See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am, right4life said:

   You mean the current military. Changes are coming. Besides if it comes to that many of us will be on your side.

   yes, it’ll be the rainbow militia!! be careful when you take a shower…don’t drop the soap!!!

2. #102
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 am, sonofdy said:

   John Deaux, I live in a new subdivision so they are almost all for sale. Makes it quiet. Utah has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and some of the cheapest housing outside of the salt lake valley. The mormons aren’t bad to live with even if you have to explain to them that you are not going to join the collective. 500,000 here will get you a kick a$$ house, on five acres. 150,000 will get you a decent house on a smaller lot. Its actualy not a bad place to live if you don’t mind high desert. I know people here who haven’t locked thier doors since they bought thier house.

3. #103
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am, Socky said:

   So, Chairman O’s first act as president is on behalf of foreign terrorists, not the American people.

   Note the Dear One’s change of language. I didn’t even like ‘The War on Terror,’ but now the Lamb of Chicago is calling it ‘The Struggle Against Violence.’

   The word ‘Struggle’ is far more defensive, for one thing. One thinks of ‘War’ in terms of armies massed in purpose. A ’struggle’ is what happens when you try to get away from an assailant in a dark alley. ‘Terror’ was at least somewhat specific to Global Jihad/Islamic Fascism, but ‘Violence’ is nebulous. It implies that jihadists are not much different than South Central gangbangers.

   I guess we should all be hoping that smugness, timidity, and weakness will succeed, huh? Because criticizing the Dear One would just be wrong.

4. #104
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am, corkie said:

   On January 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am, FamilyMan said:

   Here is a question that has bothered me for a long time.
   If Obama did something really stupid, and ordered our military to action that was counter our understanding of freedom, would our young soldiers obey?

   Everyone in the military has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution dictates that they obey orders from the President unless such orders are in contradiction to the Constitution itself.

   So, the question becomes, at what point would military leaders aggressively claim that an order is in contradiction (such claim would need to be aggressive lest other leaders or subordinates disregard the claim)? My personal belief is that such order would need to be an extremely obvious contradiction in order for it to be universally disobeyed.

   Our military leaders are smart educated people. They’ve watched the Supreme Court unexpectedly morph the interpretation of the Constitution on many occasions. Absent a specific Supreme Court ruling (or the time to seek such a ruling), I think military leaders would be extremely concerned about the Court eventually ruling in favor of the President. After all, the Court has surprised them in the past. Therefore, I believe it would be highly unlikely that the military would systematically disobey a President’s order – even if such order was “counter to our understanding of freedom.”

   Again, just my opinion. Great topic and would love to discuss with others that want to weigh in.

5. #105
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am, Tagwife said:

   Its all Barney Diplomacy -I love you–you love me–we’re a happy family ad nauseum.
   One question, when these jihadist attack American again, how will the liberal media blame Bush? And they will

6. #106
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am, Roland said:

   If it happens in the first 8 months, they will point out 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush’s Presidency, so if you blame Obama, you have to blame Bush for 9/11. He will get a pass. We will all rally around. If you won’t, if you criticize Obama, you’re a traitor, or at least highly unpatriotic.

   Of course that is highly illogical, but when has mere lack of logic ever stopped nonsense from the media from being accepted by the sheep as the Truth?

   After 8 months it won’t matter. By then the entire Obama agenda will be firmly in place, and largely unremovable.

   We have become France, only with higher crime and no nuclear power. And it will get much worse. We would be much better off with Sarkozy.

7. #107
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am, right4life said:

   We have become France, only with higher crime and no nuclear power. And it will get much worse. We would be much better off with Sarkozy.

   don’t know about the higher crime…don’t park your car in Clichy-sous-Bois….

8. #108
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am, right4life said:

   According to figures from the French Interior Ministry, 1,147 cars went up in smoke on New Year’s Eve — a 30% rise on the 879 autos torched the same night in 2007. As often is the case, the worst-hit areas were the disadvantaged neighborhoods that sit beyond the suburban peripheries of most French cities. A total of 422 cars were burned in Paris-area housing projects, compared to 12 in the relatively well-policed Parisian intra muros. Other cities whose unemployment-racked, racially tense banlieues also lived up to their

   link

   but of course its just the UTES…no connection with ISLAM of course

   Nearly 43,000 cars were torched in France over the whole of 2007 — an average of almost 118 per day. Alliot-Marie stressed that the rise in the number of burnt cars on New Year’s Eve 2008 came at the end of a year in which the total number of autos set alight in the first 11 months had decreased 15%, compared with the same period in 2007. But while annual figures may fluctuate, they’ve generally swelled since the late 1970s, when French suburban youths first started burning cars as a way to get the attention of society, the media and politicians

9. #109
   On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am, lgm said:

   And if Bush had treated it as a law enforcement issue, which it is, and if the guy had had due process as he should, and if there was evidence against him, which there was, he would still be in custody.

10. #110
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm, wighttrasch said:

    whiskey tango foxtrot, lgm?!

11. #111
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm, sonofdy said:

    And if Bush had treated it as a law enforcement issue, which it is, and if the guy had had due process as he should, and if there was evidence against him, which there was, he would still be in custody.

    So war is a law enforcement issue to you?

    I am sorry put this post proved you to be an idiot. Stick to math.

12. #112
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm, b-cat said:

    Nearly 43,000 cars were torched in France over the whole of 2007 — an average of almost 118 per day.

    Had a friend that drove a Renault in the 80s. Burst into flame one day. Just sayin’.

13. #113
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm, Salt said:

    On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am, lgm said:

    And if Bush had treated it as a law enforcement issue, which it is,

    Please enlighten us as to how this is a law enforcement issue. Whose law?

    The mindset that the military is a police force is a dangerous one.

    and if the guy had had due process as he should, and if there was evidence against him, which there was, he would still be in custody.

    I can just imagine your vision of how soldiers would act on the battlefield given your requirements. As they’re busy getting all CSI on the scene to fulfill the liberal standard of “proper” evidence to prove terrorism, the terrorists would be launching RPGs and fire AKs in their direction.

    No, thank you.

    These are not US citizens who have broken the law in a civilized society. Some of these men in Gitmo are terrorists that will break any rule or law (natural or otherwise) to kill you for no better reason than not sharing their faith.

    It’s nice to pat ourselves on the back for being the more civilized, but these thoughts would not comfort you if these men were at your throat.

    The situation is a lot more complicated than your belief our civilian justice system. (One does wonder how such a system would find a jury of a terrorist’s peers)

    The left has been crying for the release of the prisoners at Gitmo and it seems they’re getting it. We shall soon see what the consequences of this will be. We’ve already seen the consequence of releasing just one of them here.

    So, if you must continue to plug your ears and chant loudly to block out this point, bear this in mind: In this case, the government did what the left wanted by releasing a prisoner, and that man has gone on to commit more terrorism.

    …and you’re here telling us that by doing what the left wanted, the government made an error because it didn’t play out as expected.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    It’s easy to criticize, lgm. How about a real and achievable solution rather than your pithy anti-Bush comments?

14. #114
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm, corkie said:

    On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am, lgm said:

    And if Bush had treated it as a law enforcement issue, which it is, and if the guy had had due process as he should, and if there was evidence against him, which there was, he would still be in custody.

    lgm, it’s pretty obvious that you only thought through this statement halfway.

15. #115
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    We are not to fear our military? Before or after the purge? Clinton elevated some real buffoons to senior rank. There was a time I did not fear the FBI nor the BATF&E but I sure do now. Would our military fire on us? Bull Run?

    Kent State? Well actually the Ohio National Guard did not intend to fire on the students so they did something really stupid: they fired over the crowds head and ended up killing four non protesters.

    Warning shots in an urban setting is always is always wrong.

16. #116
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm, right4life said:

    On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am, lgm said:
    And if Bush had treated it as a law enforcement issue, which it is, and if the guy had had due process as he should, and if there was evidence against him, which there was, he would still be in custody.

    what do you think of OBAMA MURDERING those poor muslims in Pakistan today??

    there was no trial, just a missile…those poor guys were just minding their own business when a predator missile strike MURDERS THEM!!

    he’s a war criminal!!

17. #117
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:54 pm, b-cat said:

    On January 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm, right4life said:

    And in Pakistan, too! An ally! It’s not like Pakistan attacked the World Trade Center! He is a war criminal! What about international law? What about the Geneva Convention? Probably hurt some kind of rare desert thorn bush, too! Untold Environmental Destruction! IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!

    Who’s next?

18. #118
    On January 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Untold Environmental Destruction!

    OMG!!!! The Turbaned Mountain Desert Rat is threatened! It needs to be put on the Endangered Species List and protected from harm!

    W H E R E I S G R E E N P E A C E ? ? ? ? E C A E P N E E R G S I E R E H W