Has anyone been following this at all? I sure missed it. I’m guessing this Cafferty fellow is not a big fan of President Bush, no?
Found by Marc Perkel
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I recall hearing about it, what, six weeks ago? It was yet another of those bills that were crafted 100% by Rs, built to prevent any debate or discussion, and designed so that any dissenter would be labeled as a cut-n-run liberal.
Fortunately, we ran the bums who passed this out of town. I wonder if it’s too late to kill this off, or if there’s a provision preventing that, too. Seems like giving onesself retroactive immunity would be pretty hard to justify in court.
Bush better find himself a Saddam like hole to hide in after his term is done. Dems are playing nice with him now but if they do get presidential power in 08 I wouldn’t be surprised to see all the major players get some punishment. And for the most part deservatly slow.
You don’t take advantage of fear to push your own agenda.
I’d like to know how this got past the supposedly liberal big media so easily.
To some extent, Jack Cafferty is part of Big Media. He’s not a Liberal by any stretch. So what. His conscience still works.
This is from one of his segments at CNN. He also does a Sunday market watch kind of show.
The neocon takeover of the Republikan Party is apparently what fired him up in recent months. Along with the Iraq War. Believe me — he didn’t used to be such a crank!
Jack Cafferty sold out a long time ago.
Sold out to who? CNN?? Har.
Jack Cafferty is John Dvorak x 10 when it comes to being a curmudgeon
I love his perspective. He doesn’t like Bush but then again he is really intolerant of government stupidly in general.
I wish I got to see more of him on CNN but since they moved him off the morning show and put him as a footnote on Blitzes show I haven’t caught all of his stuff.
Wow, this is big news. Will this also be on Fox News or in Bill Reilly’s “No Spin Zone” at some point?
I have to assume the John Kerry insult of the military topic on Fox News should get kinda stale by next June, right? Oh, they might have to let this one go 🙁
I heard Alex Jones ranting about this many weeks ago, His show is extreme and fringy and hard to listen to at times, but he is more on top of this than ANY so called maistream news organization.
http://www.infowars.com
Warning: Not for everyone.
#2 – “You don’t take advantage of fear to push your own agenda.”
Really? What then would you call “Farenheit 911” or “An Inconvienent Truth”?
If you want the truth, listen to Lou Dobbs. Can you handle the truth?
Cafferty was brought in to try to out-O’Reilly the competition. Didn’t work, so now he’s reduced to this shit.
As for the story, I wonder if it isn’t lame duck fodder and nothing more?
James, this bill was passed several weeks ago.
I do not remember the site, it has been some months ago, (CNN ?) however, there was a site that was screaming about the Military Commissions Act and how it was going to enable Bushie and friends avoid being prosecuted as war criminals. I went to the site and read the actual language of this “Act”. Best I remember, it has language that states not even the Supreme Court can strike the “ACT” down nor prosecute anyone for previous actions deemed by the “ACT” to be herby declared legal. I beleived then and now it is so blatantly non-constitutional that I cannot fathom how not only the media but, every F * * KING IDIOT IN BOTH HOUSES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS let this rat infested piece of horrendous BULLSH!T go through without a major protest ???? I wasn’t a registered Independent until that moment….in the interim…I wait..and hope.
Hmmmm… If this is true, then that would be a bad thing.
This is definitely one area where I think Bush and Congress went off the deep end. I actually read the text of the bill. Not only does it protect his administration from prosecution, it allows the government to name anyone an enemy combatant without any hearing or trial. If there is a hearing (the military is not obligated to conduct a hearing), the Supreme Court is barred from ruling on the results of hearing. So, in essence, the government could name someone a terrorist, scoop them off to Guantanamo never to be heard from again and there is no legal action, as far as I can tell, that can be taken. The military is not even obligated to provide the person legal council or to see legal council. It is like a flashback to 1770.
I’m with John on this one in that I am flabbergasted that any Republican or Democrat voted for this thing. When was the last time you ever heard of a bill being passed that specifically indemnified the people drafting and/or signing the bill?
17. I am glad this is FINALLY getting some attention. I looked at how the Dems and Reps voted on this and used it to gauge how I voted for them, So I pretty much voted out all incumbents. Here is a list of the offenders.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-259
The Mark Foley scandal came out at that time and the media was all over that as you know. One word – misdirection.