid that someone, somewhere was having a good time, and was determined to put a stop too it.

  41. As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P by isolation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thank God. I wish Ashcroft could read this.

    I am a Christain and a Conservative and I am glad to see him gone. His record on states rights vs federal law proves that the current administration cares nothing about the will of the people and only about the power of Federal law. I dont want the state coming in and telling me what I can and can't put in to my body or who I can have sex with. I could just see this guy dragging homosexuals in if the amendment had passed. I dont want the state to come in to my marrage or a gay marrage anymore than I want the state to come in to my relationship with God.

    This guy got his rocks off dragging people in to court over matters that should never have been law in the first place.

    See you around John.....

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    1. Re:As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P by back_pages · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I wish I had mod points. I'm not a Christian and these days, I'm apparently not a Conservative (not trying to be flippant, I just wish we could stick to the Constitution) but it's nice to hear a self-identified Christian Conservative recognize the dissonance between that political stance and certain aspects of the Bush administration.

      I don't have mod points, but you got my respect.

    2. Re:As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I am a Christain and a Conservative

      No you're not, but it's clear that you ARE a liar.

    3. Re:As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said he was a conservative Christian on the Intarweb, so it has to be true!

    4. Re:As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P by mattkime · · Score: 1

      AMEN!

      Its so good to hear someone from your perspective say something like that. I'm a liberal. I'm perfectly fine with people being conservative and/or Christian. Yet so many Christians trust entirely in Bush and his administration. Bush, governor of Texas? How many capital punishments were there while he was governor? And so many people overlook the lie about WMDs to go to war....oh, and being in bed with the NRA. (We all know how much Jesus loved weaponry.)

      Well, maybe you don't agree with a damn thing I said, but props to you for being critical of the party that claims to represent you!

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    5. Re:As well as secure us from sex, drugs and P2P by SirBogus · · Score: 1

      While this discussion is mostly a mudfight, you at least stand for who you are and make statements that clearly are your own.

      There is hope still. Too bad there are only very few comments like this.

  42. YES! by asscroft · · Score: 1

    I've waited for this day for a long time!!!!

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol! Pleae note this guy's username!

  43. LOL by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Funny
    He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

    And Bush had to have someone read it to him.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when told it was written in cursive, he replied:
      "So Dick Cheney does the writing for him too?"

  44. two thoughts spring to mind by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Funny
    the humor, 1- "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'" the fact that it was addressed to the receipient it was- makes this an oxymoron...

    the serious 2- I recall a quote attributed to the then director of the patent office, requesting the patent office be closed, as all concieveable inventions had been made.. both the quote and the historical snip I give seem to have a spooky similarity

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:two thoughts spring to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall a quote attributed to the then director of the patent office, requesting the patent office be closed, as all concieveable inventions had been made.

      It's an urban legend.

  45. All I can say... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    ... is I think I speak for all of us when I say, w00000000t!!!!

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  46. karma be damned by IshanCaspian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    FUCK YOU ASHCROFT! GET THE FUCK OUTTA THERE, YOU NAZI PIG FUCKER!

    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    (lameness filter encountered. post aborted! reason: don't uses so many caps, it's like yelling)

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:karma be damned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aww, I'd 'a modded ya up!

  47. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most liekly hes looking for an appointment to the SC. 3 or four are expected to come around in the next 4 years.

  48. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ashcroft will be nominated to one of those Supreme Court positions next week.

  49. Ashcroft according to John McCutcheon by macguys · · Score: 1
    For a lyrical look at Attorney General Ashcroft, check out folksinger John McCutcheon's free MP3 of his song, Ashcroft's Army. You can find it by clicking here.

    --
    wherever I go, there I am.
    1. Re:Ashcroft according to John McCutcheon by joehill48 · · Score: 0

      Here's what I think is the best folk song about Ashcroft:

      The Ballad of John Ashcroft

  50. A good thing by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

    Does that mean the Patriot Act can be repealed now?

    1. Re:A good thing by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Does that mean the Patriot Act can be repealed now?

      It means that the black helicopters are ready to come to your house now.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:A good thing by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      You're mis-reading it. What he's saying is that he has successfully taken the safety of Americans out of the hands of foreign terrorists and placed it squarely into the hands of the US government.

  51. Damn Dude! Why Does Tokken Live Here? by Uosdwis · · Score: 1

    Although I am scared about the prospects of his replacement being a bigger freak, I do not recognize many of the names being speculated upon. But I like how many of their top qualities are being reported:

    Larry Thompson .. An African-American and a strong conservative, Thompson could appeal to several constituencies.
    White House general counsel Alberto Gonzales, a Hispanic

    'cause these are really important qualifiers

  52. We're saved! by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    So they figured out how anthrax from US Army labs was mailed to various members of congress and media outlets, and captured those responsible?

    Oh...they haven't done that, eh?

    Well, at least gays can't marry.

    1. Re:We're saved! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Well, at least gays can't marry.

      Consumer McMonkey, you are hereby notified that the voice of democracy has been heard at all levels of American government. America has spoken in favor of moral values across this great nation.

      This is your final warning before you will be apprehended for thought adjustment.

      The appropriate, patriotic, American phrase is, "Well, at least dirty fags can't marry."







      Be offended if you must, but at least realize that it's satire.

    2. Re:We're saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, some scientists in biological weapons research did have strange and fatal car accidents.

    3. Re:We're saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

      So they figured out how anthrax from US Army labs was mailed to various members of congress and media outlets, and captured those responsible?


      Actually, there was anthrax in the letter that Ashcroft gave him. It's the only way to "secur[e] the safety of Americans from crime and terror".

  53. 5 pages?! thats way to long for Bush to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres no way bush is going to read all 5 pages its just to much work and as he says "its a hard job" or he might be on vacation

  54. That's great but . . . by uberjoe · · Score: 1

    They want to replace him with Zell Miller. We can now look forward to the day when all matters legal will be settled with duel at sunrise.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    1. Re:That's great but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is what Kerry should have challenged Bush to do. Oh sorry, Bush wouldn't have shown up for the practice...nor the actual duel....

    2. Re:That's great but . . . by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 1

      It's now spelled and pronounced "du-oool", per Zell Miller. Thanks, Management.

      --
      If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  55. Wahoo! by lakeland · · Score: 0, Redundant

    YEAH!

  56. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like who, Joseph Stalin is dead?

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  57. great by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I knew I should have hurried up with my idea for a four horsemen of the apocolypse t-shirt, now one of the horsemen has resigned....

    1. Re:great by Disperz · · Score: 1

      and the other three horsemen are?

      --
      Do you see how my mind works? It's like a laser!
    2. Re:great by nizo · · Score: 1

      Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld. At least you can see my answer even if no one else does after I get modded into oblivion.

    3. Re:great by Epona · · Score: 1
      So- what happens when you change horsemen mid-apocolypse?

      --
      No heaven can heaven be, if my horse isn't there to welcome me.
  58. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

    Ashcroft is pretty much a Christian Fundementalist, it is pretty hard to be more conservative than that, unless maybe Jerry Falwell gets appointed.

  59. Enter Giuliani by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The only question now is whether Giuliani will take the job as Bush Enforcer, or wait to be installed as a Supreme Court Justice. He'll probably go for Enforcer, because he's used to running a "Chief Prosecutor for Emperor" race, setting him up comfortably for 2008. Unless Sir Giuliani runs afoul of the Constitution:

    Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
    " No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Enter Giuliani by zeke-o · · Score: 1

      wow, that's a scary thought .. Giuliani outlawed *dancing* in NYC!

    2. Re:Enter Giuliani by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's an HONORARY KNIGHTHOOD. He's not "Sir". There is no conveyance of title in the order of knighthood that he holds.

      From the British Royal Family's website:

      http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page489.asp

      "Foreign citizens occasionally receive honorary knighthoods; they are not dubbed, and they do not use the style 'Sir'. Such knighthoods are conferred by The Queen, on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on those who have made an important contribution to relations between their country and Britain. Foreign citizens with knighthoods include the former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Chancellor Kohl, President Mitterrand and Mayor Giuliani of New York."

      So, Doc Smartypants, I guess you need to just STFU until you know what you are talking about.

    3. Re:Enter Giuliani by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous peasant Coward, Shut The Fuck Up. Which part of "of any kind whatever" is so difficult to understand? Oh, yeah, that's that "quaint" old Constitution, always kidding. Just like that quaint old Geneva Convention that the US courts just ruled still apply to old John Fascist Ashcroft. There's nothing honorary about Giuliani, Anonymous know-nothing Coward, except his taxpayer-purchased tuxedo.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Enter Giuliani by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only question now is whether Giuliani will take the job as Bush Enforcer, or wait to be installed as a Supreme Court Justice. He'll probably go for Enforcer, because he's used to running a "Chief Prosecutor for Emperor" race, setting him up comfortably for 2008. Unless Sir Giuliani runs afoul of the Constitution:"

      Oh, do give it a rest. The first President Bush, Ronald Reagan, Norman Schwarzkopf, and (I believe but could be mistaken on this one) Colin Powell have all been knighted by the Queen.

      That portion of the Constitution should be repealed as well as the prohibition on foreign born citizens seeking the Presidency because the only reason why it was included in the Constitution was to prevent Alexander Hamilton from ever becoming the President.

      The restriction on titles is just another anti-British relic that was probably insisted on by that turncoat and hypocrite named Thomas Jefferson that sold out his own blood because he took bribes from the French.

      The Lynxpro

    5. Re:Enter Giuliani by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Lynxpro Coward, the only issue you have with my post is my criticism of Giuliani's unconstitutional foreign title? No wonder you post anonymously, like the rest of you Freeper zombies picking our country apart from behind your cyberhoods. I thought you fascists pretended to be "strict constructionists"? Conveniently dropping the holy "intentions" of Jefferson, one of your revered "framers" of the Constitution? Or are you just sick of the whole document, sullied as it is by deriving from a bunch of real people, rather than the invisible monster to which you pray for salvation of our country under christian sharia law? Next you'll be dropping the Second Amendment, too, because everyone has guns, and militias aren't necessary to preserve our free state. You are a font of gibberish.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Enter Giuliani by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well "Any kind whatsoever" modifies the clause that talks about someone who is an office holder in the United States. An office holder needs to have approval from Congress, not an ordinary citizen.

      Giuliani was the former mayor of NY when he received this honor, and as such the provision you mentioned is without force.

      So STFU, asshat.

      Also- when Jimmy Carter received his Nobel Prize did he have to ask permission from Congress? He received it from the King of Sweden- that would be a VIOLATION of the Constitution in your fantasy world of interpretation. But thankfully, you're just an idiot posting on slashdot.

    7. Re:Enter Giuliani by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous nonentity Coward, you can read, but you can't reason, you can't get a meaningless Slashdot ID, and you can't even say "fuck" when you really, really want to. Carter hadn't been the president (or any other office of profit or trust under the United States) since 1980, when he received the Nobel Prize. I'm more than happy to let Giuliani keep his "honorary" vassal status, because it puts the Constitution between him and any other "office of profit or trust", like US Attorney General. And therefore between him and the Constitution. Your hero worship makes you stupid, and my New Yorker status shows that I am smart. Now shut the fuck up, Anonymous freeper asshole Coward.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  60. Re:Horray! Now he'll be free for his true passion. by themoodykid · · Score: 1

    There's really nothing like a soarn eagle. It's breathtaking. I suggest you try it.

  61. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    Don't you first have to be an attorney to be an Attorney General?

  62. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by blackburnrovers · · Score: 1

    this has been a fear among civil libertarians lately. it seems an easy move for Bush to make. he has already proclaimed that the American public has given him a mandate. the hard part is where to look for a more conservative AG...I am sure the Bushie's are up to the task though.

  63. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who else can we force to quit, and get someone better?

  64. Question for andyring: by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why, pray tell, are you not overjoyed by this turn of events?

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  65. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by Dante333 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your thinking short term. Now that he isn't a AG, he can be a SCJ.

  66. What a day! by The+Hobo · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) Firefox 1.0 Released
    2) Halo 2 Released
    3) John Ashcroft Resigns
    4).... Profit!!!

    What a day it's been!

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    1. Re:What a day! by schtum · · Score: 1

      4. Don't look now, but Ken Jennings is about to lose on Jeopardy. Now there's a man who knows a thing or two about
      5. profit.

    2. Re:What a day! by schtum · · Score: 1

      Spoke too soon. He was behind after the first round for the first time ever.

    3. Re:What a day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOu got 4 wrong.

      1) Firefox 1.0 Released
      2) Halo 2 Released
      3) John Ashcroft Resigns
      4) Bush assigns Ashcroft to SCOTUS

    4. Re:What a day! by absurdhero · · Score: 1

      What a day indeed! Don't forget the World of Warcraft open beta starting today! ISPs around the world are complaining about the massive mozilla.org and fileplanet.com downloads eating their bandwidth ;)

    5. Re:What a day! by drdink · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those Final Jeopardy categories sucked. That bad scifi guy had it coming. I mean, beer is fine, but beer and bad scifi?

      --
      Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
    6. Re:What a day! by dshaw858 · · Score: 1

      Now all I need is to magically find one of those new Blue Gene /L's in my closet with a Half Life 2 disc sitting next to it, and the day would be perfect!

      - dshaw

    7. Re:What a day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, the WoW open beta started yesterday, nevermind that it was difficult to actually play it.

    8. Re:What a day! by GSloop · · Score: 1

      That would be a movie appropriately named "Nighmare on First Street"

    9. Re:What a day! by PMuse · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is one of those days when there's only one thing you can say: Praise the Lord.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    10. Re:What a day! by Grayswan · · Score: 0

      Buy lottery tickets!

      --
      If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
    11. Re:What a day! by benna · · Score: 1

      Good thing there isn't a chance in hell that the democrats wouldn't filibuster that nomination for all eternity.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    12. Re:What a day! by benna · · Score: 1

      Read the constitution huh? Yeah Ashcroft must have done that, that must be why he likes to disregaurd large portions of the bill of rights.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    13. Re:What a day! by FreonTrip · · Score: 2, Funny

      And let the eagle soar!

    14. Re:What a day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is one of those days when there's only one thing you can say: Praise the Lord.

      You fucking idiot -- that's exactly the kind of Christian he is. Opus Dei piece of shit. It's the Catholic version of Nazi.

    15. Re:What a day! by Quill345 · · Score: 1

      Be careful, that's what got Bush re-elected in the first place.

    16. Re:What a day! by znu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ashcroft only read the Constitution to look for loopholes. That doesn't count.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    17. Re:What a day! by nacturation · · Score: 0

      Right, and I guess this also means that the terror threat level should be moved back to green, right? Right? Hello? Anyone?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    18. Re:What a day! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      He doesn't loose until his 75th or so match. It was already on /.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    19. Re:What a day! by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand why everyone's celebrating Asscroft leaving.

      Who the hell does everyone think Bush is going to replace him with? Michael Moore??

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    20. Re:What a day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't loose what? Loose the hounds? Or did you mean "lose"?

    21. Re:What a day! by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking kidding me??!? Are you seriously suggesting that Opus Dei is responsible for Ashcroft's policies??!?

      I know many people have problems with Opus Dei, but what you're saying has tenuous validity at best. Go ahead, back up what you're saying with facts. Is Ashcroft really an OD member? I can't find any reference to Ashcroft which associates him with the OD prelacy.

      What's more, the phrase "Praise the Lord" is hardly a solely Catholic saying - believe me, I live in the Bible belt, and Southern Protestans say it more than I've ever heard from Catholics.

      So I'm calling you on this:

      B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T!

      And believe me, I did "praise the Lord" as soon as I read about his resignation. Today is a good, good day.

    22. Re:What a day! by deltagreen · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You seem to be right in your concerns. According to CNN and Associated Press, the new Attorney General might be Alberto Gonzales. From the AP-article:
      Gonzales has been at the center of developing Bush's positions on balancing civil liberties with waging the war on terrorism - opening the White House counsel to the same line of criticism that has dogged Ashcroft.

      For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy - essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.

      He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
      He certainly doesn't sound any better than Ashcroft.
    23. Re:What a day! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I meant.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    24. Re:What a day! by ceallaighq · · Score: 1

      yes

    25. Re:What a day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! Look for "Attorney-General 911" in theatres soon!

  67. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this parent up. It's not a troll - it's the simple truth. I guess the slashdot moderators care more about political correctness than the simple truth.

  68. Now Up in the batters box by eclectro · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Is Mr. DMCA himself, Orrin Hatch.

    You will long for the days of Ashcroft.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Now Up in the batters box by kosmicki · · Score: 1

      Words cannnot express the scream I would make upon hearing such news.

      Though I can try...

      AAAAAAAAAAGH!! MURGLE! >gasp AGGGGH!! NO! NO! WHY WHY WHY?!

      Something like that I guess.

    2. Re:Now Up in the batters box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't he have to leave office to accept such a seat?

    3. Re:Now Up in the batters box by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Yes, he would. Hatch might do it though because he is 70 years old. This way he avoids having to go through a re-election campaign in 2006 and remains in the beltway for at least four more years. Add on top of that he is no longer chair of the judiciary (as he has reached the six year term limit), so this might seem like a significant step up. He has always looked for some sort of career advancement i.g. his run for president in 2000.

      He has always won elections handily though here in Utah. Part of the reason is that everybody knows a Hatch and they are considered family in a state that has copious amounts of large extended mormon familes. The other reason is everyone here knows that you cannot be a mormon and vote for a democrat (I quote an republican office holder), so no one does. When election day comes it's always a republican that gets the vote. There are occasional exceptions to this rule, like a recent republican mayor wackjob that got involved in a pretty bad scandal right before the election, the majority saw a change of party blood a good thing (the republican alternative also seemed a bit hokey with the way he got on the ballot). But this is more of an exception. We do have a democrat representative in the House of Representatives (Matheson) that managed to win partly because his father was an extremely well respected democrat govenor, back in the day when we still could vote for a democrat. He has stayed in office despite the republican's best effort (including a really weird redistricting scheme ala Texas style to yank more voting republicans over for his seat). Anyway I digress.

      Hatch might also be tempted by this offer as he might see it as a stepping stone to something bigger. Who knows what, maybe the presidency again or supreme court justice. The latter would be an extremely bad turn of events, as if any challenge to the DMCA were to make it to the high court, he would naturally deep six them, as you may or may not know he was coauthor of the DMCA. Not to mention the countless other anti-freedom things he has stood for. He loves the patriot act and would be a principal backer of patriot II, III, and IV.

      Even though he is seventy, don't think that he wouldn't scramble for anything offered to him (Reagan was 73 when elected for a second term).

      There is no other single thing that would go further to promoting freedoms, civil rights, online and digital rights, copyright reform than Orrin Hatch leaving polictical life.

      I do not say this lightly. He's like a one man constitutional train wreck.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  69. With one evil down the void must be filled by DJ_Tricks · · Score: 1

    note kiddies if this was a democratic government we should rejoice but this is a Neo-Con republican government. Quake in fear as you will soon be faced with a far greater evil soon. In a bad analogy of sorts, Think of this like say the death of apocalypse from marvel comics, when he died onslaught took his place

    --
    "to be like god we make our own dolls to play with, but what does that make us, but dolls for god to play with?" Ikari,
  70. Actually... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1, Funny

    He resigned so that he could become Director of the newly formed Secret Police.

    1. Re:Actually... by jd · · Score: 1

      Other than the suspicion that he's gunning for President in 2008, that's probably the most realistic theory I've heard.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Actually... by stinerman · · Score: 1

      What secret police?

    3. Re:Actually... by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

      What secret police?

      Why, the Suede Denim Secret Police of course.

      --
      I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
      If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
      Courage.
  71. 5 topics? by vandelais · · Score: 2, Funny

    [ News ]
    [ United States ]
    [ Republicans ]
    [ Your Rights Online ]
    [ Politics ]

    Why not Upgrades?

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  72. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't rejoice too soon. Things can definately get worse. I have heard Orrin Hatch's name thown out as a possible replacement. Being from Utah I am torn. I would love to see Hatch out of the Senate, but is the AG office any better?

  73. Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by TrentL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before 9/11, Ashcroft's top priority was targetting pornography. Since 9/11, he has been embarassingly ineffective in capturing terrorists.

    1. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by deanj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sorry, but you'll have to come up with better references than THE NATION..... I mean, come on! That thing is a joke! It's like the freakin' National Inquirer!

    2. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he had acquired all that porn, you see... and one thing led to another...

    3. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by jd · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it the NI that outed Rush Limbaugh for drug abuse?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, am glad he was not successfull before 9/11 either...

    5. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he should post some Newsmax links instead.

    6. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      porn was a priority before 9/11? It was a priority afterward as well.

    7. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nation? Gee, Leftie, just quote the Communist Manifesto instead.

    8. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by TrentL · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? Care to cite what was factually incorrect?

    9. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by deanj · · Score: 1

      http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/11/10/votin g/index_np.html

    10. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by deanj · · Score: 1

      corrected link:

      here

    11. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get the memo? Critics of the administration aren't allowed to critcize the administration.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    12. Re:Ashcroft was a HORRIBLE Attourney General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? Care to cite what was factually incorrect?

      So, we haven't convicted a single suspected terrorist that was preemptively detained. So what? You describe Ashcroft's post-9/11 record as "embarrassingly ineffective", as if finding and convicting terrorists is child's play. The "0 for 5,000" number may be factually correct, but it only shows the difficulty of convicting "suspected terrorists" and does not reveal that Ashcroft is "ineffective" at capturing them. You're taking facts and spinning them to reach conclusions that support your own disgust for the administration.

  74. Bush was right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a god.

  75. If memory serves ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something all you asses reciting the latest sheep ba seem to forget is that we have not been attacked since Ashcroft got involved. I suppose only a liberal moron would believe that is due to luck, or being more "understanding" towards the cowardly murderers. Why don't you liberals pull your collective head out of your ass, and have a look around. There really are "mean people" out there want to kill us, regardless of how compassionate, and understanding we are. If that means some Muslim will get a look by the government for checking out a book on nuclear bomb design, then so be it. I won't lose a second of sleep over it.

  76. Hey does this mean... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...That I get to see lady Justice's boobie again?

    That may be worth a trip to D.C. for that alone!

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Hey does this mean... by anichan · · Score: 1

      Even if the statue is unveiled again, it can't even compare to this shot at the BBC:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845. stm

      It's just... perfect the way the photographer framed that...

      --

      karma is for the weak >)

  77. yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one less jackass in the US gov't! Next is Bush? Please, dear God?!

  78. Yeah, baby! by LordNimon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ding, dong, the witch is dead!

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  79. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by stinerman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whoa ... Stalin was an authoritarian communist. Probably the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative".

    Take a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org

  80. Sorry to see John Ashcroft go by krimkra · · Score: 1

    This guy should get a medal of honor. In the face of all the fake Michael Moore type attacks and Dan Rather slanted news stories, he just kept on quietly and persistently doing his job. We are a safer, better nation because of him. God bless you Mr. Ashcroft.

    1. Re:Sorry to see John Ashcroft go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you might want to stand up when you say that, so that you can pull the flag pole out of your butt. Asscroft pushed for the patriot act, which reduces judicial oversight. those willing to trade freedom for security will have neither. learn history or get historied.

    2. Re:Sorry to see John Ashcroft go by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thanks to all those terrorist convictions, we are a safer and better nation.. oh, never mind, there weren't any. But he did send Tommy Chong to jail for selling bongs! We are much safer!

  81. Five scary words by rickward · · Score: 1

    Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft.

    1. Re:Five scary words by krimkra · · Score: 1

      dude! you are SO right. I think he feels a little worn out from his previous job, but yeah... awww man. Nice observation.

    2. Re:Five scary words by krimkra · · Score: 1

      by the way, just for clarifying: I think it would be GREAT for Ashcroft to be on the Supreme Court

    3. Re:Five scary words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft.

      Why does everyone keep bringing this up? He's never even been a judge. His name would never make it out of committee, if it even made the committee's list.

    4. Re:Five scary words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. The only requirements for a supreme court justics is the president has to nominate you, and the Senate has to confirm.

    5. Re:Five scary words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you be busy persecuting homosexuals or burning unbelievers or praying against someone?

  82. Misson Accomplished!! by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it happened the same day that the war in Iraq ended. Remember Bush in his flight suit costume with the big "Mission Accomplished" banner? You see, the Iraq "war" ended because the US had successfully attacked Iraq, which had bombed the ... oh, jesus, forget it. I can't even keep up with all of the bullshit our government spews out anymore.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by slinky259 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Coincidentally, my dad's friend from work ate dinner with him today, and this came up at the conversation.

      Both of the aforementioned men are in the Navy, and our guest knew someone on the Lincoln that day. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was actually meant for the crew members of the ship - they had just finished their nine month stint away from home, and had "accomplished" their mission. It wasn't meant for Bush's visit.

      ~stephen

    2. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      rediculous. it's obvious from looking at the banner.... campaigns have a certain font and way of getting these things printed so that they are very clearly visible and somewhat subliminal even when out of focus, like in a reporters photo of the candidate standing in front of them. Look at any campaign photo of W, he's standing in front of a banner or background with something like "MORE JOBS BETTER" or "FIGHTING THE TERRORISTAS".

      There's no way that, if the banner was some sort of morale booster for the onboard troops, it would be printed so perfectly and positioned to be framed perfectly for the pool photog's photos.

      Thanks for playing with the whole FOAF argument, though.

    3. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by GSloop · · Score: 1, Troll

      Oh, and if they had decided to put up a banner saying "Welcome home Barney" the Whitehouse wouldn't have objected?

      Sheesh.

      Not to mention that the Whitehouse actually got the banner for them.

      Plausable deniability. Veneer thin, but plausable - to a dolt.

      Just like - The *British* have learned that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. (Sure we knew it was a crock, but the Brit's told us, so we can't be held responsible...)

      Cheers,
      Greg

    4. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by slinky259 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it wasn't used by Bush to mean we were finished in Iraq - just that that was not it's original intent.

    5. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think it happened the same day that the war in Iraq ended. Remember Bush in his flight suit costume with the big "Mission Accomplished" banner? You see, the Iraq "war" ended because the US had successfully attacked Iraq, which had bombed the ... oh, jesus, forget it. I can't even keep up with all of the bullshit our government spews out anymore."

      What is there not to remember? Jeez, they did what they did, and if you don't like it, fine, but this isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. Stop Bush-Bashing!

    6. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Dick+Faze · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was its original intent. The "blame it on the soldiers" idea was thrown about in the weeks that followed when the war started going bad, until an AP reporter tracked down the source of the banner to the whitehouse.

      What are your dad's friend's thoughts on the aluminum tubes?

    7. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's amazing, then, that Karl Rove regrets using banner.

      Does that mean he regrets congradulating those Navy guys on their 9-month trip?

      Or was it just foreshadowing that they probably had to get sent back because of the depth of the quagmire we're in.

      And since Bush's speach was announcing the "end of major combat operations", are you saying that Bush ended the operations before he thought the mission was accomplished!?! That's very irresponsible.

    8. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by jalefkowit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Both of the aforementioned men are in the Navy, and our guest knew someone on the Lincoln that day. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was actually meant for the crew members of the ship - they had just finished their nine month stint away from home, and had "accomplished" their mission. It wasn't meant for Bush's visit.

      Sorry, but this is one of those after-the-fact rationalizations that people have invented to justify the banner once it became clear just how ridiculous it was.

      How so, you ask? Well, if it was a banner meant for the ship's crew, to celebrate the completion of their mission, why did the White House make up the banner and bring it to the ship? Not the sort of thing you would expect if it was just something the Navy does as a matter of course at the end of a long voyage.

      The President and his people are saying that the banner was the "Navy's idea" so they don't have to take responsibility for their gaffe. But then blaming the troops for the Commander in Chief's screw-ups is something the GOP is getting pretty comfortable doing these days.

    9. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by blueskies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, you mean the banner that the sailors made, which Bush had nothing to do with?

      Don't you feel like a jackass after the AC posted this link with Rove regreting using the banner? Quote: "the White House staff had it made by a private vendor"

      Then began the reconstruction phase of Iraq in which the military's mission is security and training. But I guess these concepts are too hard for liberal sheep to grasp.

      Well, in defense of sheep, liberal or conservative, Bush seems to indicate that things are going as "planned," and if that is the case I don't think their mission has anything to do with security.

    10. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what's rediculous? Not being able to spell ridiculous. You deserve to be rediculed.

    11. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by slinky259 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not even going to bother trying to understand that...

      Ok... I concede defeat. Major combat operations have ended on Slashdot... (crosses fingers)

      I was just passing along the dinnertime conversation - apparently no one in my family has done their research.

      ~stephen

    12. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, you mean the banner that the sailors made, which Bush had nothing to do with?
      No, the White House actually made it. Here is a quote from the article:
      Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
      I served in the USMC, it is not often that the White House makes a "Mission Accomplished" banner for display when you are coming off a 6-9 month float.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    13. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's see now:

      On the one hand, an AP report by someone who did the research, tracked the documentation, talked to the people most directly involved,

      VERSUS

      A /. submission that he said that he heard over dinner from his friend that HE heard...

      WHO DO I BELIEVE? PLEASE, GOD HELP ME, WHO DO I BELIEVE?

    14. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Necron69 · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking, it wasn't a flight suit 'costume', it was a flight _suit_.

      That being said, it was an idiotic stunt, and no, I didn't vote for the man either time.

      - Necron69

    15. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by 808140 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Honorably admitted, sir.

      The face you lost in your (unwillful) spread of disinformation, you regained in your humble admission of defeat.

      Kudos to you.

    16. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Laconian · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not outside the realm of possibility. The Bush administration slapped big stickers that said MADE IN USA on a big pallet of crates during a photo op. The pallets used to say MADE IN CHINA...

    17. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

      >> I think it happened the same day that the war in Iraq ended

      Erm... the war ended? Says who?

      What you probably mean is your tv networks stopped broadcasting news about the war in Iraq, because you can be sure as hell the war hasn't ended.

      All it takes is getting a bit off the USistheworld-shell. :)

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    18. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I jsut only consider it a "flight suit" when it's worn by a real pilot. Bush was just playing dress up (which was an absurd act of theater that the President should never stoop to).

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    19. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2, Funny


      Ah, how sweet. Republicans lying to support the President's image. Such integrity.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    20. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by DogDude · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed my biting sarcasm.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    21. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, yes, because we always believe everything that the mainstream media tells us. If the news said it it must be true.

      {Insert obligatory Dan Rather/See.BS joke here}

    22. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Sorry, but this is one of those after-the-fact rationalizations that people have invented to justify the banner once it became clear just how ridiculous it was.

      Sorry, but that is blatant political spin that is contradicted by the stories you link to. But, just to clarify things:
      Navy officials and the White House yesterday said that while the crew of the Lincoln came up with the banner's message, the White House printed it.

      It is sad that the so many leading Democrats, like soon to be former Senator Daschle, just couldn't pass up the opportunity to twist the thank you to the sailors of the Abraham Lincoln battle group to try and make the President look like a fool. You apparently join them.

      If the Bush administration wanted to get a mantra of "Mission Accomplished" out for the entire war they would have repeated it at every opportunity. That didn't happen. Why? Because the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to thank the sailors. But hey, the truth be damned if a lie can hurt Bush, right?

      By the way, who is it that keeps saying that the United States is in a war that is going to last years? The Bush administration.

      Well, if it was a banner meant for the ship's crew, to celebrate the completion of their mission, why did the White House make up the banner and bring it to the ship? Not the sort of thing you would expect if it was just something the Navy does as a matter of course at the end of a long voyage.

      This will no doubt come as a shock to you, being as you seem to be more acquainted with political spin than military considerations, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a floating print shop. If you want 20 F-18s with fighter cover and radar jamming support to drop 2 x 2,000 pound bombs each 250 miles away to help a Marine regiment take a beach, they can help you. You want a very large, professional, beautifully printed sign to thank the sailors, you go somewhere else.

      But please, if you have some special insight into why it isn't possible for the President's group to print and bring the sign as part of their thanking the sailors, please tell us.

      The President and his people are saying that the banner was the "Navy's idea" so they don't have to take responsibility for their gaffe.

      There are, without a doubt, people in America who think that thanking American sailors for successfully completing their mission is a gaffe, but the members of the Bush administration aren't likely to be part of them. Apparently you are. That is sad.
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Stop Bush-Bashing!

      Hello, McFly? Liberals lose their Democratic party membership if they don't bash Bush at least once a day. In the wake of the Democrats' crushing and resounding defeat in the presidential, Senate, and House races this quota has been upped to a minimum of twice per day.

    24. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Both of the aforementioned men are in the Navy, and our guest knew someone on the Lincoln that day. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was actually meant for the crew members of the ship - they had just finished their nine month stint away from home, and had "accomplished" their mission. It wasn't meant for Bush's visit.

      Bullshit three times removed. The folks in the service know what they're expected to say and generally do so as long as they're in.

    25. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      Just out of curiousity, how often does the President fly out to thank the crew of a carrier returning from not just a float, but from a campaign in war time? A little more detail:
      Navy officials and the White House yesterday said that while the crew of the Lincoln came up with the banner's message, the White House printed it. "The Navy asked for help in the production of the banner for the president's visit. So we helped," said White House spokesman Allen Abney. The crew felt the banner reflected their recent operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Navy officials and the White House.
      The banner is identical in style, but not message, from one the President used the week before shown in the story above.
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    26. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, sure, right, whatever, and Bush's jet landing and the world wide broadcast of same in front of the banner was obviously not meant to refer to the Iraq war.

      Take a hike, you fascist.

    27. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh yeah.

      The soon-to-be-former Attorney General John
      Ashcroft made note in his letter of resignation
      that no further terrorist attacks have occurred
      "on his watch" since the USA Patriot Act (I)
      was passed. Unfortunately, history refutes
      his claim to little more than bullhockey. The
      al-Qaeda terrorist organization took from 1993
      to 2001 before attacking the WTC again. Looks
      like those bastards were more successful this
      time.

      When Ashcroft (and DHS's Ridge, and CIA's Tenet)
      can come out in public and state that "It is
      not a matter of IF the terrorists will strike
      in the USA again, but merely of WHEN", they are
      leaving a great big backdoor to any/all claims
      of success. There are more illegal aliens NOW
      that cross our borders than BEFORE 9/11, and
      our government has decided that commerce and
      free enterprise cannot/should not be hindered
      by better seaport and air cargo security. A
      Pakistani woman with ties to al-Qaeda swam
      across the Rio Grande River about a month ago
      from Mexico (while traveling on a South African
      passport). The only reason she got caught was
      because she decided to fly from Midlands Airport
      (TX) to NYC, instead of taking a Greyhound Bus
      or arranging private transportation.

      So, not better border security and not better
      cargo security, but way better encroachment of
      American civil liberties. What part of his oath
      of office (to uphold the US Constitution and
      Bill of Rights) has he NOT BROKEN (not unlike
      some of the other GW Bush stormtroopers)?

    28. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, what if the sailors came up with the idea to print "Texas Rangers Are Filthy Cocksuckers", would the White House also print that? I guess not. Face it, even if the "explanation" of the banner is true, which I most seriously doubt, printing and presenting such a message in such a way would still be a bad idea.

      You want a very large, professional, beautifully printed sign to thank the sailors, you go somewhere else.

      Sure thing, I just knock on W's door and order one! Did you actually read your post before you pressed "submit"?

    29. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure, right, whatever, and Bush's jet landing and the world wide broadcast of same in front of the banner was obviously not meant to refer to the Iraq war.

      The United States does not have a government run media. They choose what to run. It was an interesting story and they went with it.

      And maybe you missed the point. The carrier had fought in the war in Iraq, but its part was over with. The carrier's mission was accomplished. End of story. Unfortunately that is the point where the spin starts.

      Take a hike, you fascist.

      This is apparently what is considered the "informative" part of your post.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Face it, even if the "explanation" of the banner is true, which I most seriously doubt, printing and presenting such a message in such a way would still be a bad idea.

      Why do you think it is a bad idea to thank the sailors on that carrier? Their mission was accomplished. Or is it that part that you don't like?

      Sure thing, I just knock on W's door and order one! Did you actually read your post before you pressed "submit"?

      You must hate the Texas Rangers. What you have against them and the sailors is beyond me.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    31. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by True+Grit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      51% != "crushing and resounding defeat"

    32. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      Is this meant to be poking fun at conservative thinking, or are you being serious?

      Just in case you are being serious, here's the explanation (I can't believe I'm actually writing this!): I don't have anything against either Rangers nor Sailors. I don't even see any logical path whatsoever from my comments to the conclusion you presented in your last sentence. What I meant is to stress out that having a message which can be read in too many different ways is NOT a smart thing to do. Even if the official explanation were correct (sailors coming up with the content of the banner), it was stupid from the White House not to point this out. The Texas Rangers part was only to make my point more obvious, i.e. had they came up with a message like that, I'm sure White House officials would say "wait a minute, we can't do that". The point is, they didn't have any objections to the "Mission Accomplished" idiocy. Blaming the sailors now actually shows their lack of respect to the crew of Lincoln.

      Is it now all cleared up?

    33. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and didn't bush say (i am paraphrasing here) "Major combat situations were OVER"?

      and didn't he say it right in front the "mission acomplished" banner?

      and isn't it the job of thearmytimes.com to be a mouthpiece for the commanding administration? not exactly an unbiased source ESPECIALLY in regards to this, the most secretive administration in U.S. history.

    34. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Does that mean he regrets congradulating those Navy guys on their 9-month trip?

      No, what he means is that he regrets creating "convenient symbols" for people to distort for cheap political shots at the President. Maybe you missed this part of the article you quoted:
      "I wish the banner was not up there," White House political strategist Karl Rove said Thursday at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols."

      Rove echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier crew's completing their 10-month mission, not the military's completing its mission in Iraq

      Personally I think it is pathetic that so many politicains have tried to score cheap points from President Bush's thank you to the sailors in that carrier battle group. I wonder how many of them would jump at the first chance they had to go in front of a camera to say "I support the troops!" I suspect most.
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    35. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget those tubes were previously used to beat unborn babies.

    36. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The White House printed the banner, and carefully arranged the shot so it would be over Bush's shoulder as he read his speech declaring major combat operations over. It doesn't take a genius.

      "No no! It was all about the aircraft carrier!" you protest. The sad thing is, you truly and honestly have no clue how lame and hollow your explanation looks to everyone else.

      'If the Bush administration wanted to get a mantra of "Mission Accomplished" out for the entire war they would have repeated it at every opportunity.'

      Hardy har har. They didn't keep using it because casualties kept piling up, in fact increasingly so. Moron.

    37. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Didn't he arrive on the carrier in a Navy Jet though? In which case, surely a flight suit is an appropriate thing to wear, particularly since he is an ex-fighter pilot himself, and so would feel comfortable in one.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    38. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      Since when does the Navy announce "Mission Accomplished" using ship sized banners? Were the crew utterly ignorant of their 9 month stint, have they forgotten how to count days? Puh-leeze...

      --
      Did he inhale?
    39. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by dahamsta · · Score: 0

      Awww, isn't it sweet when they're this young and defenseless?

      adam /pats slinky on the head

    40. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      "Who do i believe? Please, god help me, who do i believe?" [edited from all-caps to thwart "lameness filter"]

      Anybody but the media--and I AM the media.

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    41. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Kell_pt · · Score: 1

      Well, I did get part of it... but then I wasn't so sure, so... I (t)rolled away. :)

      --
      "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
    42. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Just like - The *British* have learned that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. (Sure we knew it was a crock, but the Brit's told us, so we can't be held responsible...)

      Yeah we can - the documents were signed by a dead man.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    43. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by beakburke · · Score: 1

      Umm, if I wanted to nitpick I could say that we didn't "know it was a crock", we simply were not able to come to that conclusion independantly. But frankly, it doesn't matter at this point.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    44. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by AkaXakA · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kudos to you.

      Don't blame him, he voted for Kodos!

      .

    45. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Chiron+Taltos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't get it?!? The Karl Rove link didn't prove you wrong, slinky. It actually proved your dinner-time conversation was correct. Reading beyond the headlines, it discusses the Navy requested the banner, and that they had just completed a 10-month mission.

      Don't give in just because some Slashdotters are relentless. Relentless does not equal being correct.

      --
      CT

    46. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by gowen · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, lets read what Bush said while standing under that banner:
      "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
      Must be reassuring to the USMC presently in Fallujah that what they're doing isn't a major combat operation.

      Because it looks like one to me.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    47. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Karn · · Score: 1

      So why aren't they letting soldiers go home now that their mission has been accomplished? What's with this stop-loss deal?

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    48. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, how does that Kool-Aid taste?

      If the Bush administration wanted to get a mantra of "Mission Accomplished" out for the entire war they would have repeated it at every opportunity. That didn't happen. Why? Because the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to thank the sailors.

      Oh, of course. And that is why it was printed by the White House, and positioned on the carrier so that it would included right above the President's head in all the pictures of him speaking at the podium. Because it was to thank the sailors.

      By the way, who is it that keeps saying that the United States is in a war that is going to last years? The Bush administration.

      Yes, once it became clear that Iraq was a quagmire and not a stroll down Lollipop Lane, they did start talking about Iraq like that. Unfortunately that was after President Flight Suit made his speech.

      But please, if you have some special insight into why it isn't possible for the President's group to print and bring the sign as part of their thanking the sailors, please tell us.

      Please acquaint yourself with what the President's image doctors were saying before it became clear the banner had backfired:

      The most elaborate -- and criticized -- White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

      Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

      "If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked great."

      Funny how when the banner seemed like a great idea, they weren't saying anything about "we just brought it to thank the sailors", no?

    49. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by GSloop · · Score: 1
      We might not have been able to say for certain... The real issue is did we do any real checking, or even try to know more about the British source.

      I again, would say that we knew in our soul it was a crock, but we wanted to be "deceived" and thus never questioned the British about it.

      We'd done a lot of research ourselves about the Niger claims - as the IAEA said, it would take about ten minutes with google to tell the documents were forged.

      From the NewYorker...
      http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?0 30331fa_fact1

      ...the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. "The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei said.

      One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking."

      The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.

      It took Baute's team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that "they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet."

      The large quantity of uranium involved should have been another warning sign. Niger's "yellow cake" comes from two uranium mines controlled by a French company, with its entire output presold to nuclear power companies in France, Japan, and Spain. "Five hundred tons can't be siphoned off without anyone noticing," another I.A.E.A. official told me.

      This official told me that the I.A.E.A. has not been able to determine who actually prepared the documents. "It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger Foreign Ministry, in Niamey. We just don't know," the official said. "Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted." Some I.A.E.A. investigators suspected that the inspiration for the documents was a trip that the Iraqi Ambassador to Italy took to several African countries, including Niger, in February, 1999. They also speculated that MI6--the branch of British intelligence responsible for foreign operations--had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy, after the Ambassador's return to Rome.

      Baute, according to the I.A.E.A. official, "confronted the United States with the forgery: 'What do you have to say?' They had nothing to say."

      ElBaradei's disclosure has not been disputed by any government or intelligence official in Washington or London. Colin Powell, asked about the forgery during a television interview two days after ElBaradei's report, dismissed the subject by saying, "If that issue is resolved, that issue is resolved." A few days later, at a House hearing, he denied that anyone in the United States government had anything to do with the forgery. "It came from other sources," Powell testified. "It was provided in good faith t

    50. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Ok, I understand now. The Navy decided what the banner would say, and the White House approved the message, knew what it said, deliberately hung it before the press conference conference in a location where it would be visible and then proceeded to make a speech which contained precisely the same message as the banner, and therefore should be immune to criticism on underestimating the amount of opposition to the American occupation of Iraq.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    51. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Particularly since the universal naval signal of "mission accomplished" is to fly a broom from the mast, indicating that you have swept the seas. On the other hand, you might want to change your sig. Al Qaida named itself well before the FBI investigation you cite and RICO does not require a "named" organization. Both are fantasies of a rabidly anti-US author.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    52. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's original intent

      "its".

    53. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      From the same article you liked to:

      Rove echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier crew's completing their 10-month mission, not the military's completing its mission in Iraq.

      True or not, at least it's consistent with parent's story.
      Well, he said 9 months... maybe it IS a conspiracy after all....

    54. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
      Relentless does not equal being correct.

      I have a Mr. Bush on line one for you, and a Mr. bin Laden on line two.

    55. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Chiron+Taltos · · Score: 1

      LOL! No doubt I should be looking for a new residence about now ... is that Vienna calling?

      --
      CT

    56. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by letxa2000 · · Score: 0
      51% != "crushing and resounding defeat"

      Compared to Clinton, yes. Considering that most of the time the party of the sitting president loses seats and this time around Republicans increased their majority in both the House and the Senate. Considering this was in spite of an unprecendented campaign of hate and propaganda by the left (by the likes of Michael Moore), yes, I'd call it a crushing and resounding defeat.

    57. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think it is pathetic that so many politicains have tried to score cheap points from President Bush's thank you to the sailors in that carrier battle group.


      What made those sailors deserve that degree of public Presidential gratitude above all other military personnel? Who else has received so much as a Presidential salute from the tarmac after their flight home from Iraq let alone a full blown media event?

    58. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The administration asked the Navy to park offshore and wait specifically to neccessitate the use of a Navy jet. There was nothing un-theatrical about his Top Gun act.

    59. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by mink · · Score: 1

      Supreme executive power derives not as a mandate from the masses but from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    60. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      Republicans increased their majority in both the House and the Senate.

      Thanks in part to some creative gerrymandering in Texas. The Reps lost control of one state legislature and the Dems gained two, so at the local level, there was no "sweep".

      an unprecendented campaign of hate and propaganda by the left

      Pot, Kettle, Black. Besides, it seems to me the Reps won this time because they were just better liars than the Dems.
    61. Re:Misson Accomplished!! by slinky259 · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      I can never win...

      ~stephen

  83. Uncover those breasts!-Catholic curves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Set them free. Freedom is a good thing, right? :-)"

    Tsk, tsk. And a man of the cloth too.

  84. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > Ashcroft is pretty much a Christian Fundementalist

    And something of a k00k even among them. I forget the details, but I read somewhere that he likes to dress up as a Hebrew priest and hold ceremonies, or something like that.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  85. So long... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And thanks for all the fig leaves.

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    1. Re:So long... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      lol, fuck you guys. see, this is why i never log into this POS site anymore.

      later losers!

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  86. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
    MORE conservative?!

    Like who? Former Nazi war criminal, perhaps? Slobodan Milosevic?

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  87. Everyone saw this coming by TrentL · · Score: 1

    The official reason he's resigning is for health reasons. The un-official reason is that he's a horrible screw-up.

  88. Re:Horray! Now he'll be free for his true passion. by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

    Sounds interesting. Do you have a good recipe?

  89. One down by smartin · · Score: 1

    Ok, so the asshole is gone, who's next? The bumbler, the bitch or the flunky. I'm pretty sure the moron and the crook are going to stay another 4 years.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:One down by Jad+LaFields · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess -

      Bumbler: Rumsfeld
      Bitch: Rice
      Moron: Bush
      Crook: Cheney

      But who's the flunky? Powell?

      Anyway, next could be Rice. Maybe Rumsfeld, but less likely. Oh, and Powell's days have been numbered for a while.

      --
      [SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
  90. Re:Good Riddance by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are most certainly wrong. I'm not even sure if Palmer was the worst one. With all due (dis)respect to Mr Ashcroft, nothing even remotely like Palmer Raids happened during his tenure. Palmer was the key factor behind the 1917 and 1918 "Espionage Act" and "Sedition Act", comparing to which Patriot Act is a teddy bear. According to this law, an elected member of Congress was refused a seat because of his pacifist views - and sentenced to 20 years of prison just because he didn't believe that America should join the slaughter of World War I (more on Victor Berger you can find here. The Palmer Raids themselves rendered the question of American "constitutional rights" simply irrelevant - it appeared there were none of them. To quote Wikipedia:

    Starting on November 7, 1919, Palmer's men smashed union offices and the headquarters of Communist and Socialist organizations without warrants, concentrating on foreigners. They arrested over 10,000 people (...) In January, 1920, another 6,000 were arrested, mostly members of the anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World. During one of the raids, more than 4,000 Communists were rounded up in a single night. All foreign aliens caught were deported.

    The public reaction to these raids was favorable, stirring up a storm of anti-communist sentiment. In a murder eerily similar to the lynching of Germans during World War I, a group of young men in Centralia, Washington hanged a radical from a railway bridge. The coroner's report stated that the communist "jumped off with a rope around his neck and then shot himself full of holes." For most of 1919, the public seemed to side with Palmer.


    I don't want to defend Bush & Ashcroft, but it's simply naive to see them as "the worst that happened". No, it's not the worst in American history. When you look on the whole American history it turns out that only the post-WWII period really resembles contemporary understanding of constitutional democracy (and even then there were authoritarian hiccups of McCarthyism or Watergate).

  91. War on Terror: Over! by gphinch · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So the does this mean the 'War on Terror' is over? Can someone please let the terrorists know?

    --
    in bed.
  92. And by the way.... by TrentL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....Colin Powell is also expected to resign in the near future. So if you are celebrating the fact that Ashcroft, the biggest loonie in the Bush admin, is leaving, also be fearful that the only semi-sane dude in the building will soon be gone, too.

    1. Re:And by the way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powell lost any credibility he had by lying to the UN over the WMD. If he had any balls he would have resigned rather than do that.

  93. Successor? by cnsc1rtr · · Score: 5, Informative
    from The Yahoo News/AP story:
    Speculation about a successor to Ashcroft has centered on his former deputy, Larry Thompson, who recently took a job as general counsel at PepsiCo. If appointed, Thompson would be the nation's first black attorney general. Others prominently mentioned include Bush's 2004 campaign chairman, former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, and White House general counsel Alberto Gonzales.
    [...]
    Washington continued to buzz with speculation about the futures of Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
    [...]
    Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, is considered a possible successor for either Rumsfeld or Powell. She has let it be known that she does not want to remain in her current role in the second term, and officials say her path is up or out. Rice said a year ago she wasn't interested in getting enmeshed in the bureaucracy at the State Department, but aides don't rule that out now, particularly with prospects for change in the Middle East.

    1. Re:Successor? by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

      Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, is considered a possible successor for either Rumsfeld or Powell. She has let it be known that she does not want to remain in her current role in the second term, and officials say her path is up or out...

      out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out

      /me crosses fingers...

    2. Re:Successor? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Most likely Racicot. Racicot has had his nose buried up Bush's ass for a long time now.

      BTW for amusement you may want to check out what he did to the state of Montana during his tenure there. He had a republican house and senate and they kept passing all these business friendly laws capping it off the energy deregulation.

      As a result Montanans not only had one of the loewst average wages in the country their fule bills went up drastically.

      Seems like they finally got wise though, they just elected a democrat to the gov office and the state senate is around 50/50

      Having said all the Bush does seem to select extrememly conservative blacks and latinos so he can play the race card against the opponents. He did this once already with a latino judge. When people opposed him he accused them of being racist. One evil motherfucker that's for sure.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:Successor? by khallow · · Score: 1

      No way she'll become Secretary of Defense. Bush will want someone he can really trust there. Secretary of State isn't unrealistic though.

  94. Queue the Ewok victory song by Limburgher · · Score: 0, Redundant
    A) Hallelujah!

    B) I hope his replacement isn't worse.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Queue the Ewok victory song by anichan · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't worry, his replacement will be much worse.

      Unless Bush suddenly says to himself, huh, maybe those liberals do have some points about porn not being the most important thing to fight. Maybe I should nominate someone who respects the treaties we sign.

      Pretty funny joke, I think. ;)

      --

      karma is for the weak >)

  95. This is typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is typical for all cabinet members to resign at the end of a term. The President then hires back any one he wants to keep, and appoints new people to vacancies.

  96. I dont' believe you by xski · · Score: 1


    *Who* likes having John Ashcroft as AG? And why?

    1. Re:I dont' believe you by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Check out Krimka(829715) all over this story for a frightening view of how strong a reality disruption field can be.

  97. Now Ramsey Clark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark/ can serve a second term.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  98. 5 page letter? by danielacroft · · Score: 5, Funny

    "He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'"

    I hope he attached an audio book version to the letter.

    --
    Something intruiging...
    1. Re:5 page letter? by eclectro · · Score: 5, Funny


      Actually it's five pages because he had to use a crayon.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:5 page letter? by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

      I hope he attached an audio book version to the letter.

      More likely an audio singing telegram.
      Be careful what you wish for.

      --
      I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
      If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
      Courage.
  99. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by skribble · · Score: 1

    That's one fricken scary thought!!!!

    --
    --- Nothing To See Here ---
  100. Rudy Giuliani by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He is a moderate and would go a long way to make Democrats more comfortable.

    1. Re:Rudy Giuliani by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      Giuliani was a much better US Attorney than he was mayor. I could probably live with Giuliani, but I'd much prefer to see someone like Marc Rasciot (former MT gov) or Jim Gilmore (former Va. gov and atty gen).

      A darkhorse who'd also be a good candidate is former Calif. Rep. Jim Rogan. He won't be nominated, though, because he was one of the impeachment prosecutors against Clinton. Bob Barr falls into the same category.

    2. Re:Rudy Giuliani by evilned · · Score: 1

      The rumor was that Raciot was Bush's first choice for the office in 2000. He turned it down which is why we got Mr. Cooking Oil who lost to a dead man in an election.

      --

      "My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett

    3. Re:Rudy Giuliani by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Rogan also did a smashing job at the USPTO.

      Bob Barr would be an interesting choice, not because of his connections to the Christian coalition, but because of his advocacy of civil liberties. In fact, since he's no longer in public office, his kowtowing to the religious right has become minimal.

      But you're right. nagana happen.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:Rudy Giuliani by adam613 · · Score: 1

      He's also very popular in a part of the country where Bush is very unpopular.

  101. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From his official biography:
    He attended... New York University Law School in Manhattan, graduating magna cum laude in 1968. In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the Department of Justice. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the US Marshals.
  102. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by ajakk · · Score: 1

    There is no explicit requirement, but I doubt that anyone will be appointed who isn't an attorney. Who did you have in mind?

  103. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by legirons · · Score: 1

    "Is it possible that Bush will appoint a more conservative replacement for Ashcroft?"

    And where exactly would you find someone more conservative than Ashcroft? (yeah I know, we just captured someone in Iraq who's a possibility)

  104. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Java+Ape · · Score: 4, Funny
    Is it possible that Bush will appoint a more conservative replacement for Ashcroft?

    No, Ashcroft is moving to the bereau of weights and measures to serve as the standard of "Absolute Conservative". As such, it is impossible to appoint a more conservative replacement.

    Doubtless, Bush will attempt to redefine the "Absolute Conservative" standard when selecting Ashcroft's replacement, but experts agree that he's likely to appoint a "Facist Extremist" by mistake.

  105. Yes, completely out of context! by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The entire text of the letter is here.

    Taken out of context, it loses very little. The man claims we've beaten both crime and terrorism.

    Have we?

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Within the context of the letter it is obvious that he's talking about the objective, which is the means by which terrorism will be minimized.

    2. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's your objection? "He's obviously talking about the objective!" Of course he's talking about "the objective." That's what he actually fucking said: "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." You don't have to say "it is obvious": it actually is. But then you go on to say what "the objective is." He says what the objective is: "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror." You don't have to offer your intepretation of what "the objective" is friend, he tells you right there what it is. Quit trying to precariously argue for the existence of the "liberal bias" the foam-mouthed AC above(probably you) reflexively screamed out.

      The paragraph:

      "The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons."

      Wether he actually meant what he said is another thing. Which I don't care about one way or the other. Useless politics...

    3. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends how you define 'terrorism'.

      Outside the 19 that supposedly died on the planes in newyork (nearly half have turned up alive), how many other have been charged with the crimes relating to the largest terrorist attack on US soil.

      100,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war.

      1,000 US soldiers.

      What is terrorism?

      Who were the losers?

    4. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by kesler · · Score: 2, Funny

      I love the closing comment:

      "I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality"

    5. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Dick+Faze · · Score: 2, Funny
      That's an instant classic, though he still pales in comparison to the master:

      "There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again."
      --W, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

    6. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context. And the purpose of language.

      Look at "in the record which HAS BEEN DEVELOPED"[emphasis mine] at the very end of the preceding sentence. Notice the tense--past. Notice the limiting use "in the record" (a record that ends with that letter). He's talking about how he feels about what he's achieved UNDER HIS TIME OF APPOINTMENT.

      Jeesh people.

      Another note, since many are probably confused. There are at least of 2 groups of naysayers to the quote/sentence in question--

      One group is seeing the quote in proper light yet are disagreeing with his record as he described it. That being he did not achieve this during his term of appointment. While I disagree with you, you at least understand the limiting time and CORRECTLY identify the context to which the quote applies.

      The other group is saying this is a proclamation that he ended it for all time, some even that it's a declaration representing the administration itself. You are wrong. You are missing the context and limited scope of the statement even though it is written rather well.

    7. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are being a prat.

    8. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by cnsc1rtr · · Score: 1

      That's some bad handwriting! It doesn't look like he took any time writing that letter.

      Mine is horrible, too, which is why I don't handwrite anything. I think Ashcroft should really do the same...

    9. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality can be maintained until the appropriate arrangements mentioned above can be made.

      Hmm... Maybe he was worried about someone reading his screen through Van Eck phreaking?

      Of course, there's always the possibility that the sound of keys being typed is more easily mapped to which key was hit than the sound of a pen scratching a sheet of paper can be mapped to the text being written. The fact that John Ashcroft himself is worried about such activities clearly implies that such sound-to-key-mapping equipment must be readily available to government agents. Also, he was concerned that he may be under surveillance.

      Ashcroft's hat turns out to have been made of tin foil. Wow. Who knew?

    10. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Mike1024 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I looked at the fine pictures of Ashcroft's handwriting and entered them into one of those online handwriting analysis things.

      For a graphologist, the spacing on the page reflects the writer's attitude toward their own world and relationship to things in his or her own space. If the inputted data was correct John has left lots of white space on the left side of the paper. John fills up the rest of the page in a normal fashion. If this is true, then John has a healthy relationship to the past and is ready to move on. The right side of the page represents the future and John is ready and willing to get started living now and planning for the future. John would like to leave the past behind and move on.

      John is selective when picking friends. He does not trust everyone. He has a select group of people that are truly close to him, usually two or three. He is careful when choosing his inner circle of friends.

      John has difficulty trusting anyone. In fact, he trusts no one completely. This is a result of his trust being betrayed in the past. He has closed up, thus ceasing to allow close friendships. John truly wants close friends and desires physical relationships, but he fears he will get hurt, again. He is lonely, yet has a crying need for close friends. This trait can cause much unhappiness. However, it can be changed.

      John is capable of seeing far into the future. He plans two, three, even ten years in advance. John has high goals and can literally see them being reached. He is very self-confident and has a high self-esteem. John will reach whatever level of success he desires. John has the self-concept that is possessed by less than two percent of the population. That two percent contains the most successful people in the world. When a person has a high self-esteem, he frees himself to achieve an unlimited world of success. John has achieved this frame of mind. Congratulations. He has the self-confidence to take great risk, thus reaping the rewards. If he does fail, it doesn't break his confidence. He knows he can do it! In retrospect of our research, this trait is one of the most desirable to possess, because it releases the writer to achieve his full potential. We recommend everyone raise their self-esteem to this level.

      In reference to John's mental abilities, he has a very investigating and creating mind. He investigates projects rapidly because he is curious about many things. He gets involved in many projects that seem good at the beginning, but he soon must slow down and look at all the angles. He probably gets too many things going at once. When John slows down, then he becomes more creative than before. Since it takes time to be creative, he must slow down to do it. He then decides what projects he has time to finish. Thus he finishes at a slower pace than when he started the project. He has the best of two kinds of minds. One is the quick investigating mind. The other is the creative mind. His mind thinks quick and rapidly in the investigative mode. He can learn quicker, investigate more, and think faster. John can then switch into his low gear. When he is in the slower mode, he can be creative, remember longer and stack facts in a logical manner. He is more logical this way and can climb mental mountains with a much better grip.

      Diplomacy is one of John's best attributes. He has the ability to say what others want to hear. He can have tact with others. He has the ability to state things in such a way as to not offend someone else. John can disagree without being disagreeable.

      John is secretive. He has secrets which he does not wish to share with others. He intentionally conceals things about himself. He has a private side that he intends to keep that way, especially concerning certain events in his past.

      John is moderately outgoing. His emotions are stirred by sympathy and heart rendering stories. In fact, he can be kind, friendly, affectionate and considerate of others. He has the ability to put himself into the other person's shoes. John wi

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    11. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words, what you're saying is that Ashcroft succeeded in his stated objective (Americans were secure from crime and terror on the day of his resignation) by sweeping all the terrorists and criminals under the rug and they'll all come back out now that he's gone?

    12. Re:Yes, completely out of context! by mink · · Score: 1

      Clearly the implication of the handwritten letter is as the Daily Show put it "The entirety of America is safe, except for the computers at the justice department."

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  106. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love that to happen. I know thousands of slashdotters would have a heart-attack from the resulting shock, which would make it all the more worthwhile.

  107. not so fast! by dreadlocks · · Score: 1

    this can be a no win situation:

    If we have no more "events" then the gov't can say look we made things safer. Bush thinking he's right makes more problems.

    If we have another "event", then they'll say to bring him back as he's the only one to keep us safe.

  108. Sadly by fluxrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tomorrow it's almost certainly Colin Powell. There is general agreement that he will leave, having been forced into an outsider's viewpoint by the ranks of the neoconservative faction of the Bush administration, i.e. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz to name just a few.

    While I am absolutely elated that Ashcroft has resigned, I have no doubt that we will most certainly see four more years of the same foreign policy that has dogged the US since Bush's first inauguration. That, combined with the fact that Ashcroft has already done significant domestic damage viz. the PATRIOT act paints a rather bleak picture for the US in the coming years - even if the inside players are different.

    The stage has already been set.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    1. Re:Sadly by tuxlove · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You may be right about Powell, but it's still a load of crap. Rumsfeld should be the very first to go, even before Asscroft. He's a bumbling idiot, too naive and careless to be filling his seat. How many soldiers have died because he didn't listen when the military told him they need more troops than he was sending? Or because he stupidly believed that the Iraqis would welcome the US with open arms and occupying the country would be easy? And so on, and so on. He can't even open his mouth in a press conference any more without putting his foot in his mouth. It's time to retire him, the same way we retire an old nag of a horse with a lame leg.

    2. Re:Sadly by vandan · · Score: 1

      I think you're being a little unfair on Rumsfeld here.

      Sure he's a lying, cheating arsehole, like the rest of the Republican party. But keep in mind that he's not the one in control here. The Project for the new American Century is in charge, and Rumsfeld and Bush are merely pawns in their game. Guilty, lying sons-of-bitches pawns, but pawns regardless.

    3. Re:Sadly by tuxlove · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're being a little unfair on Rumsfeld here.

      Am I *really*? Rumsfeld is the one who was given the latitude to take Iraq however he felt best. That's his job. He overrode the skilled, experienced military planners/commanders in the Pentagon regularly over things like troop counts, he had no plan for occupying, no plan for exiting, and so on. These are his albatross, circling his head of his own accord.

      Such conspiracy theories are bullshit. PNAC does not tell George Bush what to do. I hate him greatly, but I'm not so blinded as to believe that kind of hogwash about him. That's not to say that he doesn't like PNAC or agree with it - I have no idea - but to say they're pulling the strings is garbage. Bush did what he wanted to do, and gave Rummy the power to do his job in the process. Rummy fucked it up, plain and simple, and needs to go.

    4. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no clue what you talking about.
      Rumsfield is an institution.

      That's why he is up there and you are over here ..

    5. Re:Sadly by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 1

      >> four more years of the same foreign policy

      to quote a bumper sticker I saw while visiting texas:
      Yee-ha is not a foreign policy.

    6. Re:Sadly by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      Wrong on all three counts. A close relative of mine knows Rumsfeld and has worked closely with the Secretary of Defense's office directly. My best friend was offered (and declined) a job answering to Rumsfeld, but still spends time in the Pentagon. I think I have a little insight. To say that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz or any of the PNAC a-holes actually control Bush is silly. They have his ear, certainly, but it's hard to say just how much Bushie really subscribes to their doctrine. He probably hasn't even read PNAC all the way through. :)

      Rumsfeld may be one of the most layoff-proof members of the cabinet, but even he has his limits of failure. Don't be surprised if he buys it if the Iraq situation doesn't improve.

    7. Re:Sadly by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      the same foreign policy that has dogged the US since Bush's first inauguration

      The US government has been wreaking havoc around the world for the past century. The current administration is certainly not the first to invoke military force for political gain, killing innocent civilians in the process.

    8. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You may be right about Powell, but it's still a load of crap.

      Ha hah! You said "load of crap" in reference to Colon Bowel!

    9. Re:Sadly by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  109. Soarn by sbszine · · Score: 1

    I had a 'soarn eagle' once, but a liberal application of aloe vera soon removed the stinging redness.

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  110. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, by defenition, Joseph Stalin, being a communist was ultra-liberal.

    And Hitler was ultra-conservative.

    However, its more of a circle, cuz the ultras on each side seem about the same.

  111. New career... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he is finally starting his singing career ?

  112. Say it with Crayola by Sir_Dill · · Score: 1

    Five pages with 5 inch letters written in crayon so he can understand it.

  113. Who do you think is going to replace him? by HDlife · · Score: 1
    ...a moderate!? Ha!

    Maybe this famous father figure

    or this popular strongman

  114. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by SamNmaX · · Score: 1
    Whoa ... Stalin was an authoritarian communist. Probably the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative".

    One of the worst aspects of soviet communism was how it was authoritarian. While Ashcroft may be a conservative, he is also shown himself to be quite authoritarian. He pushed for laws such as the patriot act, which among other things allow for warrentless searches of things such as the books you take out of the library, and allowed the infiltratation of protest groups under the guise of fighting terrorism.

  115. I think it's pretty clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. why the democrats lost, they have lost touch with reality. I mean all of these "tin-foil hat" views, while very interesting and good reading, are not what I would consider "main-stream". Most people in this country like the status-quo. They are happy with suburban houses, 2.5 kids, a dog etc. Whether this is right or wrong does not change the facts. I think that the popular vote reflects this. Any major change to how things are done is scary and must be have a damn good justification for it to take place. (Take blowing up the world trade center for example)
    So Ashcroft left, big deal he will be replaced by another competent administrator who will work within the laws in place. If true change is desired, it will be becuase the American heartland gets sick and tired of the status-quo.. And that will take place eventually, history says so.

  116. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by ajakk · · Score: 4, Informative
    Giuliani has all of qualifications:
    • Went to prestigous law school
    • Clerked for a federal judge (S.D.N.Y.)
    • Worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney
    • Worked as an executive U.S. Attorney
    • Worked as a full U.S. Attorney
    • Was Associate Deputy Attorney General
    • Was the Associate Attorney General (third highest position in the DoJ)
    • Well liked by members of both parties
    • Track record of being extremely tough on crime
  117. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gee, it must suck to have a label like "conservative" misappropriated and turned into an insult meaning "authoritarian". See how it feels when the President does the same with the word "liberal", which has been turned into an insult meaning essentially "communist"?

    Cry me a fucking river. After the besmirching that my state, Massachusetts, got from nutjob Shrub, I really feel bad for the poor conservatives that their ideology has been wrested from them by authoritarian whackjobs like Ashcroft. Boo-fucking-hoo.

  118. Tomorrow, the Chief Justice by westlake · · Score: 1
    It is unlikely that Rehnquist will be returning to the Supreme Court anytime soon, and good reasons to think his cancer is rapidly progressive and terminal. There are other justices who will probably announce their retirement soon. Cheney will always be a question mark because of his history of heart problems.

    I don't see humor in any of this.

  119. thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now that Mr. Ashcroft is out due to health reasons (God is punishing you John, for being so wicked!), I suppose we can look forward to a new, better Bush administration.

    An administration that is pragmatic, wise, free of ideology, and a true tribute to core conservative values: less government, more freedom, and a belief that people should be left to think and act for themselves. A belief that success is its own reward and failure is its own punishment, and that government exists simply to enforce our sacred constitution and protect our borders.

    HA HA HA HA HA I had you going there didn't I!! LESS government!! HA HA HA!! FREEDOM?? BWAH AH AH AHHAH *cough*.

    Anyway I hope whoever they replace him with 1) isn't such a nutjob and 2) doesn't SCOWL so damn much. I swear, Ashcroft constantly looked like a cross between an angry parent and a KKK member. "Now son, you know daddy's tired, why are you making me burn you on this cross? Why did you have to go and be black?"

  120. You know, I liked it better when he was in the... by vkg · · Score: 1

    Justice Department, where they could keep an eye on him.

    Loose, and not surrounded by watchful eyes, who knows *what* he'll get up to?

  121. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stalin was about as much of a communist as Adolf Hitler.

  122. I'll miss his singing by hey · · Score: 1
  123. Tonight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tonight I'm going to party like it's 1999

  124. I am much more concerned... by jd · · Score: 1
    With the fact that people planning to run for President usually opt-out of high profile offices in the term before running.


    I would not be surprised in the least if Ashcroft decided to run for President, in 2008. Nor would I be surprised if he won, given the current state of mind of the nation. Particularly as he's very prominent in people's minds when it comes to the war on terror, the key issue that won the election for Bush.


    On the flip-side, we've known for a long time that Ashcroft was going to resign. He's not exactly made a secret of it. It's a pity he's waited so long, but there you go.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  125. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by killmeplease · · Score: 1

    That is fucking frightening!!!

    --
    - Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
  126. Re:Good Riddance by Mipmap · · Score: 1
    ..and even then there were authoritarian hiccups of McCarthyism or Watergate

    Me thinks we are in the middle of another one...

  127. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by dwillden · · Score: 1

    Well /.ers will just love the name flying around my state today, Orrin (servant of the RIAA) Hatch. The only good thing about that appointment is that it would get him out of the Senate.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  128. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 1

    The Drudgereport is stating that Alan Keyes has shown interest, but it's unconfirmed. God help us.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  129. your own link disagrees with you by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stalin's at the top left, Ashcroft's at the top right. They're both on the top, which is the "authoritarian" side. They differ on economic issues, but that's irrelevant, because the attorney general's job is not an economic one. On the relevant issues, they're similar.

    1. Re:your own link disagrees with you by stinerman · · Score: 1

      If you check the grandparent, you'll see that he insinuated that Stalin was more conservative than Ashcroft. If you take "conservative" to mean "authoritarian", then I suppose you are right. I don't think anyone would agree that a communist would be more conservative than Ashcroft.

      I take "conservative" to mean anyone in the libertarian right (lower right quadrant). As I have said other places in this thread, I tend to use "conservative" to mean "Republican" so that I am in sync with most of the country.

    2. Re:your own link disagrees with you by kubrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Literally, "conservative" means "not in favour of change", and "radical" means "in favour of change". The words took on their associations to particular ends of the political spectrum in Hanoverian England, I think (the first Parliaments to not just rubber-stamp royal decisions), where the Tories were conservative and the Whigs radical according to the literal definitions... of course things have become really messed up since then, have taken on their own definitions in different countries, etc.

      (The Tories at the time were "liberals" -- believers in small government and personal liberty -- while theses days Americans seem to use it as a synonym for socialism, democratic or otherwise.)

      Maybe we need a new political vocabulary, since everyone's talking at cross-purposes... and I don't think two dimensions are enough, you can't (usefully) reduce every issue to a binary problem.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    3. Re:your own link disagrees with you by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

      > you can't (usefully) reduce every issue to a binary problem

      Don't be silly.
      There's only:
      US = god fearing, freedom lovers
      THEM = evildoers

    4. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And literally "liberal" means "1. not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded".

      Now try to imagine the type of person that reads that definition and says "nope, that's not me at all", or even worse, thinks that word should be used as an insult. And you get an inkling of what's wrong with America.

    5. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is responsible for millions of deaths and other merely for not being part of democratic machine.

    6. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Atanamis · · Score: 1

      And literally "liberal" means "1. not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded".

      Whereas "conservative" means: "Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical."

      Using dictionary definitions for political terms is meaningless. The fact of the matter is that the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" has shifted in teh United States. They now refer to specific political preferences which relate more to socialism and free market economics than they do to change or openness to change.

      You have set up a straw man, since few people looking on the term "liberal" as an insult are using the archaic definition you choose to champion.

      --
      Atanamis
    7. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I decribe myself as a liberal to people I am most certainly not describing my position on economic issues - I am all for smaller government (I won't say "small", since that's a meaningless word without context), less taxes, a basically capitalist economy within limits, and so on. As are most American liberals. You know, the "crazy" people up here in the blue states. God forbid, we have some state regulation on health insurance premiums in Massachusetts, which means I am not getting completely gouged (only partially gouged) by my insurance company. If that makes me a commie pinko bastard then you are obviously looking cross-eyed at the world.

      New York is a very liberal city, and most New Yorkers would describe themselves as liberal, and yet NYC is the home of the free market economy for the country, and the world. Almost every liberal I know is basically a social liberal and economic moderate - it's very rare outside of academia and the fringes of society to find true economic liberals in the United States. Which implies that the entire concept of using "liberal" as a defamatory to mean "socialist" or "communist" is itself a gigantic straw man, since the Republican party leadership knows damned well that the people running for national office don't meet that description.

      So I return to my point - when you say that my definition is archaic and wrong because it doesn't represent the way people around YOU in the South or Midwest or whatever shitty part of the country you live in use the word, I suggest you reconsider the context in which you evaluate the English language. To people living on the coasts, it is as strange on the ear to hear liberal used as a synonym for socialist or communist as to hear Canadians or Midwesterners call soda "pop" or "coke".

      Furthermore, I am not the one setting up a straw man. You are the one who seems to have intentional chosen an irrelevant definition of conservative, discussing procedures rather than values or political views.

      Your general proposition that the dictionary is irrelevant for terms of broad social and political meaning is curious to me - the dictionary represents a common consensus for word meaning, outside of highly specialized areas of human knowledge. I fail to see why the fact that you have chosen to distort the meaning of the word liberal should thereby invalidate the dictionary with respect to an entire area of human thought.

    8. Re:your own link disagrees with you by metallic · · Score: 1

      Senator Kerry supports raising the taxes of the wealthy while lowering the taxes of the middle and lower classes. That sounds a lot like the redistribution of wealth to me, which is inherently socialist. I also happen to believe that socialism is a liberal form of economic theory.

      And now for my jab...

      ...when you say that my definition is archaic and wrong because it doesn't represent the way people around YOU in the South or Midwest or whatever shitty part of the country you live in ...

      You just threw out your defense of the classical interpretation of the word "liberal" with that remark.

      --
      Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
    9. Re:your own link disagrees with you by voisine · · Score: 1

      Uh... what's wrong with that? Not limited by established traditional attitudes? What if those traditional attitudes are what sustains civilization, like, for instance, the traditional family structure. Tollerant of ideas and behaviors of others? I don't have a problem with that specifically, but too often those that claim to be liberals confuse tollerating something with accepting it as right and proper. I tollerate the fact that the divorce rate is 60%. I wouldn't want a law making divorce illegal, but that doesn't mean I accept it. I'll do what I can to improve it, like advise my friends to see a mariage counselor before getting a divorce.

    10. Re:your own link disagrees with you by fbform · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and I don't think two dimensions are enough, you can't (usefully) reduce every issue to a binary problem.

      Presto! Here you go with a three-dimensional ternary problem:

      http://preditor.is-a-geek.net/viewsite.php?spage=n smap

      (deliberately not linked since that site is slow as hell and uses dynamic content. Remove spaces inserted by Slashcode). I was unfortunately unable to find the diagram on the original website, NationStates, the website that came up with the scheme.

      The quick summary for the lazy is pasted from the NationStates FAQ:

      NationStates has three main scales: personal, economic, and political. In each case, you can be authoritarian (moral, or restrictive) or libertarian (liberal, or laissez-faire). For example, someone with left-wing politics might want high levels of personal freedom (e.g. no drug laws, gay rights), low levels of economic freedom (e.g. taxes, welfare), and average levels of political freedom (e.g. compulsory voting at elections). A libertarian might prefer high levels of freedom on all scales. An authoritarian might want the opposite.

      Whether this constitutes a good model of political thought or not...you decide for yourself.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    11. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      You just threw out your defense of the classical interpretation of the word "liberal" with that remark.

      No, I've actually lived in other parts of the country and seen them first hand - in fact, I spent most of my childhood in these places. So unlike some people who talk through their ass, I speak from personal experience. I have a thoroughly open mind, and I have no problem with the people from these parts of the country per se, as long as they recognize the deficient culture they grew up in.

      That sounds a lot like the redistribution of wealth to me, which is inherently socialist. I also happen to believe that socialism is a liberal form of economic theory.

      Senator Kerry supports raising the taxes of the wealthy to where they were 4 years ago. If that's socialist, then I guess we were socialist 4 years ago, and even more socialist 20 years ago, and downright communist before that. Excellent quality reasoning, my friend, Kerry must be a socialist. QED, motherfucker, I guess I've just been schooled. LOL.

    12. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And literally "liberal" means "1. not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded".

      I think you'll find that it actually means "pussy". Must be true, TV told me.

    13. Re:your own link disagrees with you by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      In the US, the original "liberals" were actually libertarians. (The founders were the original liberals.) Today, the term "liberal" means authoritarian socialist, and the term "conservative" means authoritarian fascist.

    14. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      That's just silly. Just because the US has a lot of authoritarian politicians doesn't mean that the words conservative and liberal both imply authoritarianism as an essential part of their nature. As to whether the founders were liberals or libertarians - I would argue they were liberals. They were mostly theists who believed in an abstract concept of God, but believers in the goodness of mankind. I certainly don't believe that the founders of our country would read Ayn Rand and say "oh yes, that's the way society should work".

      You also have to keep in mind that economics wasn't really developed enough yet for our founders to have a meaningful position on it that we can map into the modern spectrum.

    15. Re:your own link disagrees with you by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      Ayn Rand was technically not a libertarian, although many of their core beliefs are similar.

      The founders believed in strictly limited, decentralized government, which is the paradigm of libertarianism. If the founders were alive and active in politics today, they would be libertarians if not independent. Both the democrats and republicans, on the other hand, believe in a government much larger, much more powerful, and much more centralized than the founders envisioned.

      economics wasn't really developed enough

      The laws of economics don't change. What's changed is that the US government now posesses (1) a much larger and richer economy to plunder wealth from, (2) the means to do it.

    16. Re:your own link disagrees with you by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      Neither of those two definitions have anything to do with the original use of "liberal" in politics. It was used to refer to Adam Smith and his followers in much the same way that the word "libertarian" is used now.

      In other words, it doesn't mean "open"; it means "free". And the modern leftists have inherited the name, and abandoned the meaning.

      -Billy

    17. Re:your own link disagrees with you by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Too bad that people who call themselves liberals support massive theft by taxation, racism by quotas, etc.. That's why I use it as an insult.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    18. Re:your own link disagrees with you by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      I call myself liberal and I don't support any of those things, and neither do the vast majority of liberals. Higher taxes are ALWAYS unpopular, and quotas have no support from any mainstream part of the political spectrum in the US. So stop the straw man bullshit. The "liberals" and "conservatives" in this country are amazingly close to each other on economic issues.

      And no liberal thinker could ever support such a fundamental injustice as racial quotas. A liberal thinker would see racial inequity of opportunity and try to address it at its source, not try to make up for one injustice by layering on others.

  130. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by phatwuss · · Score: 1

    Any chance we could add a "scary" modifier?

  131. terror by tail.man · · Score: 0

    a16/opt/data/pix# dict terrorism
    2 definitions found

    From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

    Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
    The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

    http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemoli ti on.html

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video10 40 .htm

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
  132. ..but the Legion of Stoopid marches on, and on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no end to the Legion of Stoopid.

    As time goes
    The lies unfold
    But once you know
    you forget what you were told

    They twist and redefine
    The truth they tell is true to them only
    They claim divine
    And assemble at the frontlines
    You're out of line
    if you question or speak your mind
    they want you blind
    Stupid and behind

    Yield!

  133. Guilliani by DoorFrame · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My guess would be everybody's favorite ex-Mayor Rudi Guilliani. He's got government experience. He's a former district attorney who fought the mafia. He's conservative. AND he's been shilling like hell for Bush the last few months.

    My guess is that this has all already been worked out and the resignation and nomination were all worked out weeks ago. All part of the plan to groom him to run for Prez in '08 or '12.

    1. Re:Guilliani by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      2008 will be his only option. after that he will be to old

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Guilliani by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guiliani is a Jew. If you think the Reps would run a Jew as their candidate you are fucking insane.

  134. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by stinerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Conseravatism is a very subjective word. I wouldn't consider any neo-con to be a conservative, but I tend to use it in casual conversation to mean someone that tends to vote Republican.

    In my opinion, Ashcroft is a fascist ... and before I get flamed, fascism is simply authoritarianism on social issues and a corporatist economic policy.

  135. OT: Expand or eliminate? by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Hey, now that the (s)election is over, the counting continues, and the FSCKING CAMPAIGN ADS are gone for another couple of years, can the editors expand the focus of the Politics section to events around the rest of the world? Barring that, can it be shelved? There's a whole world of political shenanigans outside the US, but I don't want to see /. become just another politics site with some geeky entertainment/tech stuff thrown in.

    For that matter, can the editors come to some kind of consensus regarding when and if the Your Rights Online section is appropriate for a particular article? Some of the stuff that appeared in YRO over the past few months would fit better in Politics, while some items had no place in any section aside from the general mish-mash.

    I know, I know--"you can hide a category if you don't like it". My problem is not that I'm completely fed up with the articles in a category, like some are with the SCO stuff, but that I think certain categories can be made better through some judicious, minor effort on the part of Taco and crew. Expand or dump Politics, tighten up the definition of YRO.

    I'd also say "dump a certain editor whose name starts with an 'm' since he's one unrequested front-page comment away from making me hide all of his posts", but that's probably asking too much :-). However, That Editor Who Shall Remain Unnamed does manage to grate on me, even when I might possibly agree with his POV.

    I think I just convinced myself to go through with The Banishing.

    (this will get modded down as offtopic, but I have karma to spare, so nyahhhh! :P )

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  136. His Legacy by davetrainer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    His legacy lives even now; check the front page of CNN.com.

    You'll see a huge photo of Ashcroft's face under the main headline, next to another headline, "Airport X-Ray Sees Through Clothes."

    Paging Dr. Freud.

    1. Re:His Legacy by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Quotes from the story:

      "I stood in front of the screen and they took three pictures in different positions," said passenger Pernille Nielsen.

      "I don't mind if the pictures are a little more personal as long as I'm safe in air -- that's what matters," she told Reuters.

      Another passenger, Maria Love, said: "It's all about being safe, and I really have no problem with it."

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  137. Here is the content by bstadil · · Score: 1
    What a smeghead

    Office of the Attorney General Message from the Attorney General to Justice

    Department Employees

    Nearly four years ago. in my first message to the Justice Community, I wrote to each of you of my goals for this noble Department: to "uphold the American justice tradition that strives to bring protection to the weak, freedom to the restrained, liberty to the oppressed, and security to all."

    Today I write to you at the close of my time as the Attorney General, gratified that together we have accomplished our goals.

    On November 2nd, I submitted to the President my intention to resign from the office of Attorney General of the United States, effective upon confirmation of my successor.

    As I take leave of this high office, I am filled with gratitude to you, the men and women of the Department of Justice, for an extraordinary period of service that has ushered in an extraordinary era of justice and security for the American people. We live today in an America that is safer and stronger than ever before; an America where freedom is not a promise but a birthright, not a dream but a reality.

    In partnership with the American people we have compiled a record of achievement that is remarkable if judged merely by peacetime standards. But for a time of war, your record is awe inspiring.

    For three years since the worst attack in our nation's history, and in defiance of all expectations, America has not endured another major terrorist attack. Violent crime is at its lowest rate in three decades. We have engineered double-digit reductions in the rates of sexual assault, robbery and assault. Gun crime prosecutions are at a record high and violent crimes committed with guns are at a record low. Drug use among the nation's youth is declining. Corporate criminals are facing justice, and integrity has been restored to the nation's marketplace. America's values, as set forth in our Constitution, reflected in our laws, and cherished in our hearts, have been honored and defended.

    Throughout our nation's history - throughout the history of civilization - men and women have struggled to define and to achieve justice. The opening words of the Constitution tell us that "to establish justice" is one of the founding reasons for the United States. Justice is the great striving of our nation, and the eternal hope of our hearts. But still we are left with the question: What is justice? After three decades of public service and four years as your Attorney General, I am confident in this answer: You are justice. You are the eyes that watch over the nation. You are the hands that uphold equal justice before the law. You are the feet on the street that nurture and protect our inalienable right to live in freedom. I join with the American people in humbled gratitude for your service to the nation.

    Lastly, speaking for myself, I express my gratitude to God for the each day the sun rises on a free and safe America. For the past three years, my every working day has begun with a report - a catalog of the murderous acts being plotted against Americans, That we have passed these three years in safety and security is a credit to you.

    But it would be the height of arrogance to assume we achieved this alone. The Psalms remind us: 'Vnless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stands guard in vain," My friends and colleagues, for four years we have stood watch together. We have endured many things and we have accomplished many more. It has been the honor of my lifetime to stand beside you. And as I take my leave of this privileged post, I know that our efforts have not been in vain. The Builder of our city and the Author of our freedom has stood beside us. He stands beside us still.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  138. You +++ by xant · · Score: 1

    You're already at +5, so here's a +6 for you.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  139. Hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What will all the liberal wankers complain about now that there object of hatred is gone!?!?!?!

    1. Re:Hehe by nitemayr · · Score: 1

      What will all the liberal wankers complain about now that there object of hatred is gone!?!?!?!

      Did all the AC trolls suddenly resign too?

      --
      Hello Kettle,
      You, my friend are as black as pitch.
      With love, Pot.
  140. ... but wait! by cjpez · · Score: 1
    How come the TERROR ALERT is still at yellow?

    Maybe somebody forgot to update the website.

  141. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by damiam · · Score: 1

    The Democrats still have enough votes to block an incredibly bad nominee (like Ashcroft). Hopefully they have the balls to do it this time around.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  142. I not a religious man, but... by the_mushroom_king · · Score: 5, Funny

    Halle-FUCKING-lujah!!

  143. Don't be a jerk about it by HBI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Eisenhower, Bradley, Halsey, MacArthur, etc all were permitted to accept honorary knighthood from the Brits. It's just something cute nowadays. Back in 1787 it was a real consideration.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Don't be a jerk about it by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      A jerk about *what*? I expect prosecutors and attorneys to take the letter of the Constitution seriously. He could have looked even more a hero if he'd politely declined on account of its technical illegality.

      Ironically, the last several years of Giuliani's reign in NYC featured not only his convenient interpretation of the law, but popular public stickers reading "Giuliani is a Jerk". For example, he tried to extend his mayoral term past its end, months after 9/11/2001, saying the City's survival depended on him. It obviously did not, and his cheap, self-serving trick was only the last for which he's remembered in NYC as a jerk. Though the rest of the country seems to have a lot to learn about the depths of his jerkdom.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  144. Stalking horse by daveo0331 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's unlikely that Ashcroft would make it onto the Supreme Court, but Bush might use him as a stalking horse. Nominate him, watch the country go crazy, watch the Democrats use up all their time and political capital fighting off Ashcroft... then when everyone is worn out from blocking the Ashcroft nomination, Bush appoints a relative unknown who turns out to be as bad or worse.

    The Democrats need to watch out for this, and keep up the resistance against anyone on the right wing that Bush tries to put on the Court. We still have 45 seats in the Senate, that's enough for a filibuster. The ability to filibuster is there for a reason -- to stop a President and 51 Senators (or in this case 55) from the same party from putting an extremist on the Supreme Court. The Democrats need to make sure Bush comes up with nominees that are at lease somewhat moderate.

    --
    Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    1. Re:Stalking horse by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At any time has John Ashcroft done anything other than enforce the laws that are on the books?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Stalking horse by Rahga · · Score: 1

      "The ability to filibuster is there for a reason -- to stop a President and 51 Senators (or in this case 55) from the same party from putting an extremist on the Supreme Court."

      And all along, I thought the filibuster was a way for senate minority leaders to place undue influence on the political process without fear of retaliation...

      Then Tom Daschle had to prove me wrong.

    3. Re:Stalking horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At any time has John Ashcroft done anything other than enforce the laws that are on the books?

      Yes. He wrote the PATRIOT Act. That means he put the laws on the books. When you do that, you can no longer hide behind the, already flimsy, "Just following the law."

    4. Re:Stalking horse by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      That means he put the laws on the books.

      Congress and the President put laws on the books. Ashcroft may have suppored the USAPA, but he didn't enact it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:Stalking horse by Pyromage · · Score: 1

      An alternate theory, one I think suggests less of a power-grab: Maybe Ashcroft doesn't agree with Bush and wants out of his organization. They have a private agreement allowing a decent exit.

      This isn't necessarily my opinion, but I think it's important to recognize it as being as much a possibility as the sinister plots we see suggested every day.

    6. Re:Stalking horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ashcroft may have suppored the USAPA, but he didn't enact it.

      Again, HE WROTE IT.

      Over 90% of the words in the act are directly from his office and most of that directly from his hand.

      Yeah, he also "supported it" by scaremongering congress into enacting it without even reading it.

      In any rational examination that makes him PRIMARILY responsible. All the others are just contributory infringers. They may have abrogated their power to him, but he did not turn it down and still brags of his actions today.

    7. Re:Stalking horse by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wait, are you going to pretend that he *hasn't* been one of the most "activist" attorney generals in recent history? From trying to overturn Oregon's ballot-initiative-created assisted suicide law, to doing the same sort of thing with California's medical marijuana law, to dredging up an obscure 1872 law to bring a case against a nonviolent greenpeace protest 15 months after the fact, to coming up with the "secret detention/secret trials" nonsense, to pretending to be the Supreme Court in declaring that the justice department has no authority over most cases of gun control regulation due to the second amendment, to *drafting*, using USDOJ resources the USA-PATRIOT Act, and then using government funds to go on a *cross-country tour* to promote it?

      He's not just a postmodern bureaucrat. He's a bloody nihilist.

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    8. Re:Stalking horse by jnana · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And even if your observation weren't true, "just following the law" didn't work for the Nazis, so why should it work for Ashcroft?

      <insert-line-about-moral-obligation-of-disobeyin g-unjust-laws/>

    9. Re:Stalking horse by Proney · · Score: 1

      You mean like wasting tax-payer's dollars on things like this?

      --
      require "something.clever";
    10. Re:Stalking horse by Onan · · Score: 1

      Yes. He has actively campaigned, both to the public and to Congress, for and against existing and proposed legislation.

    11. Re:Stalking horse by Syberghost · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      to *drafting*, using USDOJ resources the USA-PATRIOT Act,

      Oh please. If he wrote it, how come John Kerry spent years trying to get Title IV of it passed as various different bills? Was he a puppet of John Ashcroft the entire time?

    12. Re:Stalking horse by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh please yourself. Ashcroft *did* have the DOJ write the Patriot Act, and its principal author was the assistant attorney general Viet D. Dinh. Who did you think wrote it?

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    13. Re:Stalking horse by kir · · Score: 1

      Not insightful. Godwin!

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    14. Re:Stalking horse by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, Title IV was mostly written by John Kerry. Bob Graham wrote quite a bit of changes in titles II and III, with more than a little input from the rest of the Intelligence Committee, including John Edwards.

      What was passed was not AAG Dinh's original draft, not by a long shot. Title IV didn't even exist in his draft, that's all John Kerry.

      As for the other changes, go read the congressional record on this. Hell, the House and Senate passed different bills and had to reconcile them in committee. If what Dinh wrote was passed as-is, why was it different between the two?

    15. Re:Stalking horse by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Again, HE WROTE IT.

      All people of the US have to pay N3WBI3 1$ on the first of the year.

      I wrote it, the whole thing 100% is it law? Oh wait Congress made it law..

      --
    16. Re:Stalking horse by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      He's a bloody nihilist.

      Uh, you don't know what nihilist means.

      m-w entry for nihilist.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    17. Re:Stalking horse by Debillitatus · · Score: 3, Funny
      Nihilists? Shit. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.

      I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck, in the meaningless theatre of war, to return to a world where rules are trampled on willy-nihily.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    18. Re:Stalking horse by Orne · · Score: 1

      Wait a second, you're telling me that the one thing that John Kerry has to his name in congress is that he helped write the PATRIOT act?

      Why wasn't this brought up by the national media before the election?

      Oh, that's right, as many democrats wouldn't have voted for him if they knew that...

    19. Re:Stalking horse by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Why wasn't this brought up by the national media before the election? Oh, that's right, as many democrats wouldn't have voted for him if they knew that...

      Right, because as we all know, it was impossible to get any media attention for negative stories about Kerry *cough*swiftboat*cough* no matter what the merits. Too bad there are no right leaning news organizations *cough*foxnews*cough* or media companies *cough*sinclair*cough* that could get the word out on what a bad guy he was.

    20. Re:Stalking horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull! It is perfectly natural for dept. heads to lobby for more power for their departments. Congress voted for the USAPA and they take 100% of responsibility for it. "But he asked for it" is a silly excuse.

    21. Re:Stalking horse by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      *Sigh* - where do you get this stuff? Newsmax? Washington Times? Try doing some work for yourself, will you?

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN0 15 10:@@@S

      STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
      10/4/2001:
      Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. (text of measure as introduced: CR S10307-10333)
      10/9/2001:
      Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 187.
      10/11/2001:
      Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S10547-10630)
      10/11/2001:
      S.AMDT.1899 Amendment SA 1899 proposed by Senator Feingold. (consideration: CR S10570-10575; text: CR S10570)
      To make amendments to the provision relating to interception of computer trespasser communications.
      10/11/2001:
      S.AMDT.1899 Motion to table amendment SA 1899 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 83 - 13. Record Vote Number: 299.
      10/11/2001:
      S.AMDT.1900 Amendment SA 1900 proposed by Senator Feingold. (consideration: CR S10575-10577; text: CR S10575)
      To limit the roving wiretap authority under FISA.
      10/11/2001:
      S.AMDT.1900 Motion to table amendment SA 1900 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 90 - 7. Record Vote Number: 300.
      10/11/2001:
      S.AMDT.1901 Amendment SA 1901 proposed by Senator Feingold. (consideration: CR S10583-10586; text: CR S10583)
      To modify the provisions relating to access to business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
      10/11/2001:
      S.AMDT.1901 Motion to table amendment SA 1901 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 89 - 8. Record Vote Number: 301.
      10/11/2001:
      Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 1. Record Vote Number: 302. (text of bill as passed Senate: CR S10604-10630)
      10/30/2001:
      Senate vitiated previous passage.
      10/30/2001:
      Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11247)

      Note something that's missing? You guessed it - the complete addition of a new section (securing our borders). it was *already there*. Kerry voted *against* the amendments listed.

      Here is section IV of the bill *AS SUBMITTED* to the senate:

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./t em p/~r107BHdfjx:e359387:
      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/F?r107:1:./tem p/~r107BHdfjx:e371105:
      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/F?r107:1:./tem p/~r107BHdfjx:e382616:

      You people are incorrigible.

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    22. Re:Stalking horse by Rei · · Score: 1

      From your link:

      "2a: A doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility "

      I rest my case.

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
    23. Re:Stalking horse by amRadioHed · · Score: 1
      I'm impressed how you used the Democrat's use of the filibuster to block three of Bush's judicial nominee's as an incisive criticism of the party's leadership.

      Too bad you ignore the fact that the Republican's were far worse when Clinton was in office.
      In less than three years, the Senate has confirmed 160 judges nominated by President George W. Bush. Three controversial nominees have been blocked, just 1.8 percent of President Bush's nominees. During six years of control of the Senate under the Clinton Administration, Republicans confirmed 248 judges nominated by President Clinton. However, 63 nominees were blocked - 20.3 percent of President Clinton's nominees. (source)
      You're point would be made much stronger if it wasn't completely hypocritical.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    24. Re:Stalking horse by Xenographic · · Score: 1
      Here's what happened one of the last times they tried that trick:

      Justice David Souter

      Nominated by President Bush and sworn in Oct. 9, 1990. At the time of his nomination, Souter, now 61, was a virtual unknown, a government lawyer. He quickly became a disappointment to conservatives and now often sides with the court's liberal wing.

      (Source)

    25. Re:Stalking horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't brought up because its standard issue neocon lies designed to spread FUD.

      See the truth as recorded by the government itself

    26. Re:Stalking horse by Chiron+Taltos · · Score: 1
      You bring up an excellent point, but you're looking at the wrong target.

      Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will be replaced during President Bush's second term in office. It is certain that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas will be nominated for Chief Justice. This is the one they'll hope to get in once the Dems are done fighting against the nomination of Ashcroft. He's the one who'll lead the charge to repeal much of what was accomplished during the previous four decades.

      Here's the Drudge Report on this, and here's the Google search for more articles about this topic.

      --
      CT

    27. Re:Stalking horse by Remlik · · Score: 1

      Some one explain this to me:

      Republican, conservative president appoints a conservative judge to bench (duh) and Democrat liberals do everything in their power to oppose it including fillabuster because a conservative is just wrong. They are praised as heros for protecting our country.

      Now when a Democrat liberal president appoints liberal judge to bench and Republican conservatives try to block it they are partisan stalling and hurting the nation.

      You can't have it both ways.

      What is one supposed to do? Always appoint a judge the other side likes, but your party doesn't?

      Courts don't write law, they are there to interperet it. If you don't like the laws as they are written, or want new laws that no one is writing then vote the right people into congress.

      This blocking of judges seems rather silly.

      --
      Apple free since 1990!
    28. Re:Stalking horse by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mark it "eight", Dude.

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    29. Re:Stalking horse by daveo0331 · · Score: 1

      Now when a Democrat liberal president appoints liberal judge to bench and Republican conservatives try to block it they are partisan stalling and hurting the nation.

      I never said this. Maybe someone else did?

      As you said, the judges should be there to interpret law, not push an agenda one way or another. If the President (Republican or Democrat) nominates someone who wants to legislate from the bench, or who has views that are too extreme, it's the responsibility of the opposition party to block the nomination. This applies whether it's a Republican president nominating someone who wants to roll back civil rights laws and invalidate all the labor laws, or a Democratic president nominating someone who wants to invalidate all the marijuana laws and force all states to recognize gay marriages.

      Filibusters are a legitimate part of the system, no matter who is doing it. Ideally, anyone who makes it through the process is someone that's palatable to both parties, and therefore relatively impartial and free of agendas.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    30. Re:Stalking horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "attorneys general", dammit!

    31. Re:Stalking horse by scribblej · · Score: 1

      Hey, watch it!

      I'm a nihilist, and I don't want the good name of nihilism associated with scum like Ashcroft.

      Ashcroft is a CHRISTIAN.

      Get it right.

    32. Re:Stalking horse by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Wait a second, you're telling me that the one thing that John Kerry has to his name in congress is that he helped write the PATRIOT act?

      Why wasn't this brought up by the national media before the election?

      John Kerry during the presidential debates:

      Now, the three things they try to say I've changed position on are the Patriot Act; I haven't. I support it. I just don't like the way John Ashcroft has applied it

      I believe in the Patriot Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism.

      He also gave a number of examples where he thought the PATRIOT act was being misapplied and abused.

    33. Re:Stalking horse by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      http://graham.senate.gov/biography.html

      Graham says he's the principle author of part of it. If he isn't, ask yourself why he's saying his is.

      Oh, and I mis-spoke above; everywhere I said Title III, replace it with Title IV; everywhere I said Title IV, replace it with Title III.

    34. Re:Stalking horse by Debillitatus · · Score: 1

      Has the whole world gone CRAZY?!?!

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    35. Re:Stalking horse by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      IT should work for ashcroft because the law hasn't been found to vilate any other laws as it is being enforced.

      There are a difference between people that torured, killed and performed experiments on kids as well as others because they were a certain ethnicity or of a cetain religion. Someone asking for more power and gettign a law that you don't agree with is slightly different. Mybe the inability to distinguisht the differences are the reasons peopel don't understand why bush was re-elected.

  145. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF are you talking about? I suggest you find the definition of the word "liberal". Hint: it is related to concepts like "liberty" (i.e. freedom). Like "liberal" (laissez-faire, or free market) economics. Stalin, Bush and Hitler are perfect examples of what liberal is NOT.

  146. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you kidding? You are comparing Ashcroft to Palmer and your point is, "hey it could have been worse!"? That is insane.

    I'll just make one point about this comparison. We are in the year 2004. The emergence of advanced technology and data centralization has a very real effect on how these laws affect our freedoms in more powerful ways then they did in the pre-World War I era. If you don't see that you are not realistic in my opinion. Not to mention that the ideological wars being waged today are not as threatening as they were then (feel free to disagree). I do not believe that muslim fundementalism poses the equivalent risk of the communist/socialist movement of the early 20th century. You don't live in fear of Mulah Omar leading a popular rebellion in which all of our property is seized and redistributed do you? No, we fear (stupidly I might add) bombings of the thousand plus level using terrible weapons we invented. Before I cease I will just say that I think if terrorists had these types of weapons they would attack Isreal, not NYC.

  147. Stockpiles of AMDs? by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1

    Where? I could use a few. My Pentia are running too hot.

  148. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, they differed on economic principals, Stalin wanted his government to own everything and run all the companies, Ashcroft wanted the coporations to own everything, and run the government. Though I would bet that Stalin would have been just as happy to have a capitalistic system under him, as long as he was in charge and could rule with an iron fist.
    Where they show a particular similarity is on the way they approched dealing with criminals, take them off the streets, throw them in a hole and deny them any sort of due process. Yes, Stalin tended to just kill them, but I'm convinced that Ashcroft would have done the same if he thought he could get away with it. The guy seemed to have a wet dream about the US being a police state. The fact that he is now gone is a good thing for the US.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  149. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by totipotentsoul · · Score: 1

    Oh man, don't make me cry again. I'm trying to stay in denial for the next four years.

    --
    The best posts are both flamebait and informative.
  150. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by stinerman · · Score: 1

    I agree. The language has changed too much to be able to use "liberal" and "conservative" in a very direct way.

    I call myself a libertarian democratic socialist. Its a mouthful but it helps for people who understand what those terms mean. I'm for returning power to states, universal health care, pro-2nd amendment, free education through 2 years of college, a balanced budget amendment, etc. Its hard to say I'm "liberal" and equally hard to say "libertarian" or "conservative" and obviously not a "centrist".

    On the graph in question, I am approximately (-7,-7), fyi.

  151. Fall of the Curtain by Laptop+Dancer · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that we'll finally be able to see Lady Justice's Li'l Kim breast again at press conferences?

  152. In other news... by Greg+Larkin · · Score: 3, Funny


    ...Ashcroft's statue was seen disrobing upon hearing of his resignation!

    --

    SourceHosting.net, LLC
    Ready. Set. Code.
    http://www.sourcehosting.net/
  153. Is this so History shines kindly on Ashcroft? by awfar · · Score: 1

    ... now enshrined, his words will last longer than the actual deeds or details?

  154. Wow by Rikardon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A Bush presidency, sans Ashcroft and with Arafat dead, or as good as. That sounds just about right to me.

    This being Slashdot, I'll likely get modded down for expressing heretical opinions, but I approve of Bush's hardline foreign-policy stance. It's his domestic policies I don't like -- cutting taxes while there's a war on, raising (some) trade barriers, and of course, the Patriot Act.

    Actually, I should qualify that: I don't even oppose the powers given to the FBI. What I object to in the Patriot Act is the lack of transparency -- specifically, the lack of judicial oversight. If the FBI need certain powers to successfully prosecute the fight against terrorism, fine: but USE THEM IN THE OPEN. This National Security Letter bullshit is just that.

    It seems to me that Ashcroft, with his "phantoms of lost liberty" speech, was the driving force behind the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead approach that built the Patriot Act without the necessary democratic safeguards.

    I'm heartily glad he's gone.

    Now, if Arafat would only hurry up and die...

  155. Political corruption on Slashdot... by comrade009 · · Score: 0

    I'd like to think that his resignation had nothing to do with special interests, but you can't help but wonder when Slashdot produces a link to "Best Deals: United States."

  156. Five Words for You by onosendai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Better the devil you know ..

    --
    <? include ('signature.inc'); ?>
    1. Re:Five Words for You by Eric+Clark · · Score: 1

      Exactly why I voted for Bush.

    2. Re:Five Words for You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kylie version is my fav. What?

    3. Re:Five Words for You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf does this mean?

  157. So, when does by VonGuard · · Score: 1

    Johnny boy release his first album?

    Let the Eagle Soar, Feat Jay-Z and Nelly

    --
    Don't Crease the Weasel!
  158. Re:Ashcroft wasn't so bad ..duh by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 1

    Not as bad as your spelling "They no longer need search warrents, and they have no respect of our civil liberties" And the proof that they don't repsect our civil liberties??? Do you even have a clue as to what civil liberties are?? You sound like a wacko liberal to me....

    --
    *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
  159. Great quote from NPR by pherris · · Score: 1
    Words that Bush might say about a divided US:

    "I nominate John Ashcroft to the Supreme Court. Let the healing begin!"

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  160. more conservative? Show me one! by notany · · Score: 1
    What!!! Do you mean that there is even more conservative bushlims in your contry than Ashcroft? I tought Ashcroft was already off the limit (outlier is statistical terms). Who could it be?? Who can be more scary than Ashcroft? Some kind of ultra-religious-neurotic-only-meat-eating-virgin- -homophopic- -nazi-kkk- -old-white-fat-protestant-living-with-his-control- freak-mom?

    1) Each time he has been sworn in to political office, he is anointed with cooking oil.

    2) He believes calico cats are signs of the devil

    3) Sings Let the Eagle Soar, wants staff join. listen

    4) In January 2002, a pair of 12ft statues in the atrium of a justice department building were covered by a blue curtain, on orders from Mr Ashcroft's office because the female figure Spirit of Justice was bare-breasted, and the body of her male partner, Majesty of Law, was not sufficiently covered by his toga.

    --
    Dyslexics have more fnu.
    1. Re:more conservative? Show me one! by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
      Those of us who are old enough may recall Ashcroft's counterpart in the Reagan Administration, Edwin Meese.

      Meese went on a crusade to eliminate pr0n from the American landscape (didn't work, of course), among other issues he pursued. In general, I would count Meese as equally, if not a shade more, conservative than Ashcroft.

      Here's a pic of the dirty old bastard.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  161. Ya know... by Greg_D · · Score: 1

    Dick Morris, Clinton flunkie, is one of the biggest proponents of the Patriot Act. Perhaps because he knows that the media would be up the administration's ass in a second if they abused it (hell, they've managed to use false documents and thoroughly unconfirmed information already). Or because he knows that it's already aided the intelligence community in stopping terrorist activity in New York.

    Either way, you aren't going to get anyone much to the left of Ashcroft to replace him. And, should Rumsfeld resign, you will almost certainly get someone to the right of him. Even the Dems were kissing his ass when Bush appointed him.

  162. Religious Right Wackjob by logic+hack · · Score: 0
    Asscroft has no qualifications for the job other than being a religious right wackjob.
    Looks like it's Ashcroft '08 then.
  163. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by dspyder · · Score: 1

    Speculation is that former Deputy AG Larry Thompson will come back and take Ashcroft's place. From what I've read of him so far, he at least seems somewhat more sane.... did you know Ashcroft is opposed to DANCING!

    --D

  164. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by slimyrubber · · Score: 1

    Actually the word is 'neocon'.. the term 'conservative' lost its meaning ages ago since a conservative would most likely oppose the patriot act. It goes against their values that gov. should have very little control over their life.

    --
    [ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
  165. for those conservatives unable to google: by bani · · Score: 1

    ok, here you go:

    "The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration."

  166. I wouldn't pop the champagne just yet by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    We're getting rid of the devil we know in exchange for the devil we don't know.

    What makes you think Bush won't appoint an evangelical Ghengis Kahn in his place?

    Still there's a thin shred of hope that he couldn't do much worse. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, John. And, on behalf of 56 million of your fellow countrymen, good riddance.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  167. Yeah, the US is much safer. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After arresting scores of innocent people at the instigation of this and other war criminals and convicting the big amount of 0, zero, zilch, nada of activities related to terrorism.

    In one case the damning evidence was a video of the alleged terrorists spending time in Disneyland.

    And the only ones the neo-ayatollahs have any hope of "convicting" of any terrorism related activities they have safely guarded them in Guantanamo or Abu Gharib, were confessions can be conviniently extracted at the pleasure of the torturers and kangoroo courts will sentence in accordance to the public, on record wishes of the reelected Orwellian master overlord.

    And the poster of the article still has the indecency to find something good to say about this individual.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Yeah, the US is much safer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thousands of people are being locked for decades and their property and lifetime savings are being confiscated on daily basis - all that because someone in the government have decided that you are not allowed to inhale certain chemical substances and you are whining about Ashcroft.
      Compared to this whatever he had done in the last 4 years is nothing.

      You have lost your freedom long time ago ..

    2. Re:Yeah, the US is much safer. by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, surprise, surprise, the parent post is false. There have been a number of convictions, including the, or at least a, Disneyland video case:
      One of the tapes, found in Madrid, showed possible al-Qaida European operatives casing Las Vegas casinos in 1997 and engaging in casual conversation that included a possible reference to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

      The tape, which included footage of the MGM Grand, Excalibur and New York-New York casinos, was sent to al-Qaida's leadership to help in the selection of targets, documents obtained by the AP indicated.

      Another video, seized from the apartment of a Detroit terror cell, was used as evidence in the first major terrorism trial following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It shows footage of the same three casinos and Disneyland. Prosecutors presented the footage to jurors as terrorists' surveillance of targets they wanted to raze.

      Prosecutors won two terror conspiracy convictions in the case, which included evidence that one defendant referred to Las Vegas as the "city of Satan" and spoke about Islamic extremist "brothers" destroying it.

      There have been many other convictions, of course. (Trivial exercise left to reader.) One more freebie:
      SEATTLE -- National Guard Spec. Ryan Anderson, 27, was sentenced to life in prison after his conviction on charges he tried to aid al Qaeda by detailing ways to destroy U.S. weapons and kill soldiers to undercover agents, the Army said. Anderson, a convert to Islam, was convicted of passing on diagrams of tanks and their vulnerabilities to undercover agents posing as al Qaeda operatives.


      I hope people start taking the war against the terrorists seriously sometime soon.
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Yeah, the US is much safer. by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      From your link:
      Las Vegas police have had a much different interpretation of the tape. They have for more than a year characterized the contents of the footage as "tourist-type" video and continued to do so Tuesday. ...

      The mayor said he first viewed the Detroit tape Tuesday morning. "It was a very boring hour," Goodman said, noting that the video was little more than an "amateurish travelogue..."

      And the National Guard put away had nothing to do with the Detroit and other 'terror cells'.

      --
      Did he inhale?
  168. this slashdot story was on news.google.com by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    Very surprised to see a link from news.google.com to slashdot covering this.

    1. Re:this slashdot story was on news.google.com by ashot · · Score: 1

      there are very often slashdot stories referenced in the tech section, altough you are right it is surprizing that Slasdot was one of the top
      for a non-tech story.

      --
      -ashot
  169. Good riddens by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Now hopefully the Gods will kick him in the ass.

  170. A 5 page letter eh by mthreat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can the president read five full pages?

  171. John Gilmore will have to change his page! by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    Oh no. I wonder if Gilmore v. Ashcroft's replacement will have the same ring to it? BTW, ever since they put the legal page in chronological order there hasn't been any updates.. nothing has happened for over a month? The last thing on there was petitioning the court not to seal the court records. If they sealed em would the web page even be able to tell us they did? What's going on?!

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  172. Re:Good Riddance- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nicely put. For a bunch of supposedly smart people that read slashdot, their knowlege of history is rather appalling. It is not that they should have all of American or World history memorized, but they seem to have no historic context at all to use in judging the present to investigate further. If it wasn't so repetitive, it would be amusing.

  173. Never mind Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If his heart doesn't get him, the allegations regarding Haliburton lapping at his feet will.

    But, yo, Rumsfeld, you've worked a hard life. Isn't it time you thought about retiring and enjoyed the twilight of civilization?

  174. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Pyrion · · Score: 2, Informative

    But none of the desire. He stated during the campaign that he doesn't want to be part of Bush's cabinet. Hence my comment regarding dreaming.

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  175. Abraham next, PLEASE.... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    ... We need a DOE head that doesn't consider conservation a 'life choice' but a 'patriotic duty'...

  176. Aha! by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Funny
    " does that mean i can take off my tinfoil hat?"

    Ah, got you at last, ZiakII! You finally show up on our radar screens, and our agents will be at your door within minutes. Please cooperate fully. Thank you.

  177. Bush nominates Ashcroft for Supreme Court by w3rzr0b0t5 · · Score: 1

    And now let the healing begin.

  178. Sure, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the difference is that liberals really *are* evil!

  179. Oh hooray by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Now, Bush will probably appoint Ralph Nader or someone similarly minded to the post. Seriously though, this probably means that Ashcroft objected to the way government was being run. Think about that for a minute. His replacement will probably be crazier and a bigger tool than him.

    1. Re:Oh hooray by svallarian · · Score: 1

      Nah, he's probably just got AIDS from all the ass fucking he's been giving the american people for the last 4 years.

      Steven V.

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  180. No, not that... he meant that they'd caught Osama. by genixia · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, wait a second, they didn't do that either.

  181. Naked Statues by rc5-ray · · Score: 1

    Check out the AP story here. Notice the statue in the background. I hope everyone appreciates the irony.

  182. I hope he gets run over by a car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Asscraft is such a pile of crap. Thank god he is resigning. I couldn't think of anyone in recent history that did a worse job in that position. While we're at it, Rice should fucking quit too. She's a total waste of air and should have been fired 2 years ago. How about we get fucking qualified people in the cabinet and try to listen to them. Instead of pissing them off and then having them quit.

    Then again, Bush could some a assbag worse than Asscraft and Rice.

  183. Re:Good Riddance by bhirsch · · Score: 1

    Yes, but don't you understand how cool it is to bash Bush, Ashcroft, and the rest of the administration? All the kids are doing it.

  184. The old saying goes... by jerde · · Score: 1

    Don't count your chickens before their replacements are appointed.

    --
    INsigNIFICANT
  185. Actually it seemed to be expected by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I didn't see it either, but right after the election they were talking about him being replaced as if it was certain (either replaced or resigning due to health reasons as he has). So it seems some people expected this!

    I'm actually surprised no mention of this was made beforehand as I think it would have convinced even more people to vote for Bush than did already... I knew a few people that would have voted for Bush but were primarily voting against Ashcroft by voting for Kerry!

    Now we'll see what comes next and if it's better... I didn't like him either but the sheer amount of utter hate and vitrol spread around here is pretty hard to take. I wish people would try to put the "civil" back in "civil discourse".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  186. it's fair to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The objective of safely securing Americans into crime and terror has been achieved".

  187. NPR had a stroy on the other day by CptSkippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    inwhich they said that it is tradition for all of the President's staff to turn in their resignations and then the President decides whose he'll accept.

    1. Re:NPR had a stroy on the other day by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think was that is the President's tradition to symbolically fire his Cabinet and staff, and ask those he wants back to apply again, and that one or two Cabinet members may have been thinking of jumping the gun.

      Yes, I heard the same broadcast on the way to work...

  188. Some thoughts on Ashcroft by kbahey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is too late in the discussion, but I just saw it a little while ago and Ashcroft strikes a nerve. So here goes.

    Ashcroft reminds me of Ministers of Interiors in Third World dictatorships. He is a tool for the dictator and the regime, and not there for his main job, that is protect the people.

    His argument that he did achieve his objectives in protecting America from crime and terror is much like the guy who sprayed pepper on his front lawn, to ward off elephants. When his neighbor told him there are no elephants here, he says : "See! It works!"

    Not a single case in the past 3 years was prosecuted successfully as a terrorism case, with conviction. All of the high profile arrests where Aschroft made press conferences with huge pomp, touting them as major victories in the war on terrorism, are just for show. For example, the Lakawanna Six (Buffalo, NY) Yemeni-Americans all pleaded to lesser charges and were convicted. The case of the African American bunch in Oregon is similar. The same goes for the Holy Land Foundation in Texas, and other Muslim charity cases. Most cases that Ashcroft said to be terrorism end up getting convictions for immigration irregularities or ID fraud (SSN, Driver License, Food Stamps, ...etc.). No terrorism at all, except the constant drumming up of fear in the masses, and no one remembers what happened to the poor souls who got caught and made examples of.

    Of course, the Patriot Act, Secret Evidence, and the eroding civil liberties that goes with it, is exactly what is wrong, since terrorists have achieved an objective with these things.

    There are other incidents that show his short comings as well, such as making a big deal of a statue with the bare breast, his fundamentalist view, him attacking Islam while in office, and more.

    Someone should really make up a web site about Ashcroft Watch or something, lest people forget all this.

    Well, his letter of resignation says "I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons." What does that mean? Is a Supreme Court Justice position waiting for him (despite the poster above who said that it has to be someone with judge qualifications)?

    1. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      Not a single case in the past 3 years was prosecuted successfully as a terrorism case, with conviction. All of the high profile arrests where Aschroft made press conferences with huge pomp, touting them as major victories in the war on terrorism, are just for show.

      Not one, huh?:
      SEATTLE -- National Guard Spec. Ryan Anderson, 27, was sentenced to life in prison after his conviction on charges he tried to aid al Qaeda by detailing ways to destroy U.S. weapons and kill soldiers to undercover agents, the Army said. Anderson, a convert to Islam, was convicted of passing on diagrams of tanks and their vulnerabilities to undercover agents posing as al Qaeda operatives.

      Thanks to your post I just discovered this site which lists:
      # Terrorist cells across America have been broken up, in cities including Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa and Portland (Oregon);

      # 368 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;

      # Already, 194 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and

      # Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.

      Anyone taking bets that there might be more to come?

      Of course, the Patriot Act, Secret Evidence, and the eroding civil liberties that goes with it, is exactly what is wrong, since terrorists have achieved an objective with these things.

      The goal of Bin Laden and is followers is to either convert the United States into an Islamic Republic under Islamic Sharia law and without separation of church and state, or to destroy it. Read his letter. His demands are listed starting at Q2.

      Their current body count is at least 3,000 inside the country and thousands more outside the country. They have contributed to something like $100 billion in damage to the US economy.

      Nothing to worry about, huh?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by Mybrid · · Score: 1
      Their current body count is at least 3,000 inside the country and thousands more outside the country. They have contributed to something like $100 billion in damage to the US economy.

      You had to know this reply was coming.

      Our current body count in Iraq is between 16,000 and 200,000 Iraqis and 1200 Americans. The Iraq War has damaged the US economy by upwards of $300 billion.

      # 368 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;
      Notice the word charged, not convicted. During the McCarthy era lots of people were charged with being communists.

      I have to agree with his original assessment that declaring his job is done and the he's finished the job against terrorism is nothing but hubris.

      It is well documented by Michael Moore and others that neither Democrats nor Republicans read the patriot act before signing it. And yet we continue to re-elect our incompetent incumbents.

      Finally, Ashcroft should be vilified for not prosecuting Ken Lay with a speedy trial. America needed it. Ken Lay and Andy Fastow are America's most high profile, white collar terrorists. We all know why Ken Lay is still a free man.

    3. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing we got that volcano insurance too.

    4. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by kbahey · · Score: 1

      OK, you are right that there was one case I did not know of. However, it is mainly spying, and not direct terrorism. This Ryan guy did not plan to blow up something in the USA.

      But, you just proved my point: The link you provided says that are more than a 1,000 people arrested and charged. The number may be smaller, since some may overlap, but it is nice to inflate the numbers so they are more impressive for the governemnt.

      Ashcroft claims that those are terrorism related, but these are 'arrests' and 'charges', very different from convictions. Even convictions are for immigration or fraud and not terrorism.

      As for Bin Laden, his goal is not what you stated. His main goal is for the US to stop meddling in the Middle East, so he and the rulers there can duke it out themselves, and establish an Islamic state there. If the US does not do this, then yes, he wants to destroy it. He never said he wants to convert it. This kind of misconception is troubling. Know your enemy first.

      The body count you mentioned is a red herring. Bin Laden can claim that 7,000+ in Afghanistan and 10,000+ (or 100,000) in Iraq make the numbers in his favor and justifies to some him killing more Americans in the future.

      I am not saying that Bin Laden should be ignored, or he is no threat. Far from it. But making up fake cases of terrorism and arrests in the USA is not the way to stop him. In fact, it helps him. He acheived one objective of many, which is to sow fear and get overreaction and overspending by the USA.

    5. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by khallow · · Score: 1
      What does that mean? Is a Supreme Court Justice position waiting for him (despite the poster above who said that it has to be someone with judge qualifications)?

      Huh, Earl Warren had less qualifications than Ashcroft when he was made Chief Justice. Ashcroft hasn't been a DA, but he was a state attorney general and, of course, US attorney general.

    6. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think Ashcroft is a poster-boy for the drama-queenishness of the left.

      I don't know of anyone more personally vilified, slandered, and pretty much being accused of being a latter-day Hitler than John Ashcroft.

      Why? Don't give me your vague wishy-washy crap about "eroded civil liberties" - what specifically can't you do now that you could do before?

      His job at Justice is/was to enforce the laws, if you have a beef with the law, don't complain to the cop.

      His argument on protecting America from terror is a little more comprehensive than you dismissively paint: check the listing of terrorist attacks at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm.
      Ho w many, after 9/11, have been against civil American targets?
      How many were there before 9/11, to compare apples/apples, let's limit it just to the previous 4 years?
      To suggest that the terrorist threat is imagined as you imply, is ridiculous.

      To point to a lack of 'terrorist' convictions is simply disingenuous or stupid. What was Al Capone put away for? Murder? Extortion? Racketeering? Hmm. I guess the FBI failed to prosecute him effectively too.

      It probably will require you take off the tinfoil hat for a second, but READ THE PATRIOT ACT. There is very little in the entire act that grants the US Gov't any powers it didn't already have one way or another. Mainly, it's about streamlining procedures - hardly worth the "OMG teh gobbermint is teh debil!" response /. comments seem to suggest.

      His shortcomings - he didn't like bare breasted statues, fundamentalist views, attacking Islam:
      1) last time I checked, people were still allowed to hold personal preferences, or was that overturned by the political correctness polics and I missed it? Do I have to validate my personal aesthetics with you first?
      2) I know the Liberal Elite in this country would like to consider anyone with religious views as some sort of benighted rube or Untouchable, but you know churchgoers ARE people too, right? Or aren't they included in the "open-minded" liberal worldview?
      3) attacking Islam - how? I've only heard him make carefully worded statements pointing at Islamofacists, not Islam in general. Any specifics or is that just more vague bitching?

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Some thoughts on Ashcroft by kbahey · · Score: 1

      I don't know what is unclear about what I said.

      The strategy by Ashcroft is simple: arrest a bunch of people and claim there is a big terrorist plot of cell. Make a big splash about it by a press conference, with a lot of T-word sprinkled in. Portray that as a major win against the war in terror. The accused are often of Middle Eastern descent, blacks, converts to Islam, or some other visible minority.

      In the eyes of the public, they were protected from a big evil. Maximum media impact.

      Then, after a year or more, the people are either quietly freed, or charged with petty felonies. If they are not citizens, they are deported because of immigration issues.

      This is what I see wrong, and hence the spraying pepper to prevent elephants on the lawn analogy.

      Simple, isn't it?

      Here is what he said about Islam: Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sent his Son to die for you."

      No Islamofascits there (whatever that means, another ambiguous emotional term that is often used without definition).

  189. Ashcroft wasn't always a civil liberties foe by hawkestein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember the Clipper chip? Ashcroft sided with the ACLU in opposing it. Even more ironically, Kerry supported it.

    --
    -- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
    1. Re:Ashcroft wasn't always a civil liberties foe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but remember - big business also wanted Clipper shut down. I don't think he opposed it out of any particular love of civil liberties. Remember, there are more than two sides to most issues - when you compress it down to "oppose" or "support", you lose so much.

  190. April 1?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, this is the best christmas present ever!

  191. Date for letter by Performaman · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I've heard reports that he handed in his resignation on election day. Can anybody confirm this?

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  192. talk about disingenuous by HBI · · Score: 1

    He's remembered as the most effective mayor since LaGuardia. Just because you didn't like him - that's kind of irrelevant. I admire the guy for putting up with all the whiners in NYC, making the last few years I worked there a genuine pleasure. If he could have just gotten the smell of piss out of the subways he'd be perfect. Given a few more years he probably would have been out powerwashing the stations with bleach.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:talk about disingenuous by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What "disingenuous"? He's remembered here, in NYC, as a powermad jerk who claimed credit for anything positive, while leaving nothing but a legacy of police intimidation in his wake. Drive the streets he had repaved, squandering unprecedented City income on crony contractors whose work is collapsing mere years later. Ride the subways he ignored, where rate hikes are now a regularity, combined with decreasing service. And talk to fake "New Yorkers" like you, who moved here during the boom, a few of whom have stayed on in jobs subsidized only by corporate favoritism, and realize how he watered down the City with people who just want to live like yuppies, without giving a shit like a real New Yorker. Your romantic fantasy of Giuliani doing anything himself, let alone cleaning the high-voltage sewers he let the subways fester into, shows how deeply you bought into the myth, while ignoring the reality. Good riddance to you and your knight in shining armor.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:talk about disingenuous by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      Really, you're coming off as nothing but an elitist asshole. Best to shut up while you're ahead.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    3. Re:talk about disingenuous by lysium · · Score: 1

      Exactly correct. People like this bastard live in places like Chelsea now -- midlevel yuppies that got paid way too much money and spoiled the housing market in Manhattan forever. Feh.

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    4. Re:talk about disingenuous by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The dilemma is whether their ignorance of anyplace distinctly "New York" is dry rot, or just the City's natural defense of the cool from the boring. At least the "scary subways" confine them to their yuppie arcologies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  193. Rotten on Ashcroft by notany · · Score: 1
    --
    Dyslexics have more fnu.
  194. Out of the Frying Pan, and Into . . . . . by darkonc · · Score: 1

    Great: We're getting rid of Ashcroft, but remember that bush is going to replace him with someone he likes more.
    God only knows what he'll be like (Or is that Belzabub? We really don't know who he's listening to at night.)

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  195. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

    Now, I may be unclear on conservatives here, but if conservatives avoid changes, then wouldn't an absolute conservative do absolutely nothing at all?

    --
    And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
  196. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    really? so tell me what has he done that would indicate he is a fascist?

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  197. Your rights shot to hell by wurp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *One time* foreign terrorists killed 3000 people in the US. It's a terrible tragedy, but so are the 45,000 people who died in car accidents that year. And the 700,000 people who died of heart disease.

    We have gone insanely overboard in how we handle terrorism. America is founded on the freedom of the people. So much so that these freedoms are written into our founding document - the Constitution. When someone tells me that we need to "protect America" from something that had a negligible statistical effect by taking away my Constitutional rights, I'll rightly tell them they're stupid, crazy, or very ignorant.

    1st amendment - "right of the people peaceably to assemble" - except near the Republican National Convention in 2004.

    4th amendment - "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" - except when the Patriot Act says it's OK.

    5th amendment - "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - except if we can find some way to call them enemy combatants, or we declare they can't be tried publicly due to security considerations.

    6th amendment - "accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" - see above.

    8th amendment - "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" - except in Abu Ghraib, or (maybe, how can we know?) Guantanamo.

    10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." - this one's been shot to hell for ages :-(

    If I tried to live by the Constitution, I'd end up shot by federal agents inside of five years.

    1. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1

      You start off your reply by claiming that I am making a mountain out of a molehill by mentioning the Sept. 11 attacks. BUT you end your reply by doing the same thing by citing the Abu Gharib abuse. * For one thing, I resent you belittling the tragedy of the 3,000 innocent people murdered on 9/11. * For another thing, I am continuously amazed at the attention Abu Gharib gets. Go look at the pictures. At most it amounts to a severe case of college hazing. (Now go to Michael Savage's site and look at videos of what the terrorists do to THEIR prisoners. They do things like sawing off their prisoner's heads while recording their last gurgling scream. Yes, it is good that so far, we've only lost 3,000 victims to terrorism on 9/11. People like John Ashcroft are working to make sure we don't lose 30,000 in wave after wave of attacks. If you want to leave us defenseless to terrorism, you are free to have that view. Normal Americans disagree and that's why people like you who don't think we are in danger from terrorists lost the last election.

    2. Re:Your rights shot to hell by wurp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When did I belittle the tragedy? It is you who pile tragedy upon tragedy by using the deaths of those innocent people as an excuse for the government to take away every American's civil rights. If you want to live in a nanny state, go found your own somewhere without that pesky Bill of Rights.

      Secondly, try looking into what Richard Clarke has to say about the great protection the Bush administration has given us from terrorism. He should know, as a National Security advisor.

      I never said that terrorists aren't horrible, evil people - but becoming more like the hyper-conservative religious states that foster terrorism is not a solution to the problem. Our devotion to freedom for everyone who doesn't harm others; our devotion to fair trail, probable cause, and public trial - those are the things that make America great. Those are the things being destroyed as a response to terrorist actions. Terrorists can't destroy America - but we can.

      "Normal Americans" are sheep like you who've been led to react like Pavlov's dog to the magic word "terrorism". Normal Americans are unAmerican, and have the gall to tell me that *I* am.

      You think about the situation when the Constitution was written, and try to tell me that they didn't have a hundred times the reason to worry about their security. Then think about why they chose to protect their security by securing their liberty. I am ashamed at how we've honored that choice.

    3. Re:Your rights shot to hell by tidge · · Score: 1

      All it basically amounts to is the fact that rights that are written into the Constition and it's amendments are being taken away, and that sucks.

      Whether 3,000 people died, or 30,000. It doesn't make it right.

      I don't really understand why people argue the patriot act/constitution and Abu Gharib in the same conversation though. It's not the same thing. It was a little more than college hazing though. It was prisoner abuse.

    4. Re:Your rights shot to hell by pyros · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, Ashcroft was using the PATRIOT Act to do things like get rid of legal crops of marijuana intended for medical use (not terrorism), closing down a strip club in vegas (not terrorism), and seizing over a dozen adult film stores throughout central texas (not terrorism). The FBI also used the PATRIOT Act to compell every airline flying in/out of Vegas and every hotel in Vegas to hand over all customer information covering like 2 weeks around Christmas and New Years a couple years ago. I can see how that last one could claim to be for the War on Terror, but it bears to strong a resemblance to Fascism to me.

      In spite of your willingness to give them up, I'm not willing to give up your rights, because they're my rights too. Ashcroft had the PATRIOT Act ready to go before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers. You don't write ~350 of well thought out sweeping changes in one month. At least, I hope they didn't. That is even scarier to me than my belief that Ashcroft wanted these things in place in absence of a terrorist threat.

      Anyway, I love my country, I don't want to curtail my rights because a few psychopaths committed mass murder. That, to me, would be admitting they have a valid point about fundamental flaws in my society, and I strongly disagree with that assertion.

    5. Re:Your rights shot to hell by rco3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
      be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
      tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
      patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
      country." -Hermann Goering, Nuremburg, 1947

      You've been brainwashed, krimka. Brainwashed. Nobody wants terrorism here. Neither do we want our Constitutionally-mandated civil rights abrogated.

      FACT: PATRIOT Act has been abused. More than once. More than twice.

      If you could say that PATRIOT Act could and would ONLY be used to investigate terrorists, that would be a different story. But you can't say that: firstly, because we've already seen that it isn't true; secondly, because the more power you give to law enforcement personnel, the more those individual persons will abuse it - it's just too easy to say, "uh, yeah, it's a terrorism investigation, sure"; and thirdly, because you won't know that they're terrorists until AFTER you've violated their constitutional rights.

      The fact that a group of assholes have committed horrible crimes against Americans, in the name of Islam or whatever, does not justify the abrogation of the Constitutional rights of Americans, and *I* resent your implicit belittling of the sacrifices of those thousands (millions?) of Americans who have *knowingly* and *willingly* fought and died to protect those rights.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    6. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1

      I don't have to look at what Richard Clarke says. I can look at the fact that we've had no more planes flying into American buildings. I can see that the Taliban which hosted Al-Qaeda has now been removed from power. I can see Saddam Hussein who once paid Hezbollah terrorists to bomb innocent Israeli buses is now in prison. You think I care what some Richard Clarke says? No. I care about REALITY.

    7. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1
      Re: Abu Gharib, yes it was prisoner abuse, and the level of abuse was no more severe than college hazing. That's all I'm saying. i agree with you though, it's amazing people mix it up into the same conversation.

      Re: Rights written into the Constitution being taken away...

      We have a Supreme Court in America. They have already fine tuned a few sections of the Patriot Act. If the rest of the Patriot Act is still in effect, then apparently it passed the test of the Supreme Court. Therefore, if people still insist on going around calling the Patriot Act unconstitutional, then they are the ones who are making up things about the constitution. It was voted into effect by our elected representatives. It was reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. Yes there are a few ongoing issues in terms of judicial review, but the act as a whole has passed the muster of the Supreme Court and will remain in effect. To say otherwise is to do nothing more than hold on to an anti-Bush administration point of view and to unfairly latch on to the Patriot Act as a way to criticize Bush.

    8. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1

      oh well. The Patriot Act was voted into law by our elected congress, and it was reviewed and slightly modified by the Supreme Court. It's a legal, valid law. if you really support the constitution, then you would listen to the supreme court already and accept the Patriot Act as the law of the land. It's been years already, and aside from changing a few provision the Patriot Act is still in effect, and will be into the future. This criticism of the Patriot Act is the usual type of anti-American Democrat propaganda. This kind of rhetoric is why they lost the election.

    9. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1

      Apparently you are the brainwashed one, because all I'm saying is that the Patriot Act was voted into law by our elected congress, signed into law by our elected president, and then reviewed and approved by our Supreme Court after a few modifications. You are the one who, in the face of all that, is still shouting about it being unconstitutional.

    10. Re:Your rights shot to hell by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1
      I can look at the fact that we've had no more planes flying into American buildings.
      *insert Simpsons "rock that keeps away tigers" quote*
    11. Re:Your rights shot to hell by rco3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You are the one who, in the face of all that, is still shouting about it being unconstitutional."

      Well, me and U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins.

      Don't be stupid. Laws have been passed and found unconstitutional before. So have parts of this one, already, and I believe that a challenge to certain other parts would be successful as well. Hell, even Amendments to the Constitution have been repealed when they turned out to be oppressive and wrong. The only way this law would survive a real Supreme Court hearing is if Bush packs the SCOTUS with the ultra-conservative puppets that he so clearly wants to.

      Just to set the record straight, that's NOT all you're saying. You're also saying, in so many words, that people who oppose PATRIOT Act are people "who don't think we are in danger from terrorists" and aren't "Normal Americans" and that as a result terrorists have "Americans like you on their side". You are essentially stating that my (and others') opposition to the unconstitutional and oppressive PATRIOT Act makes us unpatriotic, unAmerican, and a danger to America. Just like Goering said.

      No, sir, the real danger from America comes from you and your sheep-like ilk. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin. Doesn't get more American than that.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    12. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have to look at what Richard Clarke says.

      Preferred ignorance.

      I can look at the fact that we've had no more planes flying into American buildings.

      I agree. Prior to 9/11 that was a constant problem we had. NOT!! That was a single incident (of 3 planes, but the same plan), not a continuous problem. It never was, and still isn't. How can you claim that the U.S. is now somehow safer, when all we have to look at is a single, isolated incident?? BTW, there was an incident in Florida of a Sesna flying into a building. Where was the air force to shoot it down before it happened? This was a post 9/11 incident.

      I can see that the Taliban which hosted Al-Qaeda has now been removed from power.

      Yes, and now Al Qaeda is fully operational in Iraq, a nation where it was formerly considered an enemy. We smoked them out of Afghanistan and got them into Iraq. Good job!

      I can see Saddam Hussein who once paid Hezbollah terrorists to bomb innocent Israeli buses is now in prison.

      And now there are more than ever, people willing to do it for FREE. Mind you, one Pallestinian bombs a bus, and the freakin' Israeli armed forces uses attack helicopters and tanks to attack and destroy civilian homes, in what they have openly admitted to being "retaliation". Not to mention that I too can see that many innocent, civilian Iraqis have been killed by U.S. bombings, because we have "smart bombs" and "intelligence". We also have an incredibly great leader who has decided to attack Fallujah IN THE MIDST OF RAMADAN! Great way to make friends. Just tell them you're doing it for them.

      You think I care what some Richard Clarke says? No. I care about REALITY.

      You forgot to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you!" real loud.

    13. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, if what took place in Abu Gharib was tantamount to little more than college hazing, why aren't the full documents and pictures released? Upon review of said documents by several congressmen, why did the responses range from "How the hell did those people get into the military!" to a near universal conclusion that full release would result in universal condemnation.

      Besides, if it is all in good fun, certainly you wouldn't mind my dick in your face with a few attack dogs around for a photo opportunity? You might take into consideration what the photos didn't show (and the criminal convictions which followed).

      But apparently respect for law isn't a strong point with you, so how can anyone take seriously your interpretation of the patriot act, especially in light of so many exceptions to your main argument (prohibition, women voting, slavery, etc.).

      Get a clue.

    14. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1
      "Don't be stupid."

      Well, let me say that discourse with you is certainly an experience in intelligent discussion. For my part, I won't be rude to you.

      Now, regarding the Patriot Act... it is in effect. It has been enacted by our elected congress and signed into law by our elected President. Years after this was done, the American people had a chance to vote those people out of office - but instead they elected them with even bigger margins than before!

      The Patriot Act has met and survived some court challenges, and failed others. Which means that overall, whatever we still have in place as the Patriot Act is Constitutional. There are surely a few fringe issues here and there, and they will be worked out. But, as a whole, the Patriot Act is constitutional. The anti-Bush brigade is jeopardizing our safety so they can score some political points. People see through it. This is why the anti-Patriot Act brigade lost the recent elections - and why they will continue to lose more elections if they want to keep being weak on security and attacking a perfectly valid bill.

    15. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Forbman · · Score: 1

      ...but we didn't have much of this before 9/11, either. You could say that the FBI and ATF are doing their jobs well because we haven't had another OKC bombing, either.

      The Taliban is regrouping in northern Afghanistan. I give them 3 or 4 years to secure enough opium $$$ to buy enough modern Russian and French weapons (assuming they're not giving them away at that point) to make another run at Kabul.
      And you thought the first Taliban was bad?

      As far as the Hezbollah terrorists, how come Qaddafi, and the heads of most of the other Arabic Islamic countries are not also in jail?

      And, again, where is Osama bin Laden? Why doesn't Ashcroft just invite him over so they can do some anointing together. Two very holy men seeking some religious insight into each other...

    16. Re:Your rights shot to hell by pyros · · Score: 1

      Congress passed it the day after it was submitted. Not enough time for read and understand ~350 pages. They failed us by passing it. Some of them have come to realise how bad a mistake that was and now oppose it. Some cities have passed local laws to refuse compliance with it. It can't even be said that such measures were needed to prevent 9/11. Most of the highjackers were already on the no-fly lists and presented valid government ID in their real names, but those were not checked against the lists. How does such a failure to use existing infratructure necessitate the removal of any judicial oversite? You might be interested to know that it was a federal district judge, not the Supreme Court, who ruled one of the warrantless search clauses was unconstitutional. Or perhaps you're referring to the Supreme Court telling the Bush administration that detainees must be given the right to challenge their detainment. You might also be interested to know the Ashcroft ignored them, and placed no pressure on President Bush to comply with this decision.

      I find your us vs. them attitude towards your own fellow citizens rather telling. You seem to have a blind faith the government will do no wrong, unless there is a majority position held by the Democratic party. I rather believe the government will do wrong under the misguided belief that it is right, because it is composed of fallible humans. Which is why we need checks and balances. Which is why the PATIOT Act is a bad law.

      And just so you know, I tend to vote for gridlock, because statistical data shows that that is when the economy is at its strongest. It has nothing to do with one ideology over the other, it has to do with no party being able to ram through partisan crap through political posturing.

    17. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're argument is sad. All I have to do is take your exact phrases and just insert a different word in place of "Patriot Act".

      Case in point:

      "*Abortion rights* has met and survived some court challenges, and failed others. Which means that overall, whatever we still have in place as *abortion rights* is Constitutional. There are surely a few fringe issues here and there, and they will be worked out. But, as a whole, abortion is constitutional."

      Believe it or not, dissent is *actually* protected by the Constitution. I can't believe I have to teach you something so basic. The fact that something is currently law does not equate to correct. No one here is advocating changing the Patriot Act in anyway other than through the legal, acceptable means by which laws are changed in this country.

      No, my ignorant friend. I will not agree with every law in this country just because its a law, just like YOU DON'T. You don't like abortion, despite that its law, but you want to change it. You don't want any semblance of protection of gay unions, so you try to change it...you know what. Thats fine. You have that right and I will protect that right. But you can't have it both ways. You can't protect only *your* right to change something, but disallow someone else's just because the *viewpoint* is different.

      So why don't you try defending the Patriot Act with actual points, rather than inane generalities such as agree-with-all-laws-because-"it is in effect...enacted by our elected congress and signed into law by our elected President."

    18. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Post of the year.

    19. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Boronx · · Score: 1
      In REALITY, Al Qaeda is larger than ever, cells are more autonomous, our military is bogged down, our world wide coalition against terrorism has been fractured for our coalition of the willing against Iraq which also is fracturing, Iraq has turned into a paradise for terrorists for recruiting and killing Americans, has permitted Bush to turn every slanderous lie bin Laden told about America into incontrovertable truths.

      What's more, after ignoring clear and specific pre-attack intelligence, then lying about it, then trying to cover it up, Bush opposed every single attempt to investigate the 9/11 attacks, including classifying information that implicated the government and elite of Saudi Arabia, people with whom he has had long time business dealings.

      And we just reelected that man. Things are going real swell.

    20. Re:Your rights shot to hell by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For one thing, I resent you belittling the tragedy of the 3,000 innocent people murdered on 9/11


      I find it rather interesting that Americans keep on raving about 3.000 that were killed in 9/11, but nobody in USA gives a damn about the 100.000 civilians killed in Iraq. Let's see.... For every American that was killed in 9/11, about 33 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Why aren't you outraged about that? If 9/11 was a "tragedy", what is Iraq then? A catastrophy? Humanitarian disaster?

      People like John Ashcroft are working to make sure we don't lose 30,000 in wave after wave of attacks.


      And what better way of achieving that, than by pissing off few hundred million muslims around the world by rampaging through the Middle-East?

      Couldn't you also say that Ashcroft is busy protecting USA from alien invasion? And since aliens have not invaded USA, he's doing a great job!

      Normal Americans disagree and that's why people like you who don't think we are in danger from terrorists lost the last election.


      ""Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

      -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    21. Re:Your rights shot to hell by rco3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And discourse with you is like listening to a recording.

      I've already read your statements that PATRIOT Act is in effect. I've read your statements that it was enacted by Congress and signed by the sitting President. I've heard all that. Several times. Yet you feel that if you just say it enough, I and others will realize that it makes everything OK, and PATRIOT is my friend, and if my congressmen voted for it it must be OK...

      It doesn't make the bill a good bill. It doesn't make it constitutional. What makes a bill constitutional is for the bill to be compliant with the provisions of the Constitution and its amendments. The way that gets tested is that a Federal court hears a case in which a specific section of the law in question is challenged, and then hands down a decision. This decision can be appealed, by either side, all the way up to the SCOTUS, who can then decide whether or not to hear the appeal. Their decision is final, unless they choose to revisit it. The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the USA, and they have not handed down a SINGLE decision re: PATRIOT Act that I've been able to find.

      IOW, krimka, your assertion that PATRIOT has been approved by the SCOTUS will require additional evidence. Repeating the assertion isn't evidence.

      Would you like to know why I object to PATRIOT Act? Here's a sample: The Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as conduct that violates state or federal law and is dangerous to human life.

      WHAT?

      By that definition, you could just as easily say that driving in the rain without your headlights is domestic terrorism. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Of course not. But consider this. The FBI, at the bidding of the MPAA, used the PATRIOT Act to obtain financial records to be used in the prosecution of a website administrator. The charges? That he was distributing old episodes of Stargate SG-1. Now, I don't care HOW much you hate Stargate - that's not terrorism. That's abuse of powers.

      Lastly, let's settle this thing about "rude". Every time you question whether someone who opposes PATRIOT Act is truly an American, suggest that they are on the side of the terrorists (whichever terrorists we're pissed about this year), or suggest that their only motivation behind opposition to PATRIOT Act is to garner some sort of "points" in some game, you insult that person most poisonously. Dissenting discourse is about as American as it can get, and the unAmerican way is to try to suppress discourse from the opposition. In the face of that, my telling you NOT to be "stupid" is a fart in a hurricane. I'll retract my suggestion that you have the potential to be stupid the moment you retract your assertion, in every commment you've made attached to this article, that opposition to PATRIOT Act is unAmerican.

      Every time you repeat the calumny about "jeopardizing our safety so they can score some political points" and "weak on security", you echo the words of another manipulator of sheep. Since you seem to think that repetition==argument, I'll repeat those words for you again. See if they sound familiar.

      "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Hermann Goering, Nuremburg, 1947

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    22. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know, I can do you a great deal on an elephant repellant keyring! Ensure you never risk getting trampled by a stampede of elephants again (*may not work in india/asia)

    23. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 1

      you have gone OOOOON and OOOOOON about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional, but I say again to you that it was enacted by our elected Congress, signed into law by our elected President, and has survived or been modified in response to numerous Supreme Court challenges. Whatever is still in effect as the Patriot Act is good, solid, law. There will probably be tweaks here and there over the years, but by and large it is good, safe, Constitutional Law.

    24. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Show us the proof. Show us a single SCOTUS ruling on any provision of the Patriot Act. Slavery of human beings was enacted by an elected Congress, signed into law by an elected President, and survived numerous Supreme Court challenges. Does that make it right? Constitutional? By your reasoning, it must have been a good, safe, Constitutional Law.

    25. Re:Your rights shot to hell by rco3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gone OOOOON and OOOOON? Yes. Yes, I have. Here's why: Just because a law was enacted does not make it constitutional. And apparently, you believe that discussion==repetition.

      Just because a law was passed does not make it good. You can say, over and over, it was passed and signed, therefore it's constitutional. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Wishing won't make it so. Neither will repetition. Example: The Communications Decency Act. Passed by Congress, signed by a President, found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, struck down.

      And there haven't been ANY Supreme Court rulings on PATRIOT ACT. You keep saying there have been, but there haven't. Show me one documented case, and I'll retract that statement.

      FACT: PATRIOT ACT hasn't passed a single SCOTUS test. Not one. Zero.

      FACT: The passage of a law by Congress does NOT necessitate Constitutionality of that law. Nor does signing of that law by a President.

      FACT: Repeating erroneous statements ad infinitum does NOT make those statements more correct.

      You say, repeatedly, that it was passed by Congress. That is true. Having established that, there isn't any need to repeat it.

      You say, repeatedly, that President Bush signed it into law. That is also true. Repetition is unnecessary.

      You say, repeatedly, that PATRIOT act has survived numerous Supreme Court challenges. That is untrue. Repetition will not make it true. If you have evidence - not rhetoric, evidence - to the contrary, I'm all ears.

      You state that PATRIOT act is good, safe, constitutional law. That is not a fact, that is an opinion. Even if the SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of PATRIOT act as a whole, they will refer to it as an "opinion". However, their opinion will count for more than yours or mine.

      Stated simply, sir, your comments have all been filled with irrelevant facts, with incorrect statements, and with biased, jingoistic rhetoric. Your arguments are illogical, your opinions are unsupported. Worst of all, you haven't the courage or the honor to admit you are wrong when you are PROVEN wrong.

      Accordingly, I shall henceforth ignore you. Good day, sir.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    26. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study that found "100,000" (actually it says between 7000 and 240,000) Iraqi civilians have been killed, is junk.

    27. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania were that only states+DC that were attacked on 911 and they all voted for the OTHER guy. You know the one.

    28. Re:Your rights shot to hell by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      The SCOTUS did not review or modify the USA PATRIOT Act. They do not look at any law until an appeal has made it through the appellate system and they accept the appeal. The ONLY parts they have addressed are those that have been challenged in court and been appealled.....and the Feds LOST. So yes, it has been modified in so much as the STOCUS saying that the parts they looked at violated the US Consitution.

    29. Re:Your rights shot to hell by krimkra · · Score: 0

      The thing is, it's not just that the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (which it *was*), it's also that it's been three years and there have been several court challenges against various aspects of it. Some of those nuances have been changed, others have stood the test of being constitutional. It's just not reasonable to talk about the law like it's a wholesale mega-assault on our rights. That kind of stuff is exciting to scream about on /. forums, but it's not reality. It's a good law, and we're a safer country because of it.

    30. Re:Your rights shot to hell by tidge · · Score: 1

      I apparently just look at the world in a much too black and white light.

      In the amendments to the Constition, I always thought that article III says a warrant is needed to search your property "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

      Article VI says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"

      So how the Patriot act allows the government to search without a warrant or hold individuals without telling them what they are being held for or disclosing anything else to the public is beyond me.

      I don't say this to criticize Bush. I only say it because I think are Constitutional rights are being hammered on all the time.

    31. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's a good law, and we're a safer country because of it.

      I suppose things would seem safer with your head buried that deeply in the sand.

    32. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to say why?

    33. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's also that it's been three years and there have been several court challenges against various aspects of it.

      I think what everyone whants to know is

      WHAT ARE THEY? EXACTLY!

    34. Re:Your rights shot to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know it has been verified that prisoners were killed under interigation and they covered it up.

      That aint no fucking college hazing.

      Tell you what, if it's so good and right what was done there (and other places) fine patriots like yourself won't mind undergoing the same treatment to show the world how rightous and safe it is.

      Same shit has happened in cuba (killing of prisoners during quesstioning).

  198. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by demachina · · Score: 1

    "Ashcroft wanted the coporations to own everything, and run the government."

    This is more or less the definition of Fascism and Nazism. There were a bunch of giant corporations and industrialists working hand in hand with a repressive, authoritarian government. The government intervenes liberally in the economy and makes winner outs of their friends and party members and losers out of those who are not. The New Republican party does pretty much the same thing.

    Needless to say the New Republican's haven't gone to the extremes of Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Nazi Germany which is why I call them "compassionate fascists".

    Some numbnut can now invoke Godwin's law. Before you do realize its a sign that you lack something necessary to have have original thoughts, so you are just regurgitating moldy Internet cliches.

    --
    @de_machina
  199. Time To Call Queer Eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that he's gone, those terror alert level colors have simply got to go. I mean, helllloooo, ever heard of earth tones? And everyone knows pink is the new red. Sheesh.

  200. Fuck Him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good Riddance! That fucker is a complete asshole. Search for his singing video on google - Hilarious!!

  201. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a 5th page - "I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality can be maintained until the appropriate arrangements mentioned above can be made.

    I am grateful to you for the profound honor of serving under your clear, principled leadership.

    May God continue to bless, guide, and direct you and your family as you lead American forward in freedom.

    Most Sincerely,

    John Ashcroft"

  202. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by demachina · · Score: 1

    "Probably the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative"."

    Uh, so? The New Republican party is the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative" too, with the exception of tax cuts. Even there "conservatives" prefer the tax cuts are accompanied by spending cuts, instead of binge spending and using a credit card to create false prosperity.

    --
    @de_machina
  203. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the greatest qualification....

    Giuliani is an huge dickhead motherfucker. He'll fit right in.

  204. Backup Oil Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *waves hands furiously* OOOHH!! MEE!! MEEEE!!!!! *jumps up and down in little excited liberal hops*

  205. Maintaining Confidentiality with handwritten memo. by Alascom · · Score: 1

    "I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality can be maintained until the appropriate arrangements mentioned above can be made."

    Does anyone find it funny that he hand-wrote the letter to ensure an electronic copy could be forwarded around, but somehow the actual memo itself was photocopied and released to the press.

    Sounds to me like Bush considers Ashcroft one of the "3 mistakes" he said he made in his first term appointments (stated during the Presidential debates) and possibly asked for his resignation.

  206. and there was great rejoicing across the land... by coreman · · Score: 1

    until they find someone more concervative to nominate...

  207. CHE-NEY! CHE-NEY! Cmon DICK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (waves beckoningly) (lulling voice) ...come on Dickie.... come on... resign... it will be so easy... everyone will like you then... you'll be the Cool Boy.... (keeps making encouraging waves)

  208. Giuliani, The Replacement? by Dot_Killer · · Score: 1
    Lets not jump for joy quite yet. Bush hasn't been known for appointing moderates. This might be so they have a new face with less baggage to push for Patriot Act II, or just abuse Patriot Act I some more. I am not sure how hard Democratic Senators will fight new appointments.

    I heard it mentioned Giuliani wanted the job. He as been trying to parle 9-11 into a bigger political career. He might be a lot worse, don't forget Giuliani started the NO TOLERANCE laws in NY and arrested the homeless. Giuliani has been shilling around for Bush these last few months. He has been shouting down anyone who doesn't agree and claiming they cannot disagree because we are in the middle of a war. As though being a lemming would get us out of this mess.

    --
    Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
  209. Rumors on a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asked this evening, Steve Spurrier stated that he has been in contact with representatives of the Bush administration, but he feels that Ashcroft completed his job at the Justice Deptartment and that they should look for a replacement who can stick with the department for the long term. Spurrier went on to say he is not ruling out a possible job in the NFL, possibly as lead counsel for the player's union.

  210. Panic, chaos, disorder... by cprice · · Score: 2, Funny

    His work here is done.

  211. Hey, yeah! by Onan · · Score: 1

    Wow, yeah, a stable Iraq and friendly Iraq would be incredibly helpful, wouldn't it? Hey, what a shame we didn't think of doing something similarly clever with Iran a couple decades ago...

  212. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah! right on! He will meet the Terrorists with bullets and shoes.

  213. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Erwos · · Score: 1

    "I forget the details, but I read somewhere that he likes to dress up as a Hebrew priest and hold ceremonies, or something like that."

    I think you're thinking of "the pope".

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  214. Replace him with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This now gives the president a chance to replace Mr.Ashcroft with a solid moral Christian like Pat or Jerry. Either of these men would bring a solid moral ethic to the DoJ and allow much needed reforms, Patriot Act part 2 etc., to be implemented. This would help bring about a well ordered, society expounding values of State, Work, Family and Law.

    - Reinhart H.

  215. Out of the frying pan... by uhlume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the CBS.com report:
    "Several names have emerged as possible successors to Ashcroft. The biggest is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York."

    Oh, that's a good idea. Let's let Giuliani do for America what he did for New York City: turn it into a police state in the name of reducing crime.

    America's homeless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists be warned -- you will be shown no mercy.

    Fuck. I miss Ashcroft already.

    --
    SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    1. Re:Out of the frying pan... by bhima · · Score: 1

      It stuns me that there could be any worse than ashcroft. Rudy's source of the NYC becoming a police state? Well from my view that's what America wants!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  216. Yesh... this is transparent by buss_error · · Score: 1
    He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'"

    Sure has. Bush was ELECTED this time out. Goes to show that "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference." - The American President

    PREDICTION: Unless Bush has problems passing a law allowing Corporate America to loot social security (instead of the neo-cons looting it), the "Alert Level" thing is going to quietly fade away.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      PREDICTION: Unless Bush has problems passing a law allowing Corporate America to loot social security (instead of the neo-cons looting it), the "Alert Level" thing is going to quietly fade away.

      Wow, troll bait, but I have to bite. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Social Security has seen a bigger surplus in the first 4 years under Bush than it saw under all 8 years of Clinton.

      Click here to see the numbers for yourself.

      You'll also see that we only saw one year of REAL surplus under Clinton - 2000. There was an 86.6 billion surplus in the budget. 1.9B the year before, but that's not anything to have a party over.

      One other interesting thing you'll see is that the national debt, in terms of GDP, was higher under Clinton than under any other President in the presented data. Under Bush, the national debt has fallen from 49.5% GDP at Clinton's highest point to 36.1% in 2003.

      Finally, if you look at total government spending in terms of GDP, we're spending on average less now than we did under Clinton.

    2. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by sik+puppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None of the above percentages are relevant - the bottom line is the government is spending MORE than it is taking in. The ongoing spending binge is going to catch up sooner or later.

      Unfortunately until there are harsh consequences directly to the politicians that overspend, there is no forseeable end to this practice.

      --
      The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
    3. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Wow, I guess that's why the surplus is even bigger and the dollar is stronger then ever.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by Forbman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you were the CEO (President) of a corporation (US Government), and you were spending money (invasion of Iraq), leveraging assets (tax cuts and financial deals that will be dealt with in 5-10 years...) and giving away products or just slashing prices faster than Walmart (read: cheap timber sales, VERY cheap land deals for mineral extraction due to archaic federal law that seems impossible to get rid of, etc), the Board of Directors (Congress) would have your resignation secured in about two days.

      But I suppose all these good businessmen Republicans who want to run Government like a business (I think that means, suck all the $$$ out of it, pay your employees as little as they will tolerate while working them to the bone while you're "managing" at your vacation home or playing golf) have got it right. Yep.

      But farmers aren't businessmen, either. So what do I know?

    5. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by krysith · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have to take exception to your analysis of the data presented by the CBO. Good data link, but I think your analysis is wrong.

      Under Bush, the national debt has fallen from 49.5% GDP at Clinton's highest point to 36.1% in 2003.

      No, that drop occurred under CLINTON, largely between 1995 and 1999. The debt was at 49.5% GDP in 1993, just after Clinton took office. When he left office in 2000, it was at 35.1% GDP. Under Bush, the public debt as a percent of GDP has floated between 33.1 % and 36.1% - pretty much about the same as when he took office.

      You will also note that the public debt value listed does include social security. When social security is excluded (see the column labeled "on budget"), you see that, as a percentage of GDP, under Clinton the yearly operating deficit of the government fell from a 1992 value of 5.5% to a 1999 value of less than 0.05%, while under Bush it has risen to 5.0% of GDP.

      If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Social Security has seen a bigger surplus in the first 4 years under Bush than it saw under all 8 years of Clinton.

      True - it has. This was to be expected as the Baby Boomers haven't retired yet. That money will be needed for their retirement benefits later. If you think that Social Security ought to be counted towards whether the government has a surplus or deficit, I hope you aren't expecting checks when you get older. I don't know if you remember Gore talking about a "lock box", but that is exactly what he was talking about. As you can see, the money ~is~ being spent now, and will have to be borrowed back later to pay the Baby Boomers.

    6. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I am certainly not expecting any checks when I am older. In fact, I am hoping that the entire Social Security system as we know it is scrapped while I am still young enough to save a significant amount of money for retirement. That 13% or so of my income that is put into social security by myself and my employer is certainly not doing anything for me now. Of course, it is difficult to scrap a pyramid scheme, so whatever changes that are made are going to have to be phased in, and I am sure that it is going to hurt a few folks, but the system cannot sustain itself as it is - especially with the trust fund being invested in trust funds with sub-inflationary rates of return.

      Shame on my for screwing up my analysis... I was just looking for clinton's biggest number and comparing it to 2003 and didn't look at what happened in between.

    7. Re:Yesh... this is transparent by buss_error · · Score: 1
      But farmers aren't businessmen, either. So what do I know?

      As someone who owns a small farm, I can tell you that the neo-cons whinging about "farm welfare" have never received a check from the Ag department. HINT: My cotten price support check was all of $2.39. No kidding.

      Small farms exsist mostly because:

      It keeps the property taxes manageable

      writeoffs, writeoffs, writeoffs

      No one wants to buy the land for any kind of fair price. If your farm is next to a government facility of some sort (port, airport, highway) no one that knows what's going on will take it if you give it away.

      God help you if some sort of small furry woodland creature lives on it. You'll be forced to stop everything and still keep paying the bills with no income.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  217. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Epona · · Score: 1
    My brother, who worked for the re-election campaign in Washington, DC and has [some] access to insider information told me today that Giuliani was actually someone who is being considered for the job.

    He also said that the odds of him actually being appointed were not tremendous, but his name is being kicked around as an option.

    -Katie

    --
    No heaven can heaven be, if my horse isn't there to welcome me.
  218. 5 Page Handwritten Letter? by victor_the_cleaner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anybody else think a five page handwritten letter sounds a bit psychotic?

    1. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by gkuz · · Score: 1

      I worked with a guy once who submitted a 27-page letter of resignation...

    2. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by BrodeCo · · Score: 1

      Or else just painfully old-fashioned, which seems more likely for Czar Boobhider.

    3. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Does anybody else think a five page handwritten letter sounds a bit psychotic?

      Dear Mr. Duhbaya,

      Fuck you... fuck you... fuck you... {written 1800 times).

      Yours trully,

      Former Attorney General John Ashcroft

      P.S. Fuck you


      This might be considered to be a little psychotic.

    4. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      John Ashcroft come of age when very few men typed. Who knows if he even uses a computer. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. He is a policy maker, not a typist. Hand written letters are more personal anyway. Psychotic? *Cough* *Cough* Riiiiight....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      " Does anybody else think a five page handwritten letter sounds a bit psychotic?"

      This is a guy who annointed himself with oil. I bet the ink was holy water based, the pages of fresh vellum made from the skin of a spotless lamb.

    6. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      It depends: will that letter eventually end up in a glass case in a musemum somewhere?

    7. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      No. Five pages of handwriting is probably the equivalent of one page of single-spaced typewritten text, so it's not really that long of a letter.

      Rumor has it that people used to write entire books this way before we invented typewriters.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by khallow · · Score: 1

      No. Ashcroft worked there for four years so a terse email would be mighty disrespectful. And as pointed out elsewhere the letter isn't particularly long. Handwriting takes some work to do. So for Ashcroft to submit his resignation in this way was IMHO a thoughtful touch not a psychotic one.

    9. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by justins · · Score: 1
      John Ashcroft come of age when very few men typed.

      Where? We've had typewriters in common use here in the US since the early part of the twentieth century.

      On the other hand, I don't know his personal story but I'm sure it's possible he's originally from someplace other than the US. Someplace that smells like sulfur, perhaps...
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    10. Re:5 Page Handwritten Letter? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Yes, and untold thousands of women typed on them, but very few men.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  219. o cmon people.. by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 1

    he's just skipping school so he could pickup halo 2 at ebx last night...

  220. 4 Horsemen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, already been done. See
    http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers/346082

    1. Re:4 Horsemen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bless you my child!

  221. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
    Now that he isn't a AG, he can be a SCJ.

    Although I'm sure that Bush would love to have Ashcroft as a Justice of the Supreme Court, it's completely untenable.

    Although Ashcroft served as Attorney General, he's never sat as a judge on any court. I'm pretty sure that a complete absence of bench experience would probably work against him even among a lot of Republicans. It would be pretty embarrassing to have a Justice who's never actually written a judgement before.

    Ashcroft also has been having some health problems--he had his gall bladder removed earlier this year--so even if he was offered a position, I don't know that he'd take it. He might also retire or die during the next Presidency, which might lead to a less Republican-friendly appointment in the near future--or another unpleasant confirmation hearing, at best.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  222. So the question on all of our minds by snol · · Score: 1

    will the naked statues be back on TV?

  223. PORN FOR ALL! by shaneFalco · · Score: 1

    While this saddens me... i quote my friend Josh: Josh: what Me: Ashcroft Josh: resigning Josh: good Josh: way too right wing Josh: it's his fault the censorship went on Josh: see ya nazi, I like boobs SlashX86: happy days! Now I don't have to be afraid of watching porn

  224. Justice Ashcroft? by argent · · Score: 1

    So he wants to sit on the Bench with the other SCOTUSes and burn heretics?

    Well you can just rock me to sleep tonight.

  225. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, but he has some significant disadvantages:
    • He's from a blue state.
    • He's a possible presidential candidate, and therefore a threat to Karl Rove, since Karl doesn't control him.
    • He's Republican, but fairly moderate. These days, having an understanding of the Bill of Rights counts as moderate.

    Don't get me wrong, I worship the Giuliani, but there's just no way GWB will nominate him for AG.
  226. On the contrary... by Onan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The compartmentalization of agencies was most certainly not for no good reason. It was to make law enforcement less effective, which was a good and important goal of our governmental design.

    The thing that Mr. Ashcroft and the rest of the executive branch have forgotten is that we need to be at least as suspicious and limiting of our government as of the people from whom our government is supposedly protecting us. Instead, the executive branch has taken the absurd view that their enemies are "Evil", and thus that their own actions are--definitionally--Good.

    This is a dangerous premise. History has taught us that governments very reliably stray from Good. Every single act undertaken by a government must be carefully evaluated with questions like, "Does this make us the bad guys? Is this worse than what we're trying to solve?" And even after such questions have been asked, we need to still assume that they've been answered incorrectly, and place harsh limitations on the fundamental things a government can do.

    This is the origin of bans on interdepartmental cooperation, statutes of limitation, limitations on search and siezure, the specificity of of search warrants, and so on. After all, if your government were always the good guys, you wouldn't need any such protections, right?

    1. Re:On the contrary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to reply normally to this but this slashdot rendering thing is driving me nutz...and given the strength of Firefox flag waving on slash, ridiculous. Your comment to which i am not now replying is in black, a full screen width to the right of where it should be. Pathetic. Who the hell runs this place? Slash code should run primarily on firefox. Test please.

  227. If wishing made it so by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    Rumsfeld has the ear of the president. He's not going anywhere.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  228. Yaaay! by borgheron · · Score: 1

    One ultra conservative fundamentalist asshole out of the way!

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  229. Ironically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Atlantic Monthly predicted his resignation awhile ago.

    Ironically, the reason they suggested is that he has been unhappy with certain aspects of the Patriot Act he has felt obliged to enforce for the Bush Administration. If I recall correctly, the article sort of portrayed him as feeling a responsibility to do what the Bush administration has pressured him to do, which isnt what he actually feels is the best thing. In particular, there have been rumors that he has felt uncomfortable with aspects of the Patriot Act that involve unwarranted search and seizure, etc. They sort of portrayed him as drawing some line between constitutional enforcement of religiously conservative laws, and unconstitutional enforcement of laws period.

    I'm not saying the article was correct, or that I want John Ashcroft in office. I can't stand the administration, nor did I ever want Ashcroft in the position he was in. But I do remember being surprised by that article, in that it portrayed Ashcroft as being uncomfortable in the Bush administration and feeling pressured to enforce certain provisions of the Patriot Act he did not agree with.

  230. What's next for Johnny? by rscrawford · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why, Rehnquist's spot on the bench, of course!

    The only thing scarier to me than "Attorney General John Ashcroft" is "Supreme Court Justice John Ashcroft".

    Fortunately, the Democrats can probably block it. Either way, it'll be the noisiest supreme court justice hearings since Bork.

    Remember, you saw it here first.

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
  231. A proper farewell... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out, mein fuhrer!

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  232. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by argent · · Score: 1

    Absolut Conservative

    [I don't want to go into what would be in the vodka bottle]

  233. Polyps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine there can be a large number of medical problems from having your head shoved up your ass that far. For instance, for a person with a brain the asphyxiation alone ought to be lethal. Wonder what Asshat's problem was, since that couldn't have been it. It couldn't be a distended rectum or bowl blockage as he's too much of a pinhead for those to be problems with the whole head/ass insertion bit either.

    Polyps. I bet it's polyps. Something not necessarily problematic, just needs to get checked out and excised (in this case to the polyp's relief--I can't imagine the horror of being an abnormal growth stuck somewhere on Asscrack's body) before it gets worse. Something that most people would just take a couple days off for out-patient surgery to take care of and then go right back to work. But being a high-ranking neocon (new felon?) it is of course much much worse than us ordinary schmoes could possibly imagine. Just like Dick "Satan" Cheney's ass boil was just so gosh-danged awful bad he got another deferment from Vietnam...while some poor slob who "only" had congenital heart failure or something was drafted in his place. Yeah. Polyps.

  234. Ashcroft's True Calling by Cleetus+Freem · · Score: 1

    If you thought Ashcroft was a good Attorney General you should see his work as a singer/songwriter! You'll be saying "Holy Sh*t! Is that for real?!"

    Give this a listen and I think you'll agree that, in spite of the painfully strained warbling and occasional screechy howl, he makes a much better singer than... well, than an Attorney General

    "Let The Eagle Soar" - words and muzak by John Ashcroft

    Personally, I find his work to be similar to, but not quite as good as, such other unknown crooners as Seymor Weiner, Fanny Mussel, Uwe Fuchs, Stu Padassol (the one from Gaysport, Ohio, not the one from Dripping Springs, Texas) and the late, almost great, Pat Mydic.

  235. This whole article should stop now. by HBI · · Score: 2, Funny

    Godwin is watching.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:This whole article should stop now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Godwin is watching.

      Yeah, he can be a real thread Nazi.

      Oops, here come the Godwin Nazis to shutt me up.

      Oops. Here come the Spelling Nazis to correct me error above.

      Oops. Here come the Grammar Nazis to correct the error following the last error.

      Oops. Here come the joke Nazis to say i should have stopped after the first line.

      Oops. Here come the /. Nazis to say this would be much funnier if it had a 1)? 2)? 3)Profit! in it somewhere.

      Oops. Here... I give up. Call me France. I surrender.

    2. Re:This whole article should stop now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That is both wrong and not Godwin's Law."

    3. Re:This whole article should stop now. by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      ...did I miss a Nazi reference? I don't see one.

    4. Re:This whole article should stop now. by HBI · · Score: 1

      check out the wiki link 3 or 4 messages above

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    5. Re:This whole article should stop now. by Caseyscrib · · Score: 1
      First they came for the Godwin Nazis, but I was not a Godwin Nazi, therefore I was not concerned.

      Then they came for the Spelling Nazis, but I was not a Spelling Nazi, therefore I was not concerned.

      Next they came for the Grammar Nazis, but I was not a Grammar Nazi, therefore I was not concerned.

      And then they came for the Joke Nazis, and there was no one left to speak up.

  236. talk about elitist by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What is this "elitist" bullshit? Giuliani was a jerk, about the most "elitist" mayor NYC has had in living memory - especially in contrast to mayors like LaGuardia, to whom some other creep had the delusion to compare Skeletor. I have to live in the NYC that Giuliani sacrificed on the alter of his political ambition. We don't shut up here - we shut *you* up, with our dogged attachment to being right. Especially when we're ahead by virtue of Giuliani having no official power, a state we'll all do best to perpetuate. Unless you prefer fascism, where at least the trains run on time (though Giuliani's *did not*).

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:talk about elitist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it, you're just mad because the Red Sox won the World Series. I know you all too well, shit head.

    2. Re:talk about elitist by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Who cares about baseball, Anonymous loser Coward? I live in the greatest city on the planet, and you know NO ONE, you know NOTHING. Why do you hate New York? You fear our greatness, you envy our freedom, you know we're right. Anonymous hick Coward.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:talk about elitist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the greatest city on the planet

      You live in Las Vegas? I thought you lived in New York?

    4. Re:talk about elitist by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      You fear our greatness, you envy our freedom, you know we're right.

      And you ask me why I think you're being elitist?

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    5. Re:talk about elitist by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I just want you to define this "elitist" term you're throwing around, and clarify why, when I'm better, I ought not act like it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  237. Re:Good Riddance by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When you look on the whole American history it turns out that only the post-WWII period really resembles contemporary understanding of constitutional democracy (and even then there were authoritarian hiccups of McCarthyism or Watergate).
    • How could you tell how much of it was lies? It might be true that the average human being was better off now than he had been before the Revolution. The only evidence to the contrary was the mute protest in your own bones, the instinctive feeling that the conditions you lived in were intolerable and that at some other time they must have been different. -- George Orwell "1984"
    Really. So constitution democracy includes locking people away without charges, trials, or lawyers? Constitutional democracy allows for the FBI to write themselves a warrant, plant bugs and video cameras in your home, and install a key logger in your keyboard for 6 months without telling you. Constitutional democracy intended for the 'Miami Model' of silencing peaceful demonstrations and public protest?

    I'll see your free speech suppression and raids on ______ists via the Sedition Act of 1918 and raise you secret searches and the elimination of habeas corpus via the "War on Terror".

  238. WTH? Hand written for confidentiality? by NRP128 · · Score: 1

    I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality can be maintained until the appropriate arrangements mentioned above can be made.

    Gee, that says alot about their confidence in the security of their computer systems! If he's scared to type a letter of resignation for fear of it being broke to the media before they're ready! What the HELL!

    but as far as the rest, thank the maker that crazy asshole is gone! lets just hope bush uses his common sense this time to replace him, rather than his f'ing religion. If only Cheney would resign/step down/die we'd all be in good shape. Bush ain't the worst about it, it's his asshole cabinet that 'causes much of the problem.

  239. Give me liberty or give me death! by DarkAurora · · Score: 1

    I would rather live with danger, then live without my freedom.

  240. Re:Maintaining Confidentiality with handwritten me by sabennett · · Score: 1

    I agree, the funny/scary part is that he hand-wrote it to maintain confidentiality. Does he know something about government spying on electrontic communication that we don't?...

  241. What's next? by nicfit · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Here is a nightmare of a scenario. He resigns now so that he can be proposed for a supreme court seat later. Suck!

    1. Re:What's next? by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That is truly a HORRIFIC thought :(

      --
      The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  242. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by DeVilla · · Score: 1
    Whoa ... Stalin was an authoritarian communist. Probably the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative".

    I second this. If folks mis-apropriate Stalin as an image of an 'evil conservative', it will ruin great wise-cracks like refering to Ted Kennedy as being 'a little to the left of Stalin.' No! You can't take the beat-stick of Stalin away!

  243. as a libertarian, I don't see that connection by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Those of us in the lower-right quadrant are in favor of things like drug legalization and gay marriage that are almost never considered "conservative" issues. In general we're more in sync with the Democrats on social issues (with some exceptions), and not really in sync with either party on economic issues (they both supported that ridiculous "prescription drugs for the elderly" plan, for example).

  244. And I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't this political business supposed to only be until the election? Or was that only if Kerry won?

    OK Folks... is it going to be years and years of Slashdot being used as another soapbox for the DNC or are we going to get on with being geeks? We can't even escape the cheap adverts that are made to look like news stories.

  245. This is wonderful! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    This is a great day for American liberty! Finally, after 4 years, one of the greatest menaces to civil liberty is gone!

    Maybe we can get back to being free again someday after all...

    I'll drink to Ashcroft's resignation! Who's with me? :-)

    1. Re:This is wonderful! by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Not until I know whether or not Bush is capable of finding someone even worse to replace him.

  246. Resigning To Focus On Core Responsibilities by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Funny

    "well, he's just now resigning...."

    Clearly due to the fact that his stint as Attorney General was interfering with his duties as Sith Lord.

    1. Re:Resigning To Focus On Core Responsibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only two there can be, and we already have apprentice Bush and master Cheney.

    2. Re:Resigning To Focus On Core Responsibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit- I resent that....
      Darth Lazius, Dark lord of Hoboken

    3. Re:Resigning To Focus On Core Responsibilities by Fgarb · · Score: 1

      1. And now I'm seeing the Bush girls in the Princess Leia outfits (one in white w/hair buns, one in the chain mail bikini).

      2. We've already seen from the movies that Yoda's facts are clearly up his ass as regards the Sith.
      Otherwise, Count Dooku wouldn't be able to claim the title of Darth Sidious, now could he?
      Or are we assuming that Dooku unlocked all his Force Powers in the 8 or so years since Episode 1, and in the same time, Obi-Wan barely learned
      anything? Maybe Dooku used a script to help him level faster....

  247. "Ding Dong the witch is dead!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
    Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

    Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
    Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
    Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
    Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
    Let them know
    The Wicked Witch is dead

  248. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are entitled to be wrong .. even comically pathetically wrong.

    That's your right and the mere fact that you and your big mouth ( and countless thousands of other similar mouths) have survived completely unscathed 4 years of this "fascist" proves that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

  249. tinfoil hat by siskbc · · Score: 0, Troll
    not to be a killjoy, but has it occurred to anyone that ashcroft is resigning as attorney general so as to prepare himself for a nomination to the supreme court?

    So Ashcorft resigns and you tinfoil hat nuts automatically assume he's gunning for the supreme court? Maybe the man needs a vacation. And look, this has nothing - nothing! - to do with Rehnquist's poor health. Really. I swear.

    Shit. Marge, get a case of beer and my tinfoil hat. Gonna be a long couple of decades.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  250. well, yes by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Certainly their methods are different, and nobody said Ashcroft was the more authoritarian of the two. But they're on the same broad side of the political spectrum in terms of their views on the role of the state in private life.

  251. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

    Come on big boy, stop posting AC if you want to talk smack.

    Yes, god damn Kerry, for actually running his presidential campaign instead of sitting around voting on every unimportant bill in the Senate like a good boy.

    And it's amazing how conservatives care so much about Ted Kennedy's drinking habits, and Bill Clinton's blowjobs, but don't give a shit about our current presidents old-time predilection for nose candy, because he's accepted Jesus now. And how Mary Kopechne's life is sacred, and so are those unborn fetuses, but Iraqi lives count as about 1/100th of an American life. I'm sure Jesus would approve of those metrics.

    Our President IS a nutjob. He believes that he is doing the work of god in the office of the Presidency, and that his foreign policy is effective in the Middle East. Frankly, anybody who puts religious faith ahead of rational thought probably deserves the label "nutjob".

  252. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

    Refutation. Say it all you want, you are still wrong. It's the conservatives who are always whining because they can never win an argument by reason alone.

  253. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by addaon · · Score: 1

    Nope, an absolute conservative will destroy others to avoid having to change himself.

    --

    I've had this sig for three days.
  254. Don't get too excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can think of several people off the top of my head who could be worse the asscroft. Don't break out the Champaign yet. This is Bush's house after all. Be afraid. Be very afraid of who he replaces him with.
    -SiliconAddict

  255. That son of a bitch by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

    I hated that son of a bitch. Now if Arafat can just die.

    1. Re:That son of a bitch by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah baby! Josh the physic strikes again!

  256. I think something along the lines of Bad Santa by Savatte · · Score: 2, Funny

    is more appropriate:

    Thank The Fuck Christ!

  257. objective accomplished? by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    By this, I suppose the Bush administration means the defeat of John Kerry. Seriously, though. No matter how bitter and cynical you feel about the election of George "Dumber than a Lobotomized Chimp" W. Bush, just remember that Truth, Justice, and the American Way live on...

    ...in Canada.

    1. Re:objective accomplished? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      You sir, have made me laugh. Unfortunately, my mod points expired 1 hour and 27 minutes ago. So that's all you get.

  258. Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit

  259. Re:Good Riddance by Bull999999 · · Score: 0

    Really. So constitution democracy includes locking people away without charges, trials, or lawyers?

    Who cares? A good number of people here on Slashdot probably spend more money and time waiting in line to buy games like Halo 2 than to vote or feed the homeless.

    Constitutional democracy allows for the FBI to write themselves a warrant, plant bugs and video cameras in your home, and install a key logger in your keyboard for 6 months without telling you. Constitutional democracy intended for the 'Miami Model' of silencing peaceful demonstrations and public protest?

    Have anyone here on Slashdot experience such a thing? If so, please share with us your method of detecting the bugs, video cameras, and key loggers planted by the FBI.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  260. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the next AG will be allowed to dance.

  261. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Nimey · · Score: 1

    As opposed to neocons (like Ashcroft), who are authoritarian corporatists.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  262. A highly appropriate quote, here. by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    Suddenly, caught by the level beams, Frodo saw the old king's head: it was lying rolled away by the roadside. "Look Sam!" he cried, startled into speech. "Look! The king has got a crown again!"

    The eyes were hollow and the carven beard was broken, but about the high stern forehead there was a coronal of silver and gold. A trailing plant with flowers like small white stars had bound itself across the brows as if in reverence for the fallen king, and in the crevices of his stony yellow hair yellow stonecrop gleamed.

    "They cannot conquer forever!" said Frodo. And then suddenly the brief glimpse was gone. The Sun dipped and vanished, and as if at the shuttering of a lamp, black night fell.


    It's times like these when those Americans and people in the rest of the world who are suffering as a result of the recent "election" result, can and should take hope. Evil is, by its very nature and definition, contrary to life and the continuation of it...and therefore if life is to continue, imbalances such as the current one can, should, and will eventually be rectified. The main thing that both watching the Two Towers, and Linux itself has managed to help me remember was that contrary to what the bastards have tried to indoctrinate us with, resistance is not futile. Night may come, and with it a blackness sufficiently deep that we may no longer be able to see our hand in front of our face, or temporarily remember our direction...but as night comes, so too eventually must the dawn.

    The rest of Bush's administration should see Ashcroft's passing as a harbinger of what they themselves ultimately can expect, and like all the other tyrants of human history, they will be remembered only as a source of death and misery, and an obstruction to genuine justice and human progress.

  263. Larry Lessig by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I nominate Larry Lessig.

    Yeah, yeah, I'll try to survive the reality whiplash.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  264. Moderators on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the drapes were ordered by Reno was AG, how can you blame Ashcroft?

  265. Re:Horray! Now he'll be free for his true passion. by stor · · Score: 1

    Man I wouldn't mind putting Ashcroft in a sack and beating him with reeds.

    Cheers
    Stor

    --
    "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  266. obligatory troll reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but you couldn't activate it until the 16th!"

    1. Re:obligatory troll reply by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      According to the warning sign on the door of a local retailer, you CAN. It will immediately trigger Steam's download activation and enable all Steam-purchasers to activate their copy. They claim that Vivendi will try to track you down based on your email address but that shouldn't be impossible to evade.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  267. WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His resignation does not lesson the fact
    that he should be tried for crimes against
    humanity and once found guilty killed by
    dismemberment.

    Cheers

  268. He sang too… by issue · · Score: 2, Funny
  269. That explains it. by hedgefrog · · Score: 1
    he had his gall bladder removed earlier this year

    It all makes sense now, the one thing you need to be a part of this administration is gall. Without it he was sunk.

    --

    I lost my copy of the green golf ball joke can anyone find it for me?
  270. John Ashcroft, Kerry & Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Ashcroft fought against against "third key" encryption laws in the 1990's. Laws backed by a certain Senator Kerry. Go figure.

  271. dear moron, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am sorry that you suck so bad that you like john ashcroft. the only better news than that he has resigned would be that you and all his other followers march behind him like rats trailing after the pied piper to a sewer from which you never return.

    i'm sorry to pull punches in this public forum, but later i'll be happy to tell you how i really feel without censoring my views

    1. Re:dear moron, by Comrade_X · · Score: 0

      Hoxha/Ashcroft 08 FOR a United America

      --
      Hello world :)
  272. Hoxha Aschroft 08 by Comrade_X · · Score: 0

    Albania's greatest leader Enver Hoxha should be president of the United States Why? Because he transformed Albania from a 3rd world country to an industralized nation in the space of less that 40 years! He saved Albania from the evil Nazis, likewise he could do the same for evil Islamic terrorsts. I have an Idea for Vice president Ashcroft! Because he's a true blue American and could help the communist Hoxha win the south! Also this would be a split party tickets Thus uniting Communist and Republicans! Hoxha Ashcroft 08 FOR A UNITED AMERICA!

    --
    Hello world :)
  273. i'm ready for a victory now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i could really use a victory right now, and a nomination of the scum-sucking pig ashcroft for supreme court seems like a good place to get it. when i get home, i'm going to write to congress people to ask them to oppose this piece of shit who likes to have himself photographed with an oval shaped background around his head. i am prepared to campaign for and donate to, any congress people who will show enough backbone to do ANYTHING to oppose his nomination to SCOTUS

  274. Wtf CBS by smcavoy · · Score: 1

    from the CBS article"Critics accused Ashcroft of civil rights violations but there was no second attack, Andrews reports. "br

  275. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And while you're at it, let me add a bit. Not only are people that inhale certain substances being locked up, but people SUSPECTED of doing so have been having their property confiscated.

    If you have been SUSPECTED of trafficing drugs, any drugs including marijuana, the government can confiscate your property. You don't even need to be convicted. Say you were convicted, but found not guilty. Or even imagine you were wrongly arrested and never convicted, or even tried. The government STILL gets to keep your property. It seems entirely wrong to me that the police could just randomly "suspect" people of wrong-doings just because they like their car, or house, or savings. This isn't BS either, it has happened, although I admit there HAVE been cases where the police were nice enough to return the confiscated property... after a lawsuit.

  276. Have I got a deal for you! by fredrated · · Score: 0

    Pst. Howd you like to buy a toll both I own on the Golden Gate Bridge? I'll let you have it for cheap! Call me at 800-555-1212! Good while supply lasts (did I mention I own several?)!

  277. When responding to trolls, do not as the trolls do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grandparent was hidden by its -1 mod, and I actually went out of my way to view it, just to see what you were responding to.

    I couldn't get a third into that nonsense with the misspellings and such, regardless of the (il)logic.

    But just because said fool cannot spell does not give you the right to abandon apostrophes. They exist in contractions for a reason - to indicate the dropping of a letter or several. "Wasnt" is not a word without the apostrophe, but "Wasn't" is. It's not hard to learn.

    I chose not to finish your response to that idiocy, however intelligent it started, because it seems to imply yours.

    And as a response to the grandparent and his/her "Is it bad" questions: yes.

    I reserve the right of grammatical errors becos I pointed this out to the both of you. I am not a grammar nazi, I just play one on ./.

  278. a pack of wild dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, this is good news. But what would be a real treat for everyone would be if Ashcroft were torn limb from limb by a pack of wild dogs. Especially if nobody noticed and just went about their business while he bled to death! Now there's a cheerful thought!

  279. Digital Copyright Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Bill Clinton who Signed the Digital Copyright Act.

    Not that I like John Ashcroft and I am happy to see him go.

    However, a lot of you people are just bunch of morons and are just as stupid as he is, the only difference is that your a liberal masturbator and are crying like school girls that Bush got in. What a bunch of low down losers, go cry to your sister and then maybe you can hump her since you have nothing better to do.

    Also, stop being lazy and get a damn job.

  280. What I hate about the PATRIOT Act... by cr0sh · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Well - other than its "name", which puts the term "patriot" to shame...

    What I hate most about it is not the Act itself (though it has its despicable parts) - but the fact that as a citizen, I wasn't represented by my congressmen when they passed it. It came out of the blue, it was voted on, and nobody read it...

    Worse, my fellow citizens don't seem to care about this important fact: that a law so broad and reaching as this Act became law without their so-called representatives reading it, understanding what it said, and debating its merits! This isn't what these guys were elected for, right?

    But this is what America has become - don't read the fine print on that contract you sign - and don't read it if it only likely will affect others who elected you - fuck 'em, right? Because you are now in office, and who gives a damn about the people, right? Just give me some more cash, err, donations - Ms. Rosen and Mr. Valentti, all will be OK. The people - screw them!

    Who cares about the people - they'll elect me again, right? Shit, Bush is the dumbest motherfucker on the planet (you know they are thinking this) - yet the people spoke up for him again, too. Me - I'm a shoo-in!

    Damn - I would at least have a little more respect for my so-called representatives had they at least read it (how many pages was it - 500?), questioned it, debated it, discussed it - and then, only then - voted on it in full conscience on what they were voting for. Hell - you would have thought at least one of them (well, there was one guy - Russ) would have had issues. I also wonder why no one even bothered to ask how such a large piece of legislation just "suddenly" appeared out of thin air - like it was waiting in the wings for just this sort of thing (9/11) to happen.

    Assuming, of course, that nothing more meets the eye on that little bit of history either - I still have my doubts on the why's, how's, etc of that day - questions that have yet to be fully answered in my opinion - things don't add up.

    But maybe, just maybe, if we close our eyes, plug our ears, and scream "nyha, nyha, nyha!!!" - it will all go away - ya think?

    At least, it seems that is how the rest of America is...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:What I hate about the PATRIOT Act... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I wasn't represented by my congressmen when they passed it.

      That's definately not a valid reasoning. A representative government DOES NOT mean that your congressman does what the majority wants, all the time. If that was the case, there would be no need for congress at all, since the people could vote on everything directly.

      You vote for the candidate that best represents you, and then THEY use their best judgement to decided how to vote on bills.

      That's not to say they can't just go with the majority, if they have no strong opinions one way or the other, but doing so it not required, nor is it even a recomended course of action.

      If you think your representatives didn't even read it, that's a completely different issue.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  281. Not really by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    Rumsfeld could be considered one of the founders of neoconservative doctrine. The man helped give birth to Cheney's political career and is also close friends with Paul Wolfowitz - both authors of the PNAC doctrine.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  282. save taxpayer money by humankind · · Score: 1

    Why does he even need to be replaced? Save some taxpayer money and don't fill the job. After all, he eradicated all crime and terror. By his own admission: 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

  283. Poor George by Michael_Burton · · Score: 1

    I feel sorry for President Bush, though. Now he's got to find someone even worse than Ashcroft for Attorney General.

    "It's hard work. Hard work."

    --
    When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
  284. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, he has a prior engagement. Kerry has already said he was interested in running in '08. There is lots of ground work to do if JFK will be ready. Bush lied and all of your intestines will soon be on fire!! Bush did not win. He is nowhere near the White House.

  285. No. Clarence Thomas was a corporate counsel by marbux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. Justice Clarence Thomas' major experience was as in-house corporate counsel for Monsanto, a company noted for repeatedly obtaining fraudulent government licenses to market harmful chemical products.

    But Ashcroft won't be a Supreme Court nominee. Bush will want a much younger person, so the appointment will have a longer effect on society.

  286. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by SamNmaX · · Score: 1
    Conseravatism is a very subjective word. I wouldn't consider any neo-con to be a conservative, but I tend to use it in casual conversation to mean someone that tends to vote Republican.

    Well, I was arguing that the 'conservative' side of him, whatever that means, isn't the important quality here. However, he is a social conservative, which in his case means being very anti-abortion, as well as pro-censorship, with his rediculous covering up of the breast on a statue and his attacks against adult pornography.

    In my opinion, Ashcroft is a fascist ... and before I get flamed, fascism is simply authoritarianism on social issues and a corporatist economic policy.

    Though I do agree when you get specific, the term fascism has just as obscure a meaning as conservatism, if not more so.

  287. Re:Good Riddance by calidoscope · · Score: 1
    I'll see your free speech suppression and raids on ______ists via the Sedition Act of 1918 and raise you secret searches and the elimination of habeas corpus via the "War on Terror".

    How about the 20 to 100 million death from influenza that were a pretty much direct consequence of the US involvement in WW1? (See "The Great Influenza" by Barry). After reading Barry's book, I really wonder if a lot of the inspiration for 1984 came from the US in WW1.

    So constitution[al] democracy includes locking people away without charges, trials, or lawyers?

    Ever been to Manzanar in California's Owens Valley???? 110,000 people locked away for simply being of Japanese descent by order of FDR (with considerable prodding from Earl Warren). I don't recall any court even contemplating granting writ of habeus corpus to these detainees. Many of these people got cheated out of some very valuable property when they were forced to move. Then again, a lot of people got screwed over in WW2 on the pretense that there was a war going on.

    Anyway, back to WW1 - several members of my mom's family grew up speaking German at home, but refused to admit that they knew the language after the propaganda campaign of WW1.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  288. The USAPATRIOT Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for starters

    1. Re:The USAPATRIOT Act by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      your an idot.

      that act is hardly a fascist tool.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  289. So little time by CjKing2k · · Score: 1

    With all of the bare-breasted statues out there in America, maybe Ashcroft decided that he was going to have to take his show on the road if he was to get them all.

    What an asshole

  290. hold on a second! by voisine · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he meant those goals have been achieved *thus far*, meaning the US has been safe from terrorist attack since 9/11. The idea that we are safe forevermore is so outlandish that it likely didn't occur to him that anyone would think that's what he meant. I disagree with the man on many points, but I know enough not to think him stupid.

  291. Don Evans by eobanb · · Score: 1

    Uh, you know, Commerce Secretary Don Evans has resigned with Ashcroft....that's sort of significant...I'm surprised no one's mentioned it.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

    1. Re:Don Evans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, none of the resignations are significant. They're expected. Cabinets change when an administration is reelected. In case you weren't aware, Colin Powell and Tom Ridge are resigning too.

  292. Ashcroft - "Served Optimally" by JoeXB · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From John Ashcroft's Resignation letter:
    .."It would be my pleasure to structure the announcement of this resignation and the ensuing transition in conjunction with you so that your administration and the cause of justice are served optimally. I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality can be maintained until the appropriate arrangements mentioned above can be made." ( John Ashcroft as reported by AP)
    Let's get this straight: The Attorney General of the United States needs to hand write his letter of resignation so it won't be compromised in transmission to the President of the United States ?? Isn't that just a little bit scary?
    1. Re:Ashcroft - "Served Optimally" by werfele · · Score: 1
      Let's get this straight: The Attorney General of the United States needs to hand write his letter of resignation so it won't be compromised in transmission to the President of the United States ?? Isn't that just a little bit scary?
      You may be kidding, but I think what Ashcroft meant was that he didn't have the letter typed up by an administrative assistant, who might leak the information. The fact that the alternative was to handwrite the letter suggests that he doesn't know how to type a document into word processing software and print it out, or in any case is disinclined to do so. I don't know whether it's scary, but probably telling.
  293. No, only 25% by voisine · · Score: 1

    No it was more like a quarter. Scroll down to WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?

  294. Dmitri by epcraig · · Score: 1

    Nobody remembers Dmitri Sklyarov?

    --
    Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
  295. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good argument there. People are only angry because it's trendy to be. Gee, you're a bright one.

  296. I haven't read the comments yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...But I hope this doesn't turn into a case of,

    "Better the Devil you know."

    I'll be praying to Cthulhu for you poor Americans.

  297. It's NOT all coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There may be a logical explanation to all this news happening in one day.

  298. And now, if you'll excuse me... by diymedia · · Score: 1

    ...I have a rapture to attend to...

  299. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

    Can't say about any previous elections or Kennedy, but Kerry got elected to his current term because he ran unopposed. Kinda hard to elect someone else when no one is running against Kerry.

    Hopefully next election the Republicans will run someone against Kerry (but I doubt it) because I really want to see him out of office. (Why this state elected an admited war criminal in the first place is beyond me, but - oh well, I couldn't vote at the time.)

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  300. Civilian Death vs. Law Enforcement Death by tchalvak · · Score: 1

    "I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers."

    Law Enforcement agents sign on to risk their lives to uphold the laws of the government. Citizens sign do not sign up to have their lives taken from them by government action.

    Thus, all else being equal, the death of a law enforcement agent or soldier can be seen as something that they and those around them have prepared for while a civilian death cannot.

    Neither life is worth more, but one is a result of choice, and therefore less of an accident.

  301. I think I understand... by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Ashcroft saying, "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," means, "Hey!!! Look everybody!! There are no terrorists attacking us RIGHT NOW!!"

    It's kind of like when Clinton said, "I do not have an inapproproate relation with that girl, Ms. Lewinsky," he really meant, "Ms. Lewinsky is not blowing me RIGHT NOW, but lemme tellya, if you guys could see what I have here under the podium..."

    P.S. http://fuckthesouth.com/

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  302. Thank the Lord. by LoveTheIRS · · Score: 2

    Bless the lord for the gifts that we receive. All at once: Firefox 1.0, Fedora Code 3, John Ashcroft resigning.

  303. Dang! There goes my favorite typo; by PotatoHead · · Score: 2, Funny

    namely, Asscroft...

  304. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "After the besmirching that my state, Massachusetts, got from nutjob Shrub,"

    As opposed to the besmirching you give yourselves every six years when your senior senator comes up for reelection?

  305. Save It by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Save your sanctimony for the soldier who died believing Iraq was behind 9/11 and his parents who can't bear to think otherwise. Did you, by any chance, vote for a man who blocked ever single investigation into 9/11 after lying about pre-attack intelligence?

    1. Re:Save It by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Speaking of false statements and doublethink...

    2. Re:Save It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Save your sanctimony for the soldier who died believing Iraq was behind 9/11...

      The election is behind us. You don't have to keep pretending to cry for soldiers that most likely don't believe the same things you do.

  306. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't follow. Having a couple fascist persons around doesn't a fascist nation make. (at least instantly)

  307. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by danila · · Score: 1

    He-he. :) So Stalin was a "liberal conservative"?

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  308. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    actually wrong. stalin was in the communist party, but there he was a quite conservative one. after lenin died and stalin got the power, one could see, that he was truly nationalistic (communists are internationalists).

    he put lots of his fellow countrymen (georgians) into high position (for example beriya as nkvd - the organisation that later became kgb - chef) and decimated lots of different ethnic groups living in ussr (jews, tarars, germans, chechens...)

    in case of stalin, political compass is wrong. he was no different than hitler at all. all his "socialistic" reforms were just for gaining control over the people.

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  309. but ...but.... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    now that we've solved our problems with crime and security, we really don't need the court system, do we?

  310. One word... by Project2501a · · Score: 1

    w00t!

    --
    ----
  311. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by aonifer · · Score: 1
    • Hated by just about everyone in New York City
  312. So the next time an act of terror occurs... by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...does that mean that Ashcroft will have to come back?

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  313. Obl Simpsons. by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

    Seemed Apt. :)

    Kid: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?

    Amendment: I'm not garbage. I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be, And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me. There's a lot of flag-burners, who have got too much freedom, I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em.

    'Cause there's limits to our liberties, at least I hope and pray that there are, 'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

    (spoken)
    Kid: But why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?

    Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution...

    Kid: Then we could make all *sorts* of crazy laws!

    Amendment: Now you're catching on!

    Kid: What if people say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?

    (sings)

    Amendment: Then I'll crush all opposition to me, and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay. If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.

    (spoken)
    Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya! You're in the US Constitution!

    Amendment: Oh yeah! Door's open boys!! Yeehaw!

  314. If that is true... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    ...the members of Congress are guilty of gross negligence for not insisting on more time to check the content of the bills. If necessary, they should have voted against the law because of this.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  315. Aircraft Carriers are floating print shops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a floating print shop

    Wrong - aircraft carriers are giant print shops.
    They didn't print the millions of psyops leaflets that they dropped on Iraq at the Bhagdad Kinkos.

    Speaking of psyops leaflets, I think this one is an interesting commentary on the history between Iraq and the Bush family by the British psyops guys.
    Kings says the Navy upgraded the Constellation's printing capabilities before its current deployment by purchasing two high-speed printers for $17,000 apiece. Together, the printers can churn out half a million leaflets in 24 hours. In the past, the Army would have designed and printed the leaflets and shipped them from Ft. Bragg, N.C., to sea. Now, the Army simply e-mails leaflet designs to the Constellation for printing.
    "Within 24 hours we can go from printing to dropping," says Mole. If the test of the on-board printing operation continues to be successful, other carriers are likely to get high-speed printers to make their own leaflets. Now other carriers in the region receive their leaflets from the Constellation.
    Some in the military would argue that one of the most important roles of your F-18's is, in fact, to drop psyops leaflets to build up extreme levels of doubt in the troops:
    The cylinders are then loaded - 20 at a time - into the empty canister of a now-defunct, Vietnam-era Rockeye cluster bomb, and loaded onto F-18 bombers, which can carry as many as 120,000 leaflets in two canisters on a single mission. Up in the air, the canister is dropped and split open with a small fuse.

    And finally, yes they do have the facilities to create/print forms, intructinos sheets, manuals, orders, menus, newspapers, brouchures, signs and banners.
  316. Ashcroft's letter to just. dept employees (JESUS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    November 9, 2004

    Nearly four years ago. in my first message to the Justice Community. I wrote to each of you of my goals for this noble Department: to "uphold the American justice tradition that strives to bring protection to the weak, freedom to the restrained. liberty to the oppressed, and security to all."

    Today I write to you at the close of my time as the Attorney General, gratified that together we have accomplished our goals. On November 2nd, I submitted to the President my intention to resign from the office of Attorney General of the United States, effective upon confirmation of my successor.

    As I take leave of this high office, I am filled with gratitude to you, the men and women of the Department of Justice, for an extraordinary period of service that has ushered in an extraordinary era of justice and security for the American people.

    We live today in an America that is safer and stronger than ever before; an America where freedom is not a promise but a birthright, not a dream but a reality. In partnership with the American people we have compiled a record of achievement that is remarkable if judged merely by peacetime standards. But for a time of war, your record is awe-lnspiring.

    For three years since the worst attack in our nation's history, and in defiance of all expectations, America has not endured another major terrorist attack. Violent crime is at its lowest rate in three decades. We have engineered double-digit reductions in the rates of sexual assault, robbery and assault. Gun crime prosecutions are at a record high and violent crimes committed with guns are at a record low. Drug use among the nation's youth is declining. Corporate criminals are facing justice, and integrity has been restored to the nation's marketplace. America's values, as set forth in our Constitution, reflected in our laws, and cherished in our hearts, have been honored and defended.

    Throughout our nation's history - throughout the history of civilization - men and women have struggled to define and to achieve justice. The opening words of the Constitution tell us that "to establish justice" is one of the founding reasons for the United States. Justice is the great striving of our nation, and the eternal hope of our hearts. But still we are left with the question: What is justice?

    After three decades of public service and four years as your Attorney General, I am confident in this answer: You are justice. You are the eyes that watch over the nation. You are the hands that uphold equal justice before the law. You are the feet on the street that nurture and protect our inalienable right to live in freedom. I join with the American people in humbled gratitude for your service to the nation.

    Lastly, speaking for myself, I express my gratitude to God for the each day the sun rises on a free and safe America. For the past three years, my every working day has begun with a report - a catalog of the murderous acts being plotted against Americans, That we have passed these three years in safety and security is a credit to you. But it would be the height of arrogance to assume we achieved this alone. The Psalms remind us: 'Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stands guard in vain."

    My friends and colleagues, for four years we have stood watch together. We have endured many things and we have accomplished many more. It has been the honor of my lifetime to stand beside you. And as I take my leave of this privileged post, I know that our efforts have not been in vain. The Builder of our city and the Author of our freedom has stood beside us. He stands beside us still.

    (signed John Ashcroft)

  317. Thank God - or... by jandersen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    No doubt inspired by his evil master's stunt when he said 'Mission accomplished', and about as true.

    I have rarely seen a more unsavoury character than John Ashcroft - the kind of person that combines powerlust and unlimited ambition with narrowminded intolerance and smallishness. He will not be missed.

    But the big - and frightening - question is: who have they been able to find that is worse? I can't imagine the Bush administration replacing this icon of hate-driven hypocrisy with a better (as in more open-minded) person.

  318. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by nmfa · · Score: 1

    The political spectrum isn't a line, it's a circle: go far enough to the right and you'll wind up appearing on the left. In countries with a full political spectrum, rather than the narrow band that the US displays, you'll find that often the two extremes agree with each other more than they do with other moderates of their supposed leanings. Some of the rhetoric may differ, but the end result is the same. As someone mentioned Stalin, compare with Hitler. One as far left as could be, the other far right in traditional terms. End result? Two brutal authoritarian dictatorships, both engaged in mass murder for the good of the state.

  319. Supreme Court by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    He's resigning to clear the way for Bush to appoint him to the supreme court, according to vague rumours on the internet. If you thought he was dangerous as Attorney General you ain't seen nothing yet.

    1. Re:Supreme Court by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I just soiled myself. Thanks, I'm at work...

  320. Re:Today Ashcroft...Tomorrow Justice Ashcroft by SirBogus · · Score: 1

    Would that be (Scary +1) or (Scary -1) ?

    Now that I think of it, I wouldn't know. Scary -1 sounds like parental control and Scary +1 is just scary in itself.

    Hans

  321. So, how would YOU accomplish this? by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

    "Say, John, you ever catch that person(s) who were mailing ANTHRAX all over the country? You know, ANTHRAX, that EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS disease? "

    So, tell us, oh Insightful One, how you would go about accomplishing this?

    Armchair quarterbacks--or Attorneys General--have plenty plans, but few or no tactics. Prove this wrong. Supply effective tactics.

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    1. Re:So, how would YOU accomplish this? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Ah, But I didn't say I could do better. I am only taunting him for making such idiotic sweeping generalizations like, 'The American people are safe from terrorisim now'.

      What the hell kind of idiot would say that? That is such an obviously blatant distortion that it makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

      I personally may be no better at catching psychos than asscrotch, but I wouldn't make such silly statements.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  322. Kiss My Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kiss my Ashcroft,
    That's all I've got's to say,
    Kiss my Ashcroft if you're Moslem, Black or Gay,
    Kiss my Ashcroft,'cos your'e gonna rot in Jail,
    'Cos I ain't giving you no lawyer, no trial, no bail.

  323. Just want to point out.... by 222 · · Score: 1

    Just want to point out that when Ashcroft ran for office in missouri, he lost to a DEAD GUY.
    And yes, I voted for the dead guy.
    Living in missouri, it was actually the last time i felt that my vote had actually counted.

  324. This would be better if- by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bush and his entire Criminal gang would do likewise.

    --
    Geek Hillbilly
  325. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Bas_Wijnen · · Score: 1
    "liberal", which has been turned into an insult meaning essentially "communist"

    You are completely right, except that you seem to imply that "communist" is a valid insult. I know the US has a history of thinking this, but it doesn't make much sense.

    Communism, like socialism, wants to solve the problems of life by letting people cooperate. By contrast, in capitalism, the problems are supposed to be solved by competition. In communism, the idea is to cooperate in "communes", village-sized communities of cooperating people.

    What many people (especially US) call communism nowadays, is what was happening in the Soviet Union. As most people agree nowadays, that didn't have much to do with communism, and a lot with totalitarianism. As that is generally opposed, it can be used as a valid insult. Communism can be called unrealistic, but I think it still doesn't make sense to use it as an insult.

    At least I never understood why people who live by the rule "let's together make the world a better place to live" can be used as an example of how not to live...

  326. Seema like good news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...until you hear about his replacement, Joe Stalin.

  327. Thank You Mr. Ashcroft by leadsling · · Score: 1

    Your service to your country and to your president has been exemplary. While it is easy to sit back and take pot shots and criticize, you walked a course where nothing you could do would be popular, yet almost everything you did was with the security of the people of the United States in mind with no thought of your popularity or approval rating. Thank you, sir, for your service.

  328. good news now, horrible news later by itallushrt · · Score: 1

    This is clearly the first step in what will be a supreme court nomination for John Ashcroft.

    With 2 Supreme justices over 80 years and one with cancer something has to give, and who else but Bush's poster boy to take the seat?

    GOD HELP US! OH wait, is that Ashcrofts god, your god or my god I'm referring to? Better play it safe since we don't know what a "real" religion is...something help us!

  329. Compare to this by chriseyre2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Power of nighmares
    This is a bbc documentary series that questions the Bush administration spin.

    1. Re:Compare to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superb documentary series.. there are torrents of VCD conversions of the three episodes avaliable at www.uknova.com
      To be able to download from their tracker you will need to register at UKnova (free registration), but it's well worth it to see this.

  330. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by ratamacue · · Score: 1
    Probably the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative"

    Communist or "conservative", they are both authoritarian, and both prefer big centralized government. And let's not forget that most "conservatives" today are more than willing to endorse socialism. They may differ on certain policies, but I definitely wouldn't say they are "complete opposites".

  331. Ashcroft 1 , Osama 0 by chyllaxyn · · Score: 0

    NUFF SAID

  332. There is an Aliens quote for every situation ... by cj_goth · · Score: 1

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    Gorman: All right, the area's secured.

    --


    -- now where did I put that .sig
  333. Oy by beakburke · · Score: 2, Informative

    The federal constitution supercedes state constitutions. Many states do not carry the death penalty on their books and do not execute anyone accused for a crime that is convicted by state courts. However, cases in the federal government's jurisdiction are, by definition, not tried under state (or protectorate) law but under federal law. See separation of powers...

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    1. Re:Oy by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The federal constitution supercedes state constitutions."

      Only insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned as well as Congress' duty to maintain a republican form of government in each state. There is nothing in the United States Constitution that requires capital punishment, which means that it is left to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

      Remember we are talking about a federal constution, not a centrallized one.

      "However, cases in the federal government's jurisdiction are, by definition, not tried under state (or protectorate) law but under federal law."

      But the feds still expect the states to do the executions for them. IIRC Ashcroft recently put New Hampshire (a full-fledged state) in a similar situation.

      "See separation of powers..."

      Hypocrite. If this were truly about "separation of powers" then the feds wouldn't be able to force states to do something, because those powers would be separated.

      Read me.

    2. Re:Oy by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      But the feds still expect the states to do the executions for them.

      The Federal government has started executing at least some of its own death sentences again.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  334. REALITY check by wurp · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Great, if what you care about is reality, then what Richard Clarke has to say should be right up your alley. You see, Richard Clarke points out to us how he and a couple of other advisors to the president kept trying to tell him before 9/11/2001, that Al Qaeda had a lot of suspicious activity going on. More than had been seen since right before the Y2K new year.

    Wait, you say - there was no terrorist attack at Y2K new year. Exactly! When Richard Clarke made the same warnings to Clinton that he made to Bush, Clinton began meeting with him every morning, and they established measures to help hinder terrorists.

    What I'm telling you is that Bush did a bad job of preventing the terrorist act that actually happened, that he had advisors telling him to watch out for it, and that the American people rewarded him for his willful ignorance.

    See:

  335. Ob. Monty Python Quote by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
    "There you go bringing class into it again!"

    Re: Ashrcroft - "Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help help! I'm being repressed!"

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  336. another canard by beakburke · · Score: 1
    Geez, you people pick up way too many political talking points and spew them out without checking the facts. Ashcroft didn't try to "slash counterterrorism funding" prior to 9/11. What happened was that certain departments and their functions were being reorganized and moved. Thus there appeared to be a substantial reduction in funding for a couterterrorism unit, when actually the responsibility had meerly been transferred (along with most of the funding).

    You know, there is a lot of room for disagreement on the tactics and their execution. But we can even have that debate when people are all running around in the fever swamps purposefully engaged in disingenuous behavior.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    1. Re:another canard by demachina · · Score: 1

      I stand slightly corrected but you aren't being particularly accurate yourself. I stand corrected because counterterrorism funding did go up that year, but Ashcroft did slash a proposed $58 millions for counterterrorism analysts, translators and agents.

      Here is a pretty "fair and balanced piece on it".

      You didn't answer the fact that his deputy questions, in a major way, his commitment to counterterrorism. He was saying it was a priority in public but internal documents and his own people indicate it was not a priority for Ashcroft and the DOJ right before 9/11, though it may have been for the FBI apart from their leadership.

      From my reference:

      "However, some internal Department of Justice documents arguably downplayed terrorism, suggesting that Ashcroft's top goals did not include terrorism until after September 11, 2001. Some, such as the FBI's acting director in 2001, Thomas Pickard, have also questioned Ashcroft's priorities publicly."

      "A May 10, 2001 letter by Ashcroft identified seven goals for the new administration, which did not include counterterrorism (the New York Times reported that the goals were "reducing gun violence and drug trafficking, helping states with anticrime programs, reducing racial discrimination; securing the nation's borders and cutting the immigration backlog; reducing overcrowding and drug use in prison; securing the rights of victims of crime, and strengthening internal financial and computer systems"). A Department of Justice spokesman said the May 10 letter was meant to draw attention to specific initiatives, not to downplay others."

      "An August 9, 2001 chart titled "Strategic Plans - Attorney General Priorities" listed the seven goals from the May 10, 2001 letter with 36 objectives. One of these 36 objectives reportedly referred to terrorists, but it was not one of the 13 objectives highlighted as an "AG Goal.""

      --
      @de_machina
  337. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by ratamacue · · Score: 1
    You forgot one:
    • Refused a multi-million dollar donation from the prince of Saudi Arabia to help the victims of 9/11, which came with a suggestion (not a condition) to adopt a more modest foreign policy, because he wanted to send the message that he won't even think about "blaming the US for terrorism", honest donation be damned.
    In other words, he's loyal to the policies of the US government, and wouldn't dare think for himself. He's the perfect candidate!
  338. I agree by beakburke · · Score: 1

    ... because the word liberal has been misappropriated by socialists. Now, when people talk about being liberal, what they really mean is that they are socialists (or socialist-lite, quasi-socialist, or whatever you want to call it). Libertarians have to call themselves that because their word (liberal) has already been stolen from them as far as it's use in the common vernacular.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    1. Re:I agree by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      I thought libertarians' word was "liberty". That's how the etymology looks to me anyway.

  339. I call BS by beakburke · · Score: 1

    The FBI DOES still need search warrents. The only difference is that the circumstances under which the FBI can get the warrant issued under seal (in secret) has been expanded. If you don't think courts should be able to keep this information secret then you have problems with a lot more than the patriot act.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  340. Mission Accomplished! by number6x · · Score: 1

    Mission Accomplished!

    We can now all return to our normal lives.

    Thank you for your patience.

  341. Re:SAFE!.. by Rytr23 · · Score: 1

    The only way John Ashcroft will sit on the bench will be if he literally sits himself in one of the chairs while the court is adjourned.. And we have Arlen Spector from my home state of PA to thank for that.. He has already stated,(as head of the senate juduciary committee) that he will not allow a SCJ to be installed that will take away a womans right to choose etc.. So Lil Johnny is dead in the water.. THank whatever god you wish..

    --
    So many injustices..so little time..
  342. Too late by Techmaniac · · Score: 1

    ABOUT 4 YEARS TOO LATE!

  343. too late by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.

    Would have been nice to hear about before the election.


    -Colin

  344. Not a good thing by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Regardless of your beliefs on him and his actions, a consistent policy is important to thwart future problems.

    The uncertainty in new leaders coming too often leads to a ' let's see what we can get past the new guy ' mentality.. At least with a hardnosed incumbent, you know what to expect and there is less 'testing of the waters'.

    And as a disclaimer, there are a *lot o*f things he's done in the 'anti-citizen rights' arena that I don't agree with, but I think it would still be best for him to stay.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  345. My first encounter with the patriot act. by krgallagher · · Score: 1

    I went to the bank yesterday to deposit some money so I could pay some bills. The teller asked for some ID. I was only makig a deposit. I've never been asked for ID before unless I was making a withdrawl. When I asked her why she needed ID, she said "It's part of the patriot act." Really blew my mind.

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  346. Maybe, but.. by beakburke · · Score: 1
    I don't agree with you that this is sudden, or that it is all that extreme. The courts have allowed the government to restrict speech for years with regards to time/place/manner. That's not a new feature of the Republican convention (heck, just look at the "cage" that they put up for the Democrats convention in Boston, which even I think was over the top.)

    I dealt with the warrant issue already in response to another poster's rantings.

    With regards to the comment about "enemby combatants", there is actually a long standing part of US jurisprudence that recognizes that combatants in a war aren't considered US civilians and aren't entitiled to constitutional protections, only those afforded by the UCMJ and perhaps international conventions. The issue now is that it is much less cut-and-dried now exactly who constitutes an "enemy combatant", POW, unlawful combatant, etc. as these laws were written in a time where the current situation was not fully anticipated and thus the laws are vague (or don't address at all) the current situation. There are legitimate arguments on both sides as to how exactly these laws are should be interpreted

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    1. Re:Maybe, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple logic that a fucking five year old can understand.

      1 We are waging a War on Terrorism
      2 The enemies that we capture during this war are prisoners
      3 Ipso Facto they are prisoners of war
      4 As POWs they and their captors are subject to the geneva convention

      JAAC

  347. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by VeriTea · · Score: 1
    Yeah, that's why he was repeatedly elected as a Republican mayor in a city that voted 80% Democratic in the last presidential election.

    --
    --- There are two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it
  348. Sorry not safe by Pragmatix · · Score: 1

    A filibuster can be defeated by a vote of Cloture, which is something the Republicans will not be shy to use if needed. Expect to see them wield their majority in many issues in the coming years.

    1. Re:Sorry not safe by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Isn't there currently a movement to deny the minority party the ability to block using filibuster?

    2. Re:Sorry not safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A filibuster can be defeated by a vote of Cloture, which is something the Republicans will not be shy to use if needed.

      That requires 60 out of 100 senators to back it. There aren't currently 60 Republican senators.

    3. Re:Sorry not safe by Krow10 · · Score: 1
      A filibuster can be defeated by a vote of Cloture, which is something the Republicans will not be shy to use if needed.
      That requires 60 out of 100 senators to back it. There aren't currently 60 Republican senators.
      You are correct. There was talk about a rule change regarding cloture votes that only requires (in theory at least) a simple majority. Thus they could change the rules with a simple majority and the force cloture with a simple majority, but that would be the equivalent of a partisan tactical nuke. My guess is that W will propose Ashcroft, withdraw and then propose someone slightly less controversial, hoping to give Senate Dems enough of a moral victory to avert this. Personally, I am hoping only Rehnquist vacates in the next four years. Really, really hoping.

      Cheers,
      Craig

      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    4. Re:Sorry not safe by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      Cloture only limits the time for debate allowed on the bill. If the filibuster begins before the vote of Cloture, the senator just has to be sure he doesnt give the floor to someone who will call for the vote.

      I sincerely hope the filibuster doesnt go away, it is a crucial piece of the operation of the senate. The senate is given infinate debate time to make this possible for a reason. It gives a minority party (or a dissenter from the majority) the ability to fight something they strongly believe is wrong. This option is only available in the senate and not the house, so it is not an absolute power

      --
      Bottles.
    5. Re:Sorry not safe by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The only problem with this is that using the filibuster is using a non-constitutional procedure (oustide of the reference to the legislative bodies making thier own rules of conduct) to interfere with a constitutional one.
      Breaking a filibuster requires IIRC 2/3 majority, whereas judicial nominations only require a simple majority by the constitution.
      In effect what you have is senators overiding the consitution with procedure. I really don't trust that. If the framers of the constitution had meant for confirmation to require 2/3 majority they would have so as they did in a few other specific cases.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  349. Ashcroft an Opus Dei cultist by jeff13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It just goes to show the sort of people who are appointed to the top Gestapo office in the USA.

    John Ashcroft is a member of Opus Dei, an ultra medieval Catholic cult approved by the Vatican. The Pope is a member and approves this organization which has only recently opened a major new address in New York, a new building near the UN.

    Opus Dei, from what I've learned about them from Gore Vidals writing, is a sick cult of neofascist ultra fundementalists who have gone back into the Dark Ages as inspiration for a secret religious ideology where members are expected to reject modern science, feminism, and humanity as anti-god. Like thier medieval inspirations, members subject themselves to blood rites.

    Ashcroft himslef is said to wear a spiked brace that cuts into his skin as a symbol of his original sin and Christs suffering on the cross.

    That's kind of silly rubbish that runs the highest offices of law in the USA.

    The USA is insane. Run.

  350. I will go to make-you-straight boot camp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even if im not gay.

    Think of all the hotties they'll force you to have sex with?!?!?

  351. Egomaniac? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    He eliminated crime and terrorism? I hope someone told the criminals and the terrorists. It is like saying "I've eliminated bad feelings and thoughts."

    Seeing that there was crime on the front page of today's paper I'd have to disagree. What an arrogant jackass.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  352. Hand written vs. typed by MtbRocket · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does any one notice that he hand wrote his note because he felt that his computer was not secure enough to keep his resignation a secret until he was ready? Does this not epitomize the whole problem? The Attorney General of the United States of American can not trust his own computer.

  353. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by glsunder · · Score: 1

    see the Wikipedias entry on fascism

    Several aspects of the extreme people in the republican party would be easily considered fascist. The republican party's use of propaganda is unmatched by any other party in the US. They've used nationalism to the extreme since 9/11. The increasing power of the religious right is also making it so that they put the interests (or rights) of the state (or society) above those of the individual.

    it's important to remember that no country will be 100% catagorizable. It's unlikely that we'll see another fascist country like italy again. Labels fit existing and former governments and wont be 100% accurate on future ones.

  354. Liberal vs. Freedom by Crouching+Turbo · · Score: 1

    Except that in this country (the US) the word "liberal" has been hijacked to mean socialist, or left wing. Libertarian is the new word for what liberal used to mean: someone who believes in complete economic and social freedom.

    1. Re:Liberal vs. Freedom by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Several people in this thread have suggested things like this, and it's really not true. The founders weren't libertarian in the Ayn Rand sense of the word. They didn't believe in complete economic and social freedom - they realized that government is a necessary force in a well organized society. Furthermore, most of modern economics didn't exist - hell, Adam Smith was a contemporary of our founders, so they hadn't even read his work, so ascribing an economic leaning to these men that maps into the modern spectrum doesn't work terribly well.

      If they believed in "complete economic and social freedom", then it's hard to see why they provided for several branches to a federal government, and a strong state government system, and gave Congress so much power to regulate commerce. As to the states, they naturally played a greater role back then - but it's a radically different world we live in with respect to economics, technology and so forth. Hard to imagine that some things shouldn't be more centralized than they were 230 years ago.

  355. Vox Dei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think this one was Bush's decision.

    You mean it was God's decision?

  356. Sushi: Re:He's encouraging criminals. by berbo · · Score: 1

    Duke: "Yeah, let's go get sushi and not pay!"
    Repoman

  357. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kerry was failing to show at his job long before he ran for office. You *should* know that about your candidate but if you want to pretend otherwise....

    You can't tell the difference between taking personal responsibility for *being right there* for the specific act (or failure to act) on the spot that killed that poor woman vs. making a foreign policy decision based on imperfect intelligence? You *should* know the difference but if you want to pretend otherwise....

    You think a man like Saddam Hussein is good for the Middle East or the Iraqi people? You think democracy is a bad thing? You think Muslims are too stupid/barbaric/whatever for democracy? You *should* know better but if you want to pretend otherwise....

    You are the one out of touch with the world. People need freedom. If you think "stability" at any price is the best way to run the world, then you're in favor of men of Hussein, Stalin, and other brutal murdering dictators.

    You come on here all snarky about a few drinks and a blowjob but really you're just a partisan leftist nuthead who would make any excuse for anyone on his side of the aisle while granting nothing to those who disagree with you.

    Bush is not perfect. He has made mistakes. Men do that. When you're unwilling to grant any mistakes have been made by your guys you reveal yourself to be worse than what you accuse others of being. There is no rational thought behind your attacks, just extreme blind partisanship.

    As far as posting AC or not, this entire forum is anonymous anyway. fnkmaster@@@viergy...com>
    (http://www.hardgrok.or g/) isn't an identifiable person. Answer the ideas, don't attack the person who presents them. That's always a good sign the attacker is a clueless git.

  358. Whether you liked Bush or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this guy was the worst thing that happened to his presidency. Good ridance and I hope we can work on undoing his damage, all of us. We need freedom.

    The arrogance, "america is secure...", jerk.

  359. Re:Right on the money! Good job! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    No one can stop you from praying in school. Shut up and pray SILENTLY. Do not disturb people who are there to learn. Do not have the whole class reciting a prayer out loud, led by the teacher, implicitly threatening those who do not want to participate.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  360. Nazi Germany by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
    One of the problems of Nazi Germany was the centralisation of control. Post-nazi Germany was created to devolve power between federal agencies with carefuly set boundaries and a separation between federal and state government.

    It was quite clever, keeping much of the control but without giving it to any one agency. Interestingly enough, the main layers behind modern Federal Germany were indeed the allies, and particularly the Americans.

  361. Which one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean the boob in the foreground or background?

  362. Re: Doublethink by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

    1984+20: Ignorance Is Strength

  363. Re:Moderate by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The proper role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to be moderate. Or liberal. Or conservative. Or a follower of any ideology. It is to judge evidence with respect to the law, and law with respect to the Constitution, and make decisions accordingly.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  364. Gay sex is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch NASCAR."

    You are clearly unaware of the homoerotic imagery rife in NASCAR: the body hugging fetishistic fire-suits, the in-car close ups of drivers grasping their gear sticks, the winner's giant magnum spurting over the crowd, yes, YES, YESSSSSS!!!

    *Ahem*...

  365. Mission Accomplished! by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1


    I guess this means I can throw out my duct-tape and plastic wrap!

    Sweet!

    --

    THINK! It's patriotic

  366. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot one thing:
    Giuliani is pro-choice.

    He will not be the next Attorney General.

  367. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Damvan · · Score: 1

    Why this country elected a man who deserted the military and did not fulfill his commitment in the first place is beyond me...

  368. Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'

    I think this is a typo. I believe he originally meant "for", not "from".

  369. This is exactly why the Democrats keep losing. by orichter · · Score: 1

    Many of us in this country get the impression (though few are stupid enough to state it as explicitly as you have) from the Democratic Party that they want to see the country fail so they can be right. This is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and frankly it's pathetic. I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, though of the two I think Bush is a marginally better choice (i.e. the lesser of two evils), and while I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, I don't want either democrats or republicans to "suffer financial & exonomical devistation". If Kerry had won, I would like to see financial and economic success for the country. I really do wish that people like you would get the hell out of this country which you so obvioiusly hate. Damn, wishing ruin on half the country just so you can feel some smug satisfaction. What an asshole. I haven't yet found anyone who inspired me enough to make my friends or foes list. Congradulations, you'll be my first entry. Guess which side you'll be on.

  370. socialized costs, privatized profits by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    You're so frickin' right.

    And something else has been bugging me since shortly after Iraq II started. There's a comparison to be made between the English East India Company escapades and the Oil wars.

    The English socialized the costs of the East India Company, and the profits went to private persons instead of back to the people. Look at England now, their taxes are sky high. We're doing the same thing now; the people are paying for the war (and massive tax cuts for the rich), and the benefit goes to 1% of the population.

    For those who complain about paying 20% income tax, remember who did all this when you're paying 80% income tax.

    Bush doesn't bother to tax - he just spends. And that's a helluva lot worse.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:socialized costs, privatized profits by ph1ll · · Score: 1
      I agree with your conclusion but some of your facts are way off.

      England has some of the lowest (the lowest?) tax rates in Europe. Most people are on 25% income tax rate in the UK.

      And, when you count US state taxes, there is not a huge difference between the two countries.

      Whether low taxes are good (as you rightly point out - low tax can mean high debt) is another thing entirely.

      Just my two penneth (minus 25% tax).

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
  371. Half the country is not bible thumpers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Half the country is not bible thumpers! The majority of the country falls into one of these four catagories:

    1) bible thumpers
    2) greedy plutocrats
    3) warhawks
    4) ignorant sheeple drinking the government Kool-aid

    This collection of asshats and morons are why Bush won. It isn't entirely the bible thumpers fault!

  372. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

    That's contested, though. Most people agree that Bush did indeed serve in the Reserves. Some people contest this, but they haven't been able to offer up any proof. (On either side.)

    There's an MP3 out there somewhere where John Kerry says "Do I consider myself a war criminal? Yes." That's pretty black-and-white.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  373. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Rayonic · · Score: 1

    Well, gee, how can anyone argue against that? I mean, you're talking about the man's undocumented "hopes" and "dreams", and are delving into his subconcious mind.

    On an unrelated topic, I'm convinced that you'd rape your own mother if you thought you could get away with it.

  374. An observation about Gonzolez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wasn't he the one who wrote the memos indicating that the US could use torture and suspend the normal course of due process when it comes to the, so-called, "enemy combatants?" Whatever this is, it's not a win for civil rights advocates. It looks like Bush found the one person who's more conservative than Ashcroft, and woo, he happens to be a person of color.

  375. what? you can't rest your case. by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    That doesn't apply to Ashcroft. Ashcroft clearly thinks that everything is all peachy, that he has secured America from crime and terrorism. A nihilist would be a hippie-type who would want to tear down social organizations like marriage. He is the complete opposite of that.

    I understand that you're critical of him because he wants to tear down pornography and recreational drug usage, but you can't call him a nihilist because he doens't believe in those things.

    This is a silly argument.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  376. Re:what? you can't rest your case. by Rei · · Score: 1

    Wait, are you trying to say that people are only what they express in PR-type things like resignation letters? That their policies don't have anything to do with the reality of their policies, but only what they state in press-targetted documents?

    Ashcroft has worked to tear down every last vestige of a good number of long-standing legal traditions in the US, from the right to a fair trial, right to legal council, federal non-interference with state ballot issues, gun control, reproductive rights, separation of church and state, etc, all from an office which is not supposed to have the authority to do such things.

    --
    That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
  377. Case in point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tanks show up at an anti-war protest. Did I see this at CNN or MSNBC or Fox News? No. Boing Boing raised my awareness, pointing me to independent media. If I'm lucky, CNN might report on this days late, buried somewhere in their web site to be found by a drilled search. Hoo boy. That's if I'm lucky.

  378. Re:Good Riddance by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "You are comparing Ashcroft to Palmer and your point is, "hey it could have been worse!"? That is insane."

    Actually, to me the point of the parent was "It was worse" in response to someone saying that Ashcroft was the "worst ever."

    "The emergence of advanced technology and data centralization has a very real effect on how these laws affect our freedoms in more powerful ways then they did in the pre-World War I era."

    If anything, I'd say the internet makes it more difficult. Without sounding too much like a 1990's idealist, it's kind of difficult to burn the internet compared to books and pamphlets. Facists and self-styled communists were more than able to set up an oppressive police state with Twentieth Century (or even Nineteenth Century in some cases) technology. It all hinges on a citizen's willingness to turn somebody else in, because even today, in order to keep an eye on 50% of US citizens would require the FBI to employ the other 50%.

    "You don't live in fear of Mulah Omar leading a popular rebellion in which all of our property is seized and redistributed do you?"

    Nor did we truly live in fear of such a socialist revolution. The high-water mark for the Socialist Party in the US was 1920, when presidential candidate Eugene Debs got 3.5% of the popular vote. It went downhill from there.

    "Before I cease I will just say that I think if terrorists had these types of weapons they would attack Isreal, not NYC."

    If that were true, NYC wouldn't have been attacked to begin with. Bin Laden doesn't really care about the Palestinian cause, if for no other reason than because he rejects the concept of the nation-state outright. Arab nations and Arab interests only hate Israel slightly more than they hate each other. His plans call for a pan-Islamic superstate stretching across at least one hemisphere, and the US, currently the world's most powerful nation-state, stands as a natural obstacle to this goal and will draw fire from him in and of itself, separate from its support of Israel.

    Also note that the Arab nation-states are also bin Laden's natural enemy, since they're the first ones that need to be dissolved into his vision of a kingdom of Allah on earth. For the most part, the lip-service he pays to the Palestinian cause is because it's popular and is one of the few things most Arabs and Muslims can agree on. By the same token, Palestinian support of bin Laden is only because he attacks an ally of Israel, not because they want to live in the same country as Jordanians or Syrians.

  379. Re:Good Riddance by bhirsch · · Score: 1

    Either that or people are angry because they can no longer anonymously check-out communist literature from public libraries. It's not like the Democrats would ever infringe on our rights and disallow us from things like smoking in bars or driving cars without seatbelts.

  380. I understand what a representative means... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    You vote for the candidate that best represents you, and then THEY use their best judgement to decided how to vote on bills.

    But how on earth could my representative use "their best judgement" if they didn't read it and debate it, before voting on it and passing it into law?

    I know they didn't read it - they got it (out of thin air - one would think that was a big red flag), a several hundred page long document. I don't know about you, but it takes me a while to read anything 500+ pages long, but then again I am not a fast reader. They had gotten this thing, and somehow read it and passed it within a week or so - how could they have read it, let alone debated it?

    Simple - they didn't. For all the faults in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", he did honestly get on film several examples of congressmen flat out stating they didn't read it before they passed it.

    How, pray tell, does this represent me in any way? How can one make an informed descision about anything without reviewing it? The simple answer is, YOU CAN'T!

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:I understand what a representative means... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      How, pray tell, does this represent me in any way?

      Simple. You voted for this representative, faults and all.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  381. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, his mom is hot!

  382. Re:Will Bush appoint a more conservative replaceme by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    the term fascism has just as obscure a meaning as conservatism, if not more so

    Isn't an 'obscure' meaning a good thing in this context? I take that to mean narrowly defined, a quality in which terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are sorely lacking.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  383. Nerf Herder by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

    Cheney to get locked in his coffin as he sleeps after feeding on the blood of the living as I've been told he does on a daily basis.

    Shouldn't that be "turns into a pile of dust after accidently walking into direct sunlight"?

    Also, I think Speaker of the House is third on the succession list.
    I forget who's after that.
    And you might get arrested if you ask people about that.

    --
    I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
    If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
    Courage.
  384. But they aren't POWS by beakburke · · Score: 1

    The problem is that these "enemy combatants" fit neither the definitons of a civilian or a POW according to the GC. They are (basically) an unanticipated third party that does not (and should not) be treated as civilians, nor do they qualify for the protections afforded to POWs, since they don't meet the definition of a POW either. So how SHOULD they be treated? It's a real good question.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.