Thursday, September 07, 2006

Radio Clown Mark Levin: "If We Get Hit Again, We Know Who To Blame"

Radio Clown Mark Levin, during today's radio rant, said that "if we get hit again, we know who to blame."

Anyone familiar with his diatribes won't be surprised that President Bush didn't make the list.

Who would Levin blame?

-- The ACLU
-- "Activist" judges (read: those that Levin doesn't agree with)
-- "Liberal" politicians, which to Levin includes the Republican he may hate most, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
-- The media.

It must be so comforting for Levin's listeners. To them, even though it came during President Bush's watch, President Clinton is solely to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks -- something they can now watch over and over in the upcoming ABC "docudrama" Path to 9/11, which even the film's producers admit includes made-up characters and dialogue, uses debunked right-wing claims, and strays badly from the 9/11 Commission Report. Even a former Bush (and Clinton) counterrorism official, Roger Cressey, called the docudrama "shameful."

Now, Levin gives them the go-ahead to blame favorite "liberal" targets should we be struck again. Have you ever heard something so misguided?

***

Why is Levin so angry ... this time? Because the Supreme Court in June struck down the Bush Administration's controversial system of military commissions, asserting that they violated U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions for dealing with prisoners of war.

That led Bush yesterday to say that 14 suspected terrorists would be moved to the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they would be subject to military tribunals, subject to Congress changing the law. The suspected terrorists include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the third most senior Al Qaeda leader, Ramzi Binalshibh, who was alleged to be a potential September 11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, an alleged go-between for Osama Bin Laden.

Yes folks, Levin is spitting mad because Bush was told by the Supreme Court that the President doesn't have absolute power, even during war-time, and that suspected terrorists have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Levin is certain that the 14 are not "suspected" terrorists, but actual terrorists. He may very well be correct. But, as the Supreme Court implied, neither Bush (nor Levin) can simply decree that as fact.

Levin mentioned McCain and Graham in particular because they are among the Republican senators who have drafted a measure that would give terror suspects the right to see classified evidence. The Bush Administration would instead allow a defense lawyer to view the material.

McCain has long been a target of Levin's. Why? In part because last year, McCain had the gall to legislate a formal ban on the cruel or inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. After resisting the measure for months, and at one point vowing to veto a Defense Department appropriations bill to get his way, President Bush flip-flopped, relenting to bipartisan support for McCain's bill.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It came on Bush's watch. Yeah that's right, it took all of 9 moths to plan out the worst attack on American soil. And you wonder why you libs aren't taken seriously.

Also the 4 that Mark has mentioned who would be at fault is so true. I shouldnt have to spell it out but you libs don't see the truth when it is right in front of you.

The ACLU wants the terrorist to have the same rights as American citizens. Please explain why.

Activist judges agree with ACLU lib thinking and they give them the rights they don't deserve.

Lib politicians stir the pot in order for the ACLU to get the ball rolling.

And the media loves to print our secrets.

And when it comes right down to it, you libs on this blog love it when our soldiers die and want us to lose this war. If you didn't, this wouldn't be a subject for debate.

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And one last thing. Please read the Geneva Conventions and let us Conservatives know where it states that terrorist get these rights.

8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still defending Slick Willie!

Is there anything you won't defend him on?

Shameless morally corrupt liberals!

10:01 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Who's defending Clinton? Democrats generally accept what the 9/11 Commission Report said -- that both Clinton and Bush made mistakes which contributed to the terrorist attacks.

Bush was indeed in office for only a few months when 9/11 occurred, but Clinton is blamed by Republicans. Clinton was in office for a few months when the first WTC bombing occurred, but you don't see Republicans blaming the first Bush. Hypcorisy?

Blind hatred of Clinton isn't a policy. Blind hatred of the ACLU and judges and the media isn't a policy.

Your man Levin represents the far-right fringe. Mainstream Republicans and certainly Democrats prefer the truth to some right-fringe fantasy.

10:51 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

I love these comments from "anonymous." Not even a fake name, just "anonymous."

Most of us over here believe there's fault and culpability in Clinton's presidency. Levin isn't talking about that. He's talking about the ACLU, which as far as I know, does not run any of the three branches of government, has no role in designing military policy or anti-terrorism measures, and does not pass legislation.

Can we get some more coherent trolls, please?

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Pinocia said...

I am so tired of people hitting on poor Bill Clinton. So Michael Moore made a movie about Bush. So, what. Lots of people went to see it. Now ABC has a movie about 9/11 that has things about Bill Clinton's in it. You dont see Clinton screaming about it nor his suppporters. I bet he thinks its just a joke. Whether its true or not, he will act as he has always acted, as much a gentleman as he is. I think ABC should show the movie. Why not? After all its just a movie, and we at least believe in the first amendment. Everyone has a right to speak and we always let the Bushies say something.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Levin is fun to listen too. He thinks he has a large radio audience, but consider the time he is allotted by WABC: 6-8 PM Who would be listening to his rhetoric at that time? I can imagine a handful of loyal right-wingers breathlessly waiting till the moment he starts his show with that silly opening, but who are they. All Levin utters are fearmongering about Moslems as terrorists, and the war in Iraq is necessary or we would have war here. Who would believe that? I do.

3:09 PM  
Anonymous BlooInBloo said...

Hey - be fair - he's The Decider, not The Anticipater!

4:09 PM  
Anonymous NewJeffCT said...

You got that right
Nobody could have anticipated flying airplanes into buildings...

Nobody could have anticipated the breach in the levees...

Nobody could have anticipated the utter incompetence of Team Bush...

4:09 PM  
Anonymous redqueen said...

Yeah, don't blame the party that's been too busy taking away your rights to bother to do anything that would actually enhance security in a sane and reasonable way.

No, don't blame them.

4:09 PM  
Anonymous The_Casual_Observer said...

Somebody ought to hit him again.

4:10 PM  
Anonymous ComerPerro said...

punch him, and say, "hey, don't blame me"

"I blame liberal activist judges, liberal politicans, and the media"

4:10 PM  
Anonymous zbdent said...

Wait a minute, if the Dems and Liberals are the terrorist 'appeasers', then why would they choose to attack the US under Dem/Liberal congress, if the Dems take control after November?

I mean, the Repukes have been saying that a terrorist strike WILL occur if a Dem is elected President or if the Dems take charge ... but then they also say that we're the ones who would cave in to the terrorists, giving in to their demands "to save America" from getting attacked again ...

So, why would the terrorists attack with the Dems in charge?

I say that we should illegally wiretap all the Repukes who claim that we will be attacked if a Dem wins ... seems like they have too good of a connection to the terrorists ...

4:11 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

pinocia, this isn't a free speech issue. it's a false advertising issue.

The issue about the movie is that the producers shouldn't say it's based on the 9/11 Commission Report, when in fact it isn't.

It's that simple. The producers want to give the movie credibility that a long list of critics say it doesn't deserve.

Show the movie, but call it a drama. Don't pretend it's the truth, because the 9/11 Commission Report says it isn't.

4:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares