Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Animal Olympics Cruelty? | WILLisms.com | What Does A NoKo Nuclear Test Mean? »

Quote Of The Day

Sen. Patrick Leahy delivered a stemwinder today on the floor of the Senate, insisting on granting the Writ of Habeus Corpus to unlawful combatants.

James Lileks responded on the Hugh Hewitt show - "Every once in a while, a politician should ask himself, 'do I sound like I am concerned about protecting America from terrorists, or do I sound like I am more concerned about protecting terrorists from America?'"

P.S. Lileks, who is a virtual font of great quotes, also came up with this one the other day, regarding Ahmadinejad and nuclear weapons -"MAD only works when the other guy is SANE."

Posted by Ken McCracken · 28 September 2006 06:47 PM


He needs to put his thinking cap on! OR, did he lose it? What an idiot!

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at September 28, 2006 08:00 PM

So... it's more important for politicians to look like they care about protecting the American freedoms (even for those who don't deserve them) than it is to care about protecting the American freedoms?

Posted by: cuiusquemodi at September 29, 2006 12:29 AM


Pat Leahy is not protecting American freedoms however.

There is no precedent at law, in international, American, or English common law, that says that unlawful combatants are entitled to any rights whatsoever, let alone Habeus Corpus.

Leahy is so stupid, he doesn't even understand the law he is discussing.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at September 29, 2006 08:41 AM

MAD only works if both parties that have the nuclear devices would also be the launchers and the targets. MAD does not work if a warhead is passed off to a terrorist or non-nation state. So as soon as anyone does any testing, or if we can get a sample their nuclear material, we have to make sure we get the fingerprint of their nuclear material. Then inform the country that if the world should encounter any such nuclear explosions or material, the fingerprint will be used as the return address. Perhaps we should start the ADSS doctrine - Assured Destruction of Sender or Supplier.

Also, MAD would not have worked if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed. Can you imagine what would have happened to the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis were it not for those two examples?

Detainees - The Supremes were wrong to extend the GC to non-signatories. Now maybe this would or could not work, but why didn’t the Senate just remind the Supremes that it is the job of the Senate to ratify treaties, and the Senate has never applied treaties to non-signatories. We may treat other groups according to our moral convictions and national agreements, but you can not extend legal status to an irregular force that answers to no nation state. This just seems completely preposterous to me. In which war has our service members received better treatment because of the GC? Perhaps for a few German POW camps, and even fewer Japanese POW camps, but it sure didn’t help the guests of the Hanoi Hilton. Well maybe if you consider torture and horrendous treatment being better than just being shot on sight.

On the other hand, if you extend POW status to the residents of GITMO, we better start building a lot more facilities at GITMO because those folks now have a life sentence. There will be no surrender signing on some battleship to end this conflict.

Posted by: JG at September 29, 2006 09:57 AM

the only solution is for israel to disarm

Posted by: lester at September 29, 2006 03:18 PM

"the only solution is for israel to disarm"

Is that right before the 'Final Solution'- marching them into the sea at gunpoint??

If all US citizens disarm and commit suicide, that would certainly end the war too wouldn't it??

Posted by: Terry_Jim at September 30, 2006 01:03 AM


Posted by: Zsa Zsa at September 30, 2006 09:41 AM

I didn't say US should disarm. I said israel. why not have a nuclear free middle east?

Posted by: lester at September 30, 2006 01:39 PM