Right wing debate tactics

This post is in response to a typical right-wing tactic of changing the subject while debating a specific point while commenting on an article about Ann Beeson of the ACLU winning the decision on the illegal NSA Spying program. Click the link above for the article in question.

---------------

Mr. White - don't change the subject - the subject is the court decision that declared GWB's actions illegal.

Bulletin to all liberals: This is a typical right wing debate tactic - when faced with facts and the inevitability of losing the argument because their position is bankrupt they change the subject and resort to name calling accusing anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow self-serving POV of being unpatriotic and wanting to tear down the administration. It’s no more than playground bully tactics – don’t let it scare you or divert you from the point being discussed.

Mr. White - As I said no amount of wishing, washing or prevarication and obfuscation by the right wing is going to change the fact that a distinguished jurist has declared the NSA spying program illegal.

So the question here is did GWB break the law? So far the answer is; absolutely, unequivocally … YES. What does the Constitution say about lawbreaking presidents? We all know the answer to that. Let's see if, after the case winds up in the Supreme Court and they rule the program illegal, Congress has the will to enforce the Constitution.

One point I will grant - you are correct in saying America proper has not been attacked since 9/11. Your grasp of the obvious is truly astounding. However, our new enemies (courtesy of the bungling boobs running this government) have managed thus far to kill, wound and maim 23,000 Americans not to mention 45,000 Iraqis and hundreds of thousands that we’ve helped to kill and maim.

This is an idea, a concept? We are better off? I'd say we are pretty well screwed and substantially worse off due to the incomprehensible policy of attacking Iraq because of 9/11. To quote a famous "liberal" (not!) Richard Clarke it was "like attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor."

This is foreign policy dilettantism at its worst... shoving democracy down someone's throat at gunpoint is a very difficult thing to do. It takes magnitudes more intelligence and will than the present group of bungling neo-cons has. Expecting that such a wimpy effort as 130,000 soldiers would do the job is faith based foreign policy. If the Bushites and neo-cons really wanted to get the job done right they would have listened to Colin Powell and committed at least a half million soldiers to the effort. Then they may have had a chance. But the bungling neo-cons couldn't muster the will. Now you want to do the same in Iran? You are truly deluded.