Presidential politics

[CarneVaca]

Howart Kurtz, who doesn't do much for me usually (can you spell conflict of interest?) shows some real insght here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7661-2003Dec17.html

In essence, he says some of the Democratic nomination candidates are now pouncing on Dean even though, with the exception of Lieberman, they had been attacking Bush for Iraq. This is particularly the case with Kerry and Gephardt, neither of which will ever become president now matter how many times they change their weasly positions.

Truly, the best person for the job is Dennis Kucinich, but he ain't got a chance. So Dean it is for me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Howart Kurtz, who doesn't do much for me usually (can you spell conflict of interest?) shows some real insght here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7661-2003Dec17.html

In essence, he says some of the Democratic nomination candidates are now pouncing on Dean even though, with the exception of Lieberman, they had been attacking Bush for Iraq. This is particularly the case with Kerry and Gephardt, neither of which will ever become president now matter how many times they change their weasly positions.

Truly, the best person for the job is Dennis Kucinich, but he ain't got a chance. So Dean it is for me.

:laugh: all politicians change their positions :laugh:

We shall see after the primaries in the next four or five months. But, I agree Dean certainly has the best shot of getting the nomination.

:cool:

[CarneVaca]

The problem is these spineless idiots are now handing Bush fodder to attack Dean in the general election. Will these morons never learn? I mean, after all, it is unlikely Willie Horton would have become a big issue in the Dukakis/Bush campaign had Al Gore not brought it up during the nomination fight. And in typical Gore fashion, he of course didn't have his facts straight.

Idiots!

[dissention]

I love Kucinich, but he'll never make it. Never.

My dream would be Braun and Kerry as running mates, but I'm just a silly dreamer.

I can't even stand to look at Dean, but if it comes to down to him and Bush, of course I'm going to vote for Dean. Anything is better than Shrub. The Republicans are just salivating at the thought that Dean will get the nomination because they'll crucify him. Like we talked about before, chances are that they know what's in his sealed records and they'll use it against him. They'll use his flip-flopping on Iraq against him, they'll use the fact that he turned his state into a tax shelter for Enron and Ken Lay, and they'll use his history of changing his mind against him (for example, the death penalty). He doesn't stand a chance.

I'm really hoping that Braun continues to do tours of high schools so that she can try to get the teens (of age) to the polls. She's had great success so far and could get a lot of votes if she keeps it up. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Howart Kurtz, who doesn't do much for me usually (can you spell conflict of interest?) shows some real insght here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7661-2003Dec17.html

In essence, he says some of the Democratic nomination candidates are now pouncing on Dean even though, with the exception of Lieberman, they had been attacking Bush for Iraq. This is particularly the case with Kerry and Gephardt, neither of which will ever become president now matter how many times they change their weasly positions.

Truly, the best person for the job is Dennis Kucinich, but he ain't got a chance. So Dean it is for me.

Dean changed his position on the war. I posted the article for you in The Reagans thread. I like Kucinich as well, who changed his stance on a woman's right to choose about a year ago.:)
I agreed with a lot of points in the article. I think the Republicans have already figured out what they're going to use against Dean. IMO, he's not the man for the job.

[dissention]

Hey, Goldie--

Did you see last nights episode of Whoopi? The Arab (*ahem* Persian) handyman ripped into Bush. :laugh:

"I want to tell you an Iranian fable...about a man named George Dubya Bush...

Once upon a time, Georgie took a rich country and he plunged it into debt...He couldn't even pronounce the word "terrorists." He called them tooooourists. And when Georgie couldn't find the weapons of mass destrustion, did he crawl under the covers in his cowboy pajamas and cry? NO! What did he do? He got up and...he put on a suit and...he faced the world like he knew what the HELL he was talking about!!!"

:laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Dean changed his position on the war. I posted the article for you in The Reagans thread.

No way am I going to go through that monster of a thread. Do you have the link otherwise?

[gldstwmn]

No I missed Whoopi. Sounds great though. Shrub called Saddam a "raperum" (rapist?) in his speech after the capture.:laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No I missed Whoopi. Sounds great though. Shrub called Saddam a "raperum" (rapist?) in his speech after the capture.:laugh:

I know, I taped it! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://www.dubyaspeak.com is the BEST source for Bush-isms!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
No way am I going to go through that monster of a thread. Do you have the link otherwise?

Sorry, it was on the Kerry/O'Reilly thread:

From John Kerry's website:

Kerry rips Dean for `flip-flop' on Iraq


December 12, 2003

Boston Herald
by Andrew Miga

Manchester, NH -

Charging there are ``several Howard Deans,'' Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday tore into the high-flying Democratic presidential front-runner for flip-flopping on the Iraq war to score political points.

By ``It seems to me like he tried to have it both ways,'' said Kerry. ``If you don't have to vote, you can run around and say a lot of things.''

Kerry (D-Mass.) cited Dean's support last fall for a congressional resolution similar to the one Kerry and three of his rivals voted for, giving President Bush war authority.

Kerry charged that Dean, who tapped a deep well of anti-war sentiment among party liberals to propel his candidacy to the front of the Democratic pack, straddled and misled voters.

``Howard Dean exercised the exact same judgment that the rest of us exercised,'' Kerry said. ``I'm saying there are several Howard Deans.''

But Dean, campaigning in Concord, brushed off Kerry's criticism. ``The difference is, I came out very early against the war,'' said Dean.

Kerry cited Dean's support of an alternative resolution, co-authored by Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), requiring Bush to win United Nations approval for enforcing weapons checks in Iraq before going to war.

Bush also would have had to report to Congress by sending a letter before waging war. Dean insisted the Biden-Lugar measure could have prevented the war in Iraq. He said the resolution would have forced Bush to engage in more diplomacy - and to prove his claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

``Had the president done that, we would not have gone to war, because then he would have been forced to certify with his word . . . all the claims he made that were not true,'' said Dean.

Kerry, who has made similar charges in the past, said he was taking fresh aim at Dean because Al Gore had cited the former Vermont governor's anti-war views as the prime reason for endorsing him.

``If Al Gore is endorsing the Howard Dean who made the judgment at the same time as the rest of us, then he is endorsing the wrong Howard Dean,'' Kerry charged.

U. S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), meanwhile, fired a stinging shot at Bush for failing to honor America's fallen soldiers in Iraq.

``Bush found the time to go to 34 fund-raisers since the war,'' Gephardt told a crowd in Berlin, N. H., ``but has not found time to go to one funeral.''

GOP officials have said the president wants to keep politics out of memorial services, and expresses his sympathy privately.

Kerry, meanwhile, insisted he would not be deterred if he fails to win New Hampshire, which most party insiders consider as a must-win contest for him.

``I'm running a national campaign and I intend to take my campaign nationally,'' he said

[dissention]

Here are some FAB ones:

Today, the unemployment rate dropped, as you may know, from 6 percent to 5.9 percent.
-- At that rate we'll be at full employment in two months, Halethorpe, Maryland, Dec. 5, 2003

As we hunt down the terrorists, we're committed to spending -- spreading freedom in all parts of the world, including the Middle East.
-- I think he got it right prior to correcting himself, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1, 2003

By making the right choices, we can make the right choice for our future.
-- Flawless logic, Dallas, Texas, Jul. 18, 2003

I think war is a dangerous place.
-- Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003

If America goes to sleep, the rest of the world is in trouble. If we blink, the rest of the world will close their eyes. So we're not blinking, and we're not going to sleep.
-- To summarize, Blinking: bad, Sleeping: bad, Los Angeles, California, Apr. 29, 2002

I wanna remind you all that I -- in, in order -- what -- in order to fight and win the war it requires a expenditure of money -- uhh, uhh -- that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well paid, well trained, well equipped.
-- It's official... Dubya doesn't know he's still using the wrong word, and his advisers are afraid to tell him, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

Our productivity is high. I hope some of it has to do -- I know some of it has to do, I hope you understand some of it has to do with the fact that the role of government can help create growth.
-- Nicely put, Halethorpe, Maryland, Dec. 5, 2003

AND THE BEST ONE IN A LONG WHILE...

See, when a person has more money in their pocket, they're likely to come to Home Depot.
-- I think someone had better check the corporate campaign contributions list, Halethorpe, Maryland, Dec. 5, 2003

[gldstwmn]

BTW, Carne, if you haven't already, watch Howard Dean in an un-soundbite forum like C-Span. It ain't pretty.

[CarneVaca]

Dissention, I hate to tell you this, but Kerry ain't going to make it. Perhaps if he hadn't waffled so much, he might have had a chance. Besides, he's viewed as a Massachusets liberal, and we know how hard it has become to overcome that in presidential politics.

Dean wouldn't be my favorite, but I would pick him over Kerry without any soul-searching whatsoever. The reason Dean has picked up so much support is that he is perceived as a guy who says what he thinks. That's going to be very important in this election, considering the constant lying of the current administration.

Kerry should have had the courage to vote against the bill giving Bush carte blanche to do what he wanted in Iraq. Here's a decorated Vietnam Veteran who could have made a difference. The deaths of thousands in this needless war are on his head too.

See, I don't even understand his position. He's telling us Bush is wrong while voting for the war, then jumping on the bandwagon when Saddam is caught, which you agree is of little significance. But, wait, didn't he vote for that preposterous $87 billion package too? See why I'm confused about him?

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Dissention, I hate to tell you this, but Kerry ain't going to make it. Perhaps if he hadn't waffled so much, he might have had a chance. Besides, he's viewed as a Massachusets liberal, and we know how hard it has become to overcome that in presidential politics.

Dean wouldn't be my favorite, but I would pick him over Kerry without any soul-searching whatsoever. The reason Dean has picked up so much support is that he is perceived as a guy who says what he thinks. That's going to be very important in this election, considering the constant lying of the current administration.

Kerry should have had the courage to vote against the bill giving Bush carte blanche to do what he wanted in Iraq. Here's a decorated Vietnam Veteran who could have made a difference. The deaths of thousands in this needless war are on his head too.

See, I don't even understand his position. He's telling us Bush is wrong while voting for the war, then jumping on the bandwagon when Saddam is caught, which you agree is of little significance. But, wait, didn't he vote for that preposterous $87 billion package too? See why I'm confused about him?

Kerry's never going to make it because he was to busy dragging his feet...but one can hope. He was stupid to vote for the war (and I ripped him on it when I spoke with him last summer) and I suspect that it is costing him voters.

I understand why you're confused (I am as well) but I agree with him on many of his issues and platforms, whereas I don't with Dean. I don't think Dean really says what he thinks, I think he says what us far-left liberals want to hear, while making a fool out of himself in the process.

Kerry f*cked it up for himself early on and I'm just hoping he does something to fix it (even though that won't happen!).

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

Dean wouldn't be my favorite, but I would pick him over Kerry without any soul-searching whatsoever. The reason Dean has picked up so much support is that he is perceived as a guy who says what he thinks. That's going to be very important in this election, considering the constant lying of the current administration.



It's also his biggest liability. He shoots from the hip. It's more than a little scary.

[dissention]

And here's one for the books...

The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain aggression and evil by force.
-- I hope that isn't what he meant to say, London, England, Nov. 19, 2003

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sorry, it was on the Kerry/O'Reilly thread:

From John Kerry's website:

Kerry rips Dean for `flip-flop' on Iraq...

Whew... wait a minute! I'm supposed to change my opinion of Dean because Kerry, very disingenuously, charges him with flip-flopping? Dean says we need to go to the UN before taking action and then when Bush doesn't, Dean opposes the war, and that's supposed to be flip-flopping!?

John Kerry is acting a lot like Al Gore did when he ran in primaries. By that, I mean, he's a lying a little, nyet? He should formulate a consistent agenda for himself and shut up about an opponent who obviously is far more exciting to the voters than Cardboard-Cutup Kerry could ever hope to be.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Whew... wait a minute! I'm supposed to change my opinion of Dean because Kerry, very disingenuously, charges him with flip-flopping? Dean says we need to go to the UN before taking action and then when Bush doesn't, Dean opposes the war, and that's supposed to be flip-flopping!?

John Kerry is acting a lot like Al Gore did when he ran in primaries. By that, I mean, he's a lying a little, nyet? He should formulate a consistent agenda for himself and shut up about an opponent who obviously is far more exciting to the voters than Cardboard-Cutup Kerry could ever hope to be.

I'll bet you I could do a Lexis Nexis search right now and pull up all kinds of quotes from the Vermont papers refrencing Dean's stance on the war. Most people are under the impression that Dean was not for any war. I certainly don't expect you to change your opinion, I was just providing counterpoint for what you were saying.:)
I guess all the American people want out of a president is a little entertainment. At least that's what the polls say.

[CarneVaca]

I will not make the mistake of calling Dean a liberal. He really is nothing close. I have serious issues with some of his positions, particularly Israel and guns. But I give him cudos for what he has accomplished in this campaign already. What Lieberman and Kerry are going to accomplish with their loser attacks is to keep people at home on voting day. That's bad all around.

If Dean has backed other wars, and I am sure he has, it doesn't surprise me. But his comments about going to the UN are not necessarily inconsistent with taking an anti-war stance. I was in favor of going to the UN as well, in the full expectation that the Security Council would not have approved this Iraq adventure. But if it had, I would have still been against the war, though perhaps not quite as vehemently. But the real question is would Dean have still been against the war? We'll never know. However, I am glad he has chosen to take an anti-war stance.

[strandinthewind]

Here is an interesting commentary viewing the current Adminsitrations from a few angles.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092791/

Also, I do not view Kerry as flip flopping. I think he, like he said, recognized the need to remove SH, but never expected the Bush Administration to fu*& it up this badly. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

I guess I just don't understand the neeeeeeed to remove a two-bit dictator who has had no weapons to speak of since we stopped giving them to him. Meanwhile, there are far more dangerous mofos out there, some of whom have actually been involved in attacking us. Osama, anyone?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I guess I just don't understand the neeeeeeed to remove a two-bit dictator who has had no weapons to speak of since we stopped giving them to him. Meanwhile, there are far more dangerous mofos out there, some of whom have actually been involved in attacking us. Osama, anyone?

I think the WMD angle was sincere but was used more to leverage support, in the US, for the war. The "conflict" in Iraq was for reasons on a larger scale then just WMD or oil (ridiculous).

The right believes that by removing one of the more oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East and supplanting it with a democratic and free government accepted by the Iraqis will be a catalyst for religious, economic and political freedom for the surrounding areas. This is a long term strategy aimed at stabilizing the region.

I actually find this a refreshing policy, in the long run. Especially because everything else, including appeasement, hasn't worked over the last couple of decades.

Only time will tell if the Bush administration and the policy will be successful. Let's hope and pray.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I guess I just don't understand the neeeeeeed to remove a two-bit dictator who has had no weapons to speak of since we stopped giving them to him. Meanwhile, there are far more dangerous mofos out there, some of whom have actually been involved in attacking us. Osama, anyone?

I agree to an extent only SH was no "two-bit" dictator. He had attacked and tried to conquer a neighboring country. Also, I see all of the agruments for and against the exigency of our military action, but the bottom line is SH has no one to blame but himself for not complying with the UN's unanimous position for 11 years that SH had the burden to prove he no longer had these weapons. He got what he deserved. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people as well as our and the ally soldiers have paid a dear, dear price. This is why I think we should have ousted SH in 1991 or sooner than now. But, we did not. We played his game for far too long in my book.

[CarneVaca]

Rob and Jason, you're far more trusting than I am, it seems. I see an administration that lied, distorted intelligence reports, changed its articulated motive several times and defied the will of the rest of the world to embark on a terribly ill-advised adventure with a very tragic outcome. Do you really think Saddam is more dangerous than the Saudis? Weren't the Saudis giving Al Qaeda most of its funding? (and probably still are) Why don't we attack them. Seems to me they have proven far more dangerous to our security than the Iraqis. No, instead we allow the only non-military flight on Sept. 12 out of the US full of Bin Laden family members on their way home to Saudi Arabia. Then we immediately start building the case for attacking Iraq, despite lack of evidence Saddam had anything to do with the attacks. Even the CIA was against this adventure until the agency was pressured by administration to sanction it publicly.

And as far as levels of tyranny, Saddam was not even close to being among the worst ever. Concurrently with the Iraq situation, there were far worse dictators committing unspeakable attrocities in Africa. Where is the outrage there?

Rob, do you really think democracy is going to flourish in a place where it is imposed by outsiders? Please tell me when such an endeavor has succeeded elsewhere. A sovereign people has to want a democracy. So far what we've seen in Iraq creates very real doubts. What you have is several factions fighting for power. If one overpowers the others, do you think they will extend democracy to them?

We should have learned our lesson from Vietnam and the countless instances of meddling in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. When I think of the squandered chances for true democracies in Central and South America in favor of supporting ruthless dictators, it makes me sad and angry. Very angry.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Rob, do you really think democracy is going to flourish in a place where it is imposed by outsiders? Please tell me when such an endeavor has succeeded elsewhere. A sovereign people has to want a democracy. So far what we've seen in Iraq creates very real doubts. What you have is several factions fighting for power. If one overpowers the others, do you think they will extend democracy to them?

We should have learned our lesson from Vietnam and the countless instances of meddling in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. When I think of the squandered chances for true democracies in Central and South America in favor of supporting ruthless dictators, it makes me sad and angry. Very angry.

Well...who's to say if Democracy will work, it hasn't been tried yet over there. The Japanese government seems to have flourished under a US backed Democracy. They have retained their culture and independance and regained a level of prominence in the world. Yes, the situation is volatile right now. But don't forget...it's only been months since the "conflict" began and they just finally caught SH. Give it time. I don't think that the Bush administration has handled the post conflict situation well. But regardless of what we do, it will take years before the results are fully realized. Besides, it is better then continually appeasing these countries.

Vietnam was a terrible tragedy and a mistake in hindsight. And I agree with you, we have supported dictatorships in the past that turned out to be major mistakes. I guess you have to look at it in context of the time and situation. SOmetimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I just don't buy into this feeling that the US is the great evil in the world and that we are the cause of all the worlds problems. If you look at our history, we have generally acted for the good of mankind. Of course there have been mistakes and we aren't perfect. But people take our freedoms and country for granted. I think this is the greatest country in the world. If I didn't, I wouldn't live here.

Rob:cool:

[CarneVaca]

Rob, the US is a great country and Americans as a people are well-meaning folk. We tend to pick sh!tty leaders, though. Has this country done a lot of good? No doubt. But more often than not we have picked the wrong governments to back.

Japan and Iraq are very different situations. Let's not even compare them.

Hey, I hope you're right about the eventual outcome of this mess, but I'm pretty sure you're not. Time will tell indeed.

This whole Saddam thing is too much of a distraction, which I suspect is exactly what the Bushers had in mind in the first place. Look, today I have bigger concerns:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

So the chairman of the 9/11 commission thinks the attacks could have been prevented? Why am I not surprised? Why does the administration's effort to keep this report under wraps make so much sense to me? And remember what I said about that peculiar flight on Sept. 12 (maybe it was the 13th)? I'm not into conspiracy theories, but man, there's just too much that doesn't make sense.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Japan and Iraq are very different situations. Let's not even compare them.

Very true but Japan is an example of a US backed and implemented Democracy that worked.


Hey, I hope you're right about the eventual outcome of this mess, but I'm pretty sure you're not. Time will tell indeed.

This whole Saddam thing is too much of a distraction, which I suspect is exactly what the Bushers had in mind in the first place. Look, today I have bigger concerns:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

So the chairman of the 9/11 commission thinks the attacks could have been prevented? Why am I not surprised? Why does the administration's effort to keep this report under wraps make so much sense to me? And remember what I said about that peculiar flight on Sept. 12 (maybe it was the 13th)? I'm not into conspiracy theories, but man, there's just too much that doesn't make sense.

Yeah. They said the same thing about Pearl Harbor and there was a bunch of nonsense that FDR knew about the attack ahead of time. Unless I see unquestionable proof, I refuse to believe that Bush knew about it ahead of time. But I am sure Oliver Stone will make a movie about it. (Although, I did find JFK entertaining even though it was one big assumption.)

Anyway, if Clinton would have taken care of Bin Laden the first time around we probably wouldn't even be in the situation we're in.

Oh well...hopefully things will work out. In the meantime...I am anticipating the Mirage Tour DVD I got on eBay for a little escapism! ;)

Rob:cool:

[CarneVaca]

I'm not suggesting Bush knew anything in advance. I'm simply wondering out loud about certain things. When you insist on secrecy, speculation tends to get out of hand, so it would behoove this administration to at least get that right. I'll tell you this: I wouldn't want the widows of the 9/11 victims pissed at me, but Bush & Co. don't seem to mind.

Mirage on DVD would be cool. I hope they expand it from the video, though.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Rob, the US is a great country and Americans as a people are well-meaning folk. We tend to pick sh!tty leaders, though. Has this country done a lot of good? No doubt. But more often than not we have picked the wrong governments to back.

Japan and Iraq are very different situations. Let's not even compare them.

Hey, I hope you're right about the eventual outcome of this mess, but I'm pretty sure you're not. Time will tell indeed.

This whole Saddam thing is too much of a distraction, which I suspect is exactly what the Bushers had in mind in the first place. Look, today I have bigger concerns:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

So the chairman of the 9/11 commission thinks the attacks could have been prevented? Why am I not surprised? Why does the administration's effort to keep this report under wraps make so much sense to me? And remember what I said about that peculiar flight on Sept. 12 (maybe it was the 13th)? I'm not into conspiracy theories, but man, there's just too much that doesn't make sense.

Yeah, like why Bush sat there for 20 minutes after the second plane hit and continued to read a goat story to children in an elementary school while Ari Fleischer held up a sign in the back of the room that said "Don't say anything yet." He should have left immediately. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah, like why Bush sat there for 20 minutes after the second plane hit and continued to read a goat story to children in an elementary school while Ari Fleischer held up a sign in the back of the room that said "Don't say anything yet." He should have left immediately. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps he didn't want to frighten the kids?

How would that have made any difference to the situation?

Just curious...

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

LOL - Carne - you know you and I really are just about on the same page. I am, however, far more trusting, admittedly to my detriment most of the time. :laugh:

I think we should have gone after (militarily or otherwise) Saudi Arabia when we went after Afganistan on 9/12/01. I think the Saudis are far more culpable than their lap dogs the Bush family let us believe.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah, like why Bush sat there for 20 minutes after the second plane hit and continued to read a goat story to children in an elementary school while Ari Fleischer held up a sign in the back of the room that said "Don't say anything yet." He should have left immediately. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

In his defense, not all of the facts were immediately known. I mean we all thought a small commuter plane had accidently hit the first building. That is what the news first reported for about 10 or 15 minutes, during which it bacame more apparent it was a larger jet. It was only when the second plane hit that it became apparent. The terrorists did not announce they were going to do this. So, I give W some slack because their was no clear indication it was a terrorist attack in the frirst 20 minutes.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Perhaps he didn't want to frighten the kids?

How would that have made any difference to the situation?

Just curious...

Rob:cool:

He should have left immediately.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
In his defense, not all of the facts were immediately known. I mean we all thought a small commuter plane had accidently hit the first building. That is what the news first reported for about 10 or 15 minutes. It was only when the second plane hit that it became apparent. The terrorists did not announce they were going to do this. So, I give W some slack because their was no clear indication it was a terrorist attack in the frirst 20 minutes.

He stayed for 20 or so minutes after the second plane. He should have left immediately.
Edited to add: I could see if it was a plane striking some building but The World Trade Center? With the intelligence briefings that he'd had and the history of that building being a target, some alarm bells should have been going off in his head. I'll never forget the look on his face. He looked scared sh*tless, IMO and at a loss as to what to do. It's one of the reasons he's unfit to lead this country, IMO. Why shouldn't some of the responsibility rest on his shoulders? He's the man at the top. He wanted the job, he should accept the responsibility.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He stayed for 20 or so minutes after the second plane. He should have left immediately.

Oops, my bad - but he was reading a story about Stevie - right :cool:

Here is a cool article on what was known beforehand. Apparently Pres. Clinton will perhaps give live testimony.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106086,00.html

[gldstwmn]

Thanks for the link.:) :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Thanks for the link.:) :wavey:

You do know that I love directing you to "Fox" news :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Strand, I hate to tell ya, but that was lifted from a CBS report.
;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Strand, I hate to tell ya, but that was lifted from a CBS report.
;)

You mean Fox would do something like that? :cool: As we say inthe South, "Bless their hearts!" :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
You do know that I love directing you to "Fox" news :cool:

You're so baaaaaad. Goat story. I just got it. LMAO. BTW, I just got the Brazilian Mirage dvd today and watched the drunken panty shot list/spin in your honor. It's still quite breathtaking. The subtitles are a hoot.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You're so baaaaaad. Goat story. I just got it. LMAO. BTW, I just got the Brazilian Mirage dvd today and watched the drunken panty shot list/spin in your honor. It's still quite breathtaking. The subtitles are a hoot.

My annual drunken Holiday brawl is this weekend. I may list/spin and reveal underwear as well. It almost did and would have happened last year except one large, Janet Reno looking sensible gal with bad hair put an end to the (OK MY!! :laugh: ) drunken Stevie imitations :mad: Apparently, La Reno was drunk (on beer of course - at least she drank it out of the bottle :cool: ), had had a crush on La Nicks for years, and was already in a grumpy mood because she had been cut off from the dwindling supply of spinach cheese dip she had been grazing on for hours :cool: She will be there this year as she is a dear friend - but having practiced EFO in the mirror and around the house for the last few months - I am ready for her :eek:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
My annual drunken Holiday brawl is this weekend. I may list/spin and reveal underwear as well. It almost did and would have happened last year except one large, Janet Reno looking sensible gal with bad hair put an end to the (OK MY!! :laugh: ) drunken Stevie imitations :mad: Apparently, La Reno was drunk (on beer of course - at least she drank it out of the bottle :cool: ), had had a crush on La Nicks for years, and was already in a grumpy mood because she had been cut off from the dwindling supply of spinach cheese dip she had been grazing on for hours :cool: She will be there this year as she is a dear friend - but having practiced EFO in the mirror and around the house for the last few months - I am ready for her :eek:

Video please?:laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You're so baaaaaad. Goat story. I just got it. LMAO. BTW, I just got the Brazilian Mirage dvd today and watched the drunken panty shot list/spin in your honor. It's still quite breathtaking. The subtitles are a hoot.

I ordered the same DVD but it hasn't arrived yet. How's the quality?

Drunken panty shot????????:D

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
I ordered the same DVD but it hasn't arrived yet. How's the quality?

Drunken panty shot????????:D

The quality is better than the old videotape that I have. It's not bad. The incident in question is from SOTM.:)

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not suggesting Bush knew anything in advance.

Well, I am. ;)

Bush claims that it's an "absurd insinuation," but it certainly isn't; his administration had prior knowledge of an attack. The real kicker, though, is that they admitted it months ago!!! White House officials confirmed that they had warnings that Osama and his and his network were thinking up a scheme to hijack American planes and that it had been stated in numerous intelligence reports. Condie Rice received an "analytic report" with that information on August 6, 2001 (at Bush's home in Crawford!!), more than a month before the attacks. The same report said talked about Osama's methods of operation AND included mentions of upcoming hijackings. That report matched up with another intelligence report that Osama was trying to target the US and use US planes!

Before anyone says that it was just a threat and not a warning of 9/11, ponder this: all White House officials, cabinet members, and even Ashcroft, stopped flying in commercial aircrafts and leased private planes for the duration.

I'm sure Bush and his officials didn't know it would happen on Septemeber 11th, but they knew something would go down.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The quality is better than the old videotape that I have. It's not bad. The incident in question is from SOTM.:)

Hooray - I get to tell it again :laugh:

At the end of the singing part of SOTOM, an obviously hyped up if not coked out of her head La Nicks gives a physically shaking exorcism while belting out

"IIIIIIIIIIIWWWWWWOOOOOOONNNNNNN""TTTTTBBBBBEEEEYYYYYYYYOOUUURRRRRSSSSSIIIISSSSTTTTERRRRRNNNNNOOOOTTTTYYYYOOUUURRRRSSSIIIISSSSTTTTAAAD FJDOFHPOIDHGLNDGPOUIH:GNIOHGODJ{ISDHGO"IDHGIOHDG . . . BBBLLLLLAAAAHHHHHEEEEEHHHHHG:OIFDHG{SHG"OISHDGIOJSGOPIJG}OPIJFDPIOGJ{IPSDGIOSDHGIOHDSG "

She then spins to the side while listing and gives a final panty revealing spin. I LOVE her!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Perhaps he didn't want to frighten the kids?

How would that have made any difference to the situation?

Just curious...

Rob:cool:

Oh, gimme a break!

He didn't want to frighten the kids??? When the WTC is attacked by two planes and you've had prior knowledge of a planned attack, you just sit there and read a book?! No, you excuse yourself from their company and leave immediately to see what the HELL is going on.

It's not a matter of making any difference, it's a matter of doing your job and seeing what's happening. Not reading the Three Billy Goats Gruff or some such shit while people are dying and NYC is under attack.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Before anyone says that it was just a threat and not a warning of 9/11, ponder this: all White House officials, cabinet members, and even Ashcroft, stopped flying in commercial aircrafts and leased private planes for the duration.

I hear ya. But, I think for the last 20 or so years that has been the case for most of the people in these positions. I know for a fact Janet Reno did not fly commercial or at least she did not at least once. Having said that, it is possible the govt. has been acting on this information for the last 20 years.

I mean the govt. has rewired all of its aircraft to remove a safety threat, but has not mandated the commercial avaiation industry do so until like 2010. :mad:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Hooray - I get to tell it again :laugh:

At the end of the singing part of SOTOM, an obviously hyped up if not coked out of her head La Nicks gives a physically shaking exorcism while belting out

"IIIIIIIIIIIWWWWWWOOOOOOONNNNNNN""TTTTTBBBBBEEEEYYYYYYYYOOUUURRRRRSSSSSIIIISSSSTTTTERRRRRNNNNNOOOOTTTTYYYYOOUUURRRRSSSIIIISSSSTTTTAAAD FJDOFHPOIDHGLNDGPOUIH:GNIOHGODJ{ISDHGO"IDHGIOHDG . . . BBBLLLLLAAAAHHHHHEEEEEHHHHHG:OIFDHG{SHG"OISHDGIOJSGOPIJG}OPIJFDPIOGJ{IPSDGIOSDHGIOHDSG "

She then spins to the side while listing and gives a final panty revealing spin. I LOVE her!!!!

I so love her! It's awesome!:)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I hear ya. But, I think for the last 20 or so years that has been the case for most of the people in these positions. I know for a fact Janet Reno did not fly commercial or at least she did not at least once. Having said that, it is possible the govt. has been acting on this information for the last 20 years.

It hasn't been the case for most of the people in these positions, doll. They've all flown commercial many, many times. Don't you remember all of the stories in late July/early August of 2001 about Ashcroft abruptly switching from commercial to private? I do. And, for some reason, reports of US plane hijackings were circulating around that time...

Too much of a conincidence for me to believe that it had nothing to do with those reports.

[strandinthewind]

Also, it is easy for us to judge in hindsight what W should have done in that 30 minutes. I do not know White House security policy. For all I and we knowm, it is very possible that the White House Security Team instructed him to stay where he was until they figured out what to do. After all, other planes in other locations could be hijacked and headed to who knows where. In fact, two more were. So, I just do not get the flack you all are giving him for this as if you know all of the facts surrounding that event. Moreover, if he had left where would he have gone? Again, we are talking about a very short time frame. I mean I get the gist of the rest of the slams, but IMO this is just nitpicking. But, to each their own.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
It hasn't been the case for most of the people in these positions, doll. They've all flown commercial many, many times. Don't you remember all of the stories in late July/early August of 2001 about Ashcroft abruptly switching from commercial to private? I do. And, for some reason, reports of US plane hijackings were circulating around that time...

Too much of a conincidence for me to believe that it had nothing to do with those reports.

I know Reno flew private planes - perhaps not exclusively. It could be because she rec. many many threats as she was not very well liked after Waco. As for the rest who knows. I agree though it is suspicious. See, this is another reason I need that GS-V :cool:

Here is a sight bashing W for not leaving the school and accusing him of treason - which is a little over the top in my book.

http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/Booker/

[gldstwmn]

So the Bush Administration had no contingency plan should the United States be attacked while he was at a public speaking event? You would most certainly hope they did.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
So, I just do not get the flack you all are giving him for this as if you know all of the facts surrounding that event. Moreover, if he had left where would he have gone? Again, we are talking about a very short time frame. I mean I get the gist of the rest of the slams, but IMO this is just nitpicking. But, to each their own.

Don't get testy now. :D

I don't get all of the support he's getting when it's obvious he's just a clueless piece of trash that cleans up well and looks decent in a suit. It is not nit-picking, it's questioning why he sat there like a bump on a log when all of this went down. Given all of his shortcomings and screw-ups, why should we believe anything that cmoes out of his mouth about 9/11? After all, he'll just use it to further his popularity. The man doesn't know fact from fiction and when he tries to set things "straight," he shoots himself in the foot by speaking another language, spewing lies, and trying to endear himself as a good ole' country bumpkin.

:rolleyes:

You don't have as much disdain for him as some of us do, that's fine. But don't call legitimate questions that we have "nit-picking." Maybe to you it is, but not to me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So the Bush Administration had no contingency plan should the United States be attacked while he was at a public speaking event? You would most certainly hope they did.

I am sure they do. In fact, soon thereafter they executed one. What I am saying is they may have not known which one to execute in that brief time period when nothing was really known about how many more planes there were that were on their way to hurt someone. Also, for all I know, the first part of the plan could be stay where you are until we figure out what to do. Sounds not to far fetched to me. Again, we can only guess.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, it is easy for us to judge in hindsight what W should have done in that 30 minutes.

It's also easy for some to believe that he is an innocent in all of this because they don't want to believe that such a weasel is in office.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Don't get testy now. :D

Ouch!!!! :laugh:

Sorry - did not mean it that way :(

But, I still say that given all of the other huge things he has done that I disagree with, this is a small point esp. considering I assume none of us know the acutal security protocol in this situation.

Originally posted by dissention
. . . . and trying to endear himself as a good ole' country bumpkin.

:rolleyes:

Interestingly, the American public likes this personage. Bill Clinton did the same thing and people just loved it. Interestingly, Reagan and Bush I did not. They held themselves higher than that. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am sure they do. In fact, soon thereafter they executed one. What I am saying is they may have not known which one to execute in that brief time period when nothing was really known about how many more planes there were that were on their way to hurt someone. Also, for all I know, the first part of the plan could be stay where you are until we figure out what to do. Sounds not to far fetched to me. Again, we can only guess.

Who's "we"? HE is the man. HE is the one who's supposed to be calling the shots. WE should have had our jets scrambled much faster and a lot of this could have been adverted. If that was their contingency plan, then it sucked.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, the American public likes this personage. Bill Clinton did the same thing and people just loved it. Interestingly, Reagan and Bush I did not. They held themselves higher than that. :cool:

Clinton never laid the schtick on that thick and even if he did, he at least knew what the hell he was talking about and doing.

I suspect that Shrub uses the country boy persona to cover up his awful linguistic skills (or lack thereof).

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, the American public likes this personage. Bill Clinton did the same thing and people just loved it. Interestingly, Reagan and Bush I did not. They held themselves higher than that. :cool:

Reagan played Ronnie Cowboy.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If that was their contingency plan, then it sucked.

But that's the kicker: there wasn't one. I refuse to believe that that was their contingency plan, they can't be that stupid. I suspect they were just clueless enough not to even have one.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Reagan played Ronnie Cowboy.

Bush Sr. played a country boy to an extent, too. He also said no new taxes...:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Clinton never laid the schtick on that thick and even if he did, he at least knew what the hell he was talking about and doing.

I suspect that Shrub uses the country boy persona to cover up his awful linguistic skills (or lack thereof).

I remember Clinton using phrases like "Aw shucks," more than once referring to his poor rural upbringing, and that his mother was poor but "good people." Clinton hardly cast himself in the role of a sophisticate. Interestingly, he rather was. After all, he was a Rhodes (sp.?) scholar and didn't he study in England at perhaps Oxford. You know, whenever he is on some show, I just long for the days when someone who can speak the King's English in an intelligent way ran the country.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I remember Clinton using phrases like "Aw shucks," more than once referring to his poor rural upbringing, and that his mother was poor but "good people." Clinton hardly cast himself in the role of a sophisticate. Interestingly, he rather was. After all, he was a Rhodes (sp.?) scholar and didn't he study in England at perhaps Oxford. You know, whenever he is on some show, I just long for the days when someone who can speak the King's English in an intelligent way ran the country.

I remember that, too, but I didn't see it as a way for him to endear himself to the public to the extent the Bush does. Therefore, I don't believe he lad the schtick on as thick as Shrub. :)

[strandinthewind]

But, the rest fo the govt. used one. They evacuated Congress and literally picked Dick C. off the floor and carried him to a scure location below the White House. So, certainly the President's group was doing a security plan of some sort. I think they were just figuring out if it was okay to remove the Pres. from inside of where he was, which they had already secured, and to AF1.

[gldstwmn]

Which brings me back to my point. He should have been in his limo finding out what the hell was going on.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Which brings me back to my point. He should have been in his limo finding out what the hell was going on.

Holla, sistah friend!

:laugh: :D :wavey:

[dissention]

FYI: the ratings for Shrub's interview with Sawyer are in and it was a ratings flop. Also, networks have expressed no interest in live satellite feeds of Pentagon briefings...which the government wants to charge for.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
FYI: the ratings for Shrub's interview with Sawyer are in and it was a ratings flop. Also, networks have expressed no interest in live satellite feeds of Pentagon briefings...which the government wants to charge for.

I only saw one ad for the interview. I meant to watch it but forgot.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I only saw one ad for the interview. I meant to watch it but forgot.

It was nothing special (like it would be?). He just prattle on about Saddam getting the death penalty (it'll be a joke if he's tried in Iraq, IMO), not supporting gay marriages, and getting a stupid MRI for his knee.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh, gimme a break!

He didn't want to frighten the kids??? When the WTC is attacked by two planes and you've had prior knowledge of a planned attack, you just sit there and read a book?! No, you excuse yourself from their company and leave immediately to see what the HELL is going on.

It's not a matter of making any difference, it's a matter of doing your job and seeing what's happening. Not reading the Three Billy Goats Gruff or some such shit while people are dying and NYC is under attack.

This incident is miniscule, inconsequential and is being over analyzed. Who cares if he finished reading some dumb book to some kids? What difference would it have made if he didn't?

I am not the biggest fan of Bush but, jees...are we fishing for things now?

Rob

:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Hooray - I get to tell it again :laugh:

At the end of the singing part of SOTOM, an obviously hyped up if not coked out of her head La Nicks gives a physically shaking exorcism while belting out

"IIIIIIIIIIIWWWWWWOOOOOOONNNNNNN""TTTTTBBBBBEEEEYYYYYYYYOOUUURRRRRSSSSSIIIISSSSTTTTERRRRRNNNNNOOOOTTTTYYYYOOUUURRRRSSSIIIISSSSTTTTAAAD FJDOFHPOIDHGLNDGPOUIH:GNIOHGODJ{ISDHGO"IDHGIOHDG . . . BBBLLLLLAAAAHHHHHEEEEEHHHHHG:OIFDHG{SHG"OISHDGIOJSGOPIJG}OPIJFDPIOGJ{IPSDGIOSDHGIOHDSG "

She then spins to the side while listing and gives a final panty revealing spin. I LOVE her!!!!


AHHH...now I understand...that's my favorite part. And she looks coked out of her mind.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh, gimme a break!

He didn't want to frighten the kids??? When the WTC is attacked by two planes and you've had prior knowledge of a planned attack, you just sit there and read a book?! No, you excuse yourself from their company and leave immediately to see what the HELL is going on.

It's not a matter of making any difference, it's a matter of doing your job and seeing what's happening. Not reading the Three Billy Goats Gruff or some such shit while people are dying and NYC is under attack.

I assume you had previous experience with a situation like that to judge what the proper reaction should be??:confused:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I assume you had previous experience with a situation like that to judge what the proper reaction should be??:confused:

Nope, I just know that the proper reaction would not be to stay among little kids reading fairy tales while my people are dying and the city of New York is under attack. It's simple logic.

If a plane crashes into your neighbors house, do you just sit on your ass and do nothing? I think not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
This incident is miniscule, inconsequential and is being over analyzed. Who cares if he finished reading some dumb book to some kids? What difference would it have made if he didn't?

I am not the biggest fan of Bush but, jees...are we fishing for things now?

Rob

:cool:

From the CBS News article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building."

" The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

I should add that Thomas Kean is the former Republican Governor of New Jersey who was appointed by the Bush Administration. By the way, there is nothing miniscule, inconsequential or over analyzed when thousands of people are murdered. Tell that to the families and widows of the dead.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
FYI: the ratings for Shrub's interview with Sawyer are in and it was a ratings flop. Also, networks have expressed no interest in live satellite feeds of Pentagon briefings...which the government wants to charge for.

Apparently, The Simple Life, Paris Hilton's show, beat out Shrub's full hour on Primetime.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
By the way, there is nothing miniscule, inconsequential or over analyzed when thousands of people are murdered. Tell that to the families and widows of the dead.

Well said. :nod:

[jwd]

Bush waited 30 minutes, Clinton waited how many years? :rolleyes:

[Merf]

Originally posted by jwd
Bush waited 30 minutes, Clinton waited how many years? :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm just blind, but what does Clinton have to do with this? And why does his name always get thrown in when people are trying to defend Bush?

For example, [and I am not pinning this quote on anyone, but hypothetically] "Well, President Bush may have told his close adviser Karl Rove to leak the name of the CIA agent wife of former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson, after Wilson spoke out against the war... but at least Bush didn't get a blow job in the Oval Office like Clinton. Cause that's like the worst thing ever!!!!"

:rolleyes:

[jwd]

Because the WTC was attacked during his administration. I was just drawing a parallel to Clinton turning a blind eye, as others in this thread have accused Bush of doing. It has nothing to do with blow jobs.

[Merf]

Originally posted by jwd
Because the WTC was attacked during his administration. I was just drawing a parallel to Clinton turning a blind eye, as others in this thread have accused Bush of doing. It has nothing to do with blow jobs.

The WTC was attacked during Bush's administration, not Clinton's (surely that is what you meant?) Thanks for clarifying your earlier post. The Clinton parallel would make more sense I suppose, if you could show me how Clinton turned "a blind eye" to 9/11. Perhaps that will come out in the report when more is released. I'm about to turn on Nightline, where they are interviewing Thomas Kean.

[jwd]

No actually it WAS attacked during Clinton's administration, '93 I think. However, the consequences were not as grave as in '01. They got it "right" the second time. :(

[Merf]

Ah, ok, *nods.* Most people on this thread were referring to 9/11, but you were totally right to bring up the '93 bombing. Cause it was really a "failed attempt" to do what they did on 9/11. As sick as that sounds :(

[jwd]

Here's an interesting read. Sheds a little more light on the '93 attack and others, and their relation to 9/11 and the the inaction/ignorance of our government. All of which happened during Clinton's administration.


http://www.twin-towers.net/93_wtc_attack.htm

[dissention]

Blame Bubba for everything.

:rolleyes:

It's not Bubba's fault we have such an incompetent ass in the White House.

And who cares if he got a blow job? That's nothing to shake a stick at. :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
Bush waited 30 minutes, Clinton waited how many years? :rolleyes:

I'm no fan of Clinton's, but do you remember what the conservatives said after Clinton lobbed missiles into Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan?

Secondly, a little googling will turn up plenty of evidence that the Clinton intelligence dudes handed over a plan to deal with Al Qaida when the Bushies took over, but the plan was discarded. The Clinton intelligence team told the Bushers that Osama and Al Qaida were the most serious threat they would have to contend with. Don't you think that's what Kean is hinting at with his comments?

Obviously the Bushwhackers were too busy figuring out how to grease the pockets of their corporate friends, granting favors to their gas and oil buddies, to worry about such piddly stuff as protecting American lives from murderous terrorists.

Like it or not, demz is the facts.

Bush is a disease. It will be a long time after the Oval Office is disinfected before all vestiges of this plague are erased.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Merf
Maybe I'm just blind, but what does Clinton have to do with this? And why does his name always get thrown in when people are trying to defend Bush?

:rolleyes:

:nod: :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
No actually it WAS attacked during Clinton's administration, '93 I think. However, the consequences were not as grave as in '01. They got it "right" the second time. :(

The perpetrator of the first attack was caught (without starting a false war) and imprisoned. His name was Ramzi Yousef.
By the way jwd, did you know that the Bushes and Bin Ladens have been in business together for a very long time? The Bin Laden's were investors in W's first oil company, called Arbusto (shrub). They also were investors in The Carlyle Group with the Bushes, Saudi Royal Family and James Baker. The were only asked to leave six months after the attacks due to public outcry. The Bushes and Bin Ladens made lots of money together. This is probably why he put them on a private plane and flew them off to Paris without even questioning them in the days after the attacks. The FBI wanted to question these people but John Ashcroft forbade it. They have also gone to great extent to see that no independent counsel investigates 9/11. I think it's treasonous.
:wavey:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by jwd
Here's an interesting read. Sheds a little more light on the '93 attack and others, and their relation to 9/11 and the the inaction/ignorance of our government. All of which happened during Clinton's administration.


http://www.twin-towers.net/93_wtc_attack.htm

I remember reading online on Time Magazines website awhile ago a similar article that talked at length the <b>"inactions and ignorance of our government."</b>

Brian j.

[Merf]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Bush is a disease. It will be a long time after the Oval Office is disinfected before all vestiges of this plague are erased.

Carne, I could not agree more. That was very eloquently put.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Nope, I just know that the proper reaction would not be to stay among little kids reading fairy tales while my people are dying and the city of New York is under attack. It's simple logic.

If a plane crashes into your neighbors house, do you just sit on your ass and do nothing? I think not.

Bush was hailed by members of both parties for his handling of the immediate aftermath of the attacks. That incident could be spun anyway you want.

How did that negatively affect the aftermath?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Blame Bubba for everything.

:rolleyes:

But it's ok as long as you blame Bush.:rolleyes:

And who cares if he got a blow job? That's nothing to shake a stick at. :laugh:

His wife, maybe???

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
But it's ok as long as you blame Bush.:rolleyes:



His wife, maybe???

Rob:cool:

To quote Dolly Parton in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" - "Don't you think the hens appreciate the time off when the rooster visits another coop" :cool: :laugh:

Personally, I am all for blow jobs; in fact I say the more the merrier :cool: Just don't keep heads of state waiting while you are getting head :laugh: and then send out your cabinet to perpetuate your lie, which Clinton did.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
But it's ok as long as you blame Bush.:rolleyes:
Rob:cool:

It's not about blame. It's about being held accountable for the lies Bush & Co. have told the American people. Bush is running for re-elction. The former president is not.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Personally, I am all for blow jobs; in fact I say the more the merrier :cool: Just don't keep heads of state waiting while you are getting head :laugh: and then send out your cabinet to perpetuate your lie, which Clinton did.

Agreed, and, agreed.:nod:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

The Shrub is taking a beating today:

In Twin Setbacks For The Bush Administration's
War On Terror, Federal Appeals Courts On Opposite
Coasts Ruled Thursday That The U.S. Military
Cannot Indefinitely Hold Prisoners Without
Access To Lawyers Or The American Courts.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031218_2320.html

[CarneVaca]

Ain't no shrub. Ain't nothin' but a weed.

[jwd]

Bottom line is.... you can blame Bush for 9/11 if you want, or say that he didn't care(which I don't buy for one minute), but the fact remains that the seeds of terrorism were sown and reaped several times, long before he took office. Sorry, but catching one man for the '93 attack and imprisoning him did not prevent further terrorist attacks....as we all know.


You can spin it any way you want to.



Joe

[CarneVaca]

JWD, don't let the facts confuse you. I, for one, am not blaming The Weed for 9/11, but I believe the reports that this administration was so hateful of the Clintonites that it just discarded valuable intelligence that might have helped prevent this disaster.

Ultimately, terrorists are going to win some. There's no getting around that. But they sure won a big one, and I can't help thinking they didn't have to.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:

JWD, don't let the facts confuse you. I, for one, am not blaming The Weed for 9/11, but I believe the reports that this administration was so hateful of the Clintonites that it just discarded valuable intelligence that might have helped prevent this disaster.

Ultimately, terrorists are going to win some. There's no getting around that. But they sure won a big one, and I can't help thinking they didn't have to.

Well I really didn't think I was confused. I would asssume that you would blame someone if they discarded valuable intelligence and something bad happened because of it. So you don't blame Bush...ok. :shrug:

Yea, I guess you're right, terrorists are going to win some. The point I was making is that they've been winning some(and not just little ones) for a long time, and I can't help thinking they too could have been prevented by using valuable intelligence.


I guess we agree. :laugh:

[Jason T.]

Originally posted by dissention

...My dream would be Braun and Kerry as running mates, but I'm just a silly dreamer...

I must be a silly dreamer too... :)

[Rob67]

Originally posted by jwd
Yea, I guess you're right, terrorists are going to win some. The point I was making is that they've been winning some(and not just little ones) for a long time, and I can't help thinking they too could have been prevented by using valuable intelligence.


I guess we agree. :laugh:


A logical assessment. :)

The whole intelligence system needed upgraded and the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc., have undergone many changes in the way they handle and share information since 9\11. A new cabinet position has even been created. So, steps are being made.

And people complain about the Patriot Act...but other then waiting a little longer at the airport security area, my life hasn't been affected by it in the least.

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Jason T.
I must be a silly dreamer too... :)

You, too?! :D

:wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
And people complain about the Patriot Act...but other then waiting a little longer at the airport security area, my life hasn't been affected by it in the least.

It's the idea of it. No one's rights should be compromised.

Bring on the stoning...

[jwd]

Rob67:

A logical assessment.

The whole intelligence system needed upgraded and the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc., have undergone many changes in the way they handle and share information since 9\11. A new cabinet position has even been created. So, steps are being made.

And people complain about the Patriot Act...but other then waiting a little longer at the airport security area, my life hasn't been affected by it in the least.



Thanks Rob.

Absolutely. At least something is finally being done. It's really quite tragic that it took us till 9/11 to wake up and start "getting it together". Say what you will, but Slick Willy's "war on terror" was at best highly ineffective.


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Say what you will, but Slick Willy's "war on terror" was at best highly ineffective.

Just as Shrub's "war on terror" has been ineffective. We are not much safer than we were two years ago, IMO.

[jwd]

Well I DO feel a LOT safer than I did two years ago. Just knowing that we haven't been attacked here since 9/11 would hopefully indicate that something is working.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

And people complain about the Patriot Act...but other then waiting a little longer at the airport security area, my life hasn't been affected by it in the least.

Rob:cool:

Could you explain to me exactly what the Patriot Act does?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Bottom line is.... you can blame Bush for 9/11 if you want, or say that he didn't care(which I don't buy for one minute), but the fact remains that the seeds of terrorism were sown and reaped several times, long before he took office. Sorry, but catching one man for the '93 attack and imprisoning him did not prevent further terrorist attacks....as we all know.


You can spin it any way you want to.



Joe

So I could then apply your theory to the capture of Saddam Hussein and to that extent I agree with you a hundred percent. Catching one man (the wrong man) for the 9/11 attack and imprisoning him or putting him to death will not prevent further terrorist attacks...and we all should know that.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Could you explain to me exactly what the Patriot Act does?

PATRIOT stands for...

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

The complete bill can be found here (http://www.politechbot.com/docs/usa.act.final.102401.html)

[jwd]

gldstwmn:
So I could then apply your theory to the capture of Saddam Hussein and to that extent I agree with you a hundred percent. Catching one man (the wrong man) for the 9/11 attack and imprisoning him or putting him to death will not prevent further terrorist attacks...and we all should know that.

Well that's a little too much spin for me :laugh: I think most people in the world would agree that the capture of Saddam was a good thing(to put it mildly). To compare the man who was behind the '93 atack to Hussein is like comparing a pawn to a king.


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Well I DO feel a LOT safer than I did two years ago.

I'm glad to know that Shrub's incompetence has helped others to feel safe, because it's made me feel less safe.

To each his own...

[jwd]

dissention:
I'm glad to know that Shrub's incompetence has helped others to feel safe, because it's made me feel less safe.

To each his own...

Incompetence is such a subjective word, don't you think? :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
PATRIOT stands for...

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

The complete bill can be found here (http://www.politechbot.com/docs/usa.act.final.102401.html)

Yes honey,I know. It was one of those rhetorical questions.;)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Incompetence is such a subjective word, don't you think? :)

Not in this case.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5404.htm

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean

06/06/03: ( FindLaw) --President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Should the president get the benefit of the doubt?
When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's though. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the president is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Bush administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs -- and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find -- for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit
Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American press reaction to the missing WMDs
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs would indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the president has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War intelligence reports
Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption —when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons—exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame -- informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it -- they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct -- and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Sen. Bob Graham -- a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they finds WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Sen. Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggest manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A potential huge scandal if WMDs are still missing
Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president of the United States.


Yes, this article was written by that John Dean, a Republican.

[jwd]

Nice article. We shall see. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in the months ahead. Getting information about the WMDs is one more important reason for capturing Saddam, ALIVE. IF Bush is guilty of manipulating intelligence, misleading the American people, and taking us into war based on false premises, I'd agree that he should be ousted.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

People always just bash W regarding the efforts he has taken to place the country on a better state of alert. I agree some of the Patriot Act and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security have done some crummy things. But, what is the alternative? It is great to talk about freedom, civil liberties, etc. But, the reality is we cannot live in a completely free society and never have. So, there has to be a balance. If not, then anarchy will prevail. So, yes, people's civil liberties will be curtailed. I am fine with that if it prevents a second 9/11 type event.

The airport delays was a good example. So what if you have to wait 15 more minutes than prior to 9/11. It sure as hell beats the the consequences of a breach of security.

Finally, everyone bashes, but no one offers a feasible alternative plan to the Patriot Act or the Dept. of Homeland Security. The Dept. was the consolidation of certain parts of Fed. Agencies in an effort to combine intelligence, etc., which was part of the problem with preventing 9/11. How could that not be a good thing in principle and, apparently it is working as it has lead to the catching of sleeper cells in the US?

[gldstwmn]

I'd suggest some kind of alternative if I could make heads or tails of it. Have you tried reading it? It's impossible. I'm not exactly sure what the bill does and doesn't do.
I'm also uncomfortable with the President deeming people enemy combatants and denying them due process. That certainly wasn't the intention of this bill, was it?

[strandinthewind]

It also consolidates the govt.'s efforts and aids the govt. with the collection of information on suspected people and the seizing of their bank accounts. In theory, the Act is a good idea. However, in application, many people from diverse political ideology feel the Act goes too far in its invasiveness of personal civil liberty. For example, people feel they have a right to rent a book at a library and not have the govt. track it. No such right exists per se in the Cont., but it is kind of creepy to have the govt. monitoring what you read. Yet, if someone was checking out advanced nuclear warmaking theory or biological germ warfare, I think the govt. should know about it. The fear is the govt. will use the info. in a much broader application than just for the "good" goal of preventing terrorism.

It also relaxes the criteria for obtaining a search and other type of warrent and in some instances allows a seach or arrest without a warrant. They also can hold a suspect for an unspecified peiod of time and have also used the Act and other laws to deny the right to counsel. Again, this can be seen as a good thing if it is used to fight terrorism. The problem is when they use this for other means.

In sum, I think the Patriot Act is a bad thing in application. I cannot, however, think of a better alternative.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I will not make the mistake of calling Dean a liberal. He really is nothing close. I have serious issues with some of his positions, particularly Israel

None of them vary to any great degree on this issue.:(

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

In sum, I think the Patriot Act is a bad thing in application. I cannot, however, think of a better alternative.

This is America! There's got to be a better alternative!:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
None of them vary to any great degree on this issue.:(

ITA - esp. the Democrats. The Democrats must win New York, which means they must win the Jewish vote. Therefore, they are never going to piss the Jewish vote off by making Isreal do something positive. Instead, we have these accords and summits which, so far, have been mostly iffeffective in acheiving any lasting peace.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
This is America! There's got to be a better alternative!:laugh:

You said sister. I think maybe they could just rely on the old system. I mean it has worked fairly well for about 200 years. Moreover, none of these new tactics would have made the govt. realize what it had in the pre 9/11 evidence, albeit the consolidation of the information gathering should be a big step forward.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Could you explain to me exactly what the Patriot Act does?


Yes.

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Yes.

Rob:cool:

Smart ass! :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Smart ass! :laugh:


Who me??!?! :wavey:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

In sum, I think the Patriot Act is a bad thing in application. I cannot, however, think of a better alternative.

Apparently the Justice Department can. They are drafting Domestic Security Enhancement Act AKA Patriot Act II.

Here are the highlights:

The act allows the government to:

* Conduct domestic wiretapping without court order for 15 days following a congressional authorization of use of force or an attack on the United States.

* Secretly detain citizens.

* Deport any alien, including green-card holders, who are convicted of drug possession or an aggravated felony.

* Access a citizen's credit reports without a subpoena.

* Abolish federal court "consent decrees" that limit police surveillance of non-criminal organizations and public events.

* Criminalize the use of encryption software in the commission or planning of a felony.

* Apply strict gag rules to those subpoenaed by a grand jury.

* Collect DNA from suspected terrorists and indeed from any individual whose DNA might assist terror investigations.

* Extend authorization periods for secret wiretaps and Internet surveillance.

* Ease restrictions on the use of secret evidence.

For the full article you can go here:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C57636%2C00.html

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Apparently the Justice Department can. They are drafting Domestic Security Enhancement Act AKA Patriot Act II.

Here are the highlights:

The act allows the government to:

* Conduct domestic wiretapping without court order for 15 days following a congressional authorization of use of force or an attack on the United States.

* Secretly detain citizens.

* Deport any alien, including green-card holders, who are convicted of drug possession or an aggravated felony.

* Access a citizen's credit reports without a subpoena.

* Abolish federal court "consent decrees" that limit police surveillance of non-criminal organizations and public events.

* Criminalize the use of encryption software in the commission or planning of a felony.

* Apply strict gag rules to those subpoenaed by a grand jury.

* Collect DNA from suspected terrorists and indeed from any individual whose DNA might assist terror investigations.

* Extend authorization periods for secret wiretaps and Internet surveillance.

* Ease restrictions on the use of secret evidence.

For the full article you can go here:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C57636%2C00.html

The vast majority of those are so "Big Brother" it is terrifying, esp. when you consider that history demonstrates "they" will stretch the definition of suspected terrorist or terrorist activities far beyond your basic plane hijacker. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

I am getting Dissention, Goldie, and Carne one for Christmas

http://oas.foxnews.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/root.foxnews/935148320/Right/NewsMax2_Dec03_Hmpg_250_Coul/coulter_doll_250x250.gif/63376164653130323366653664616330

That and a box of darts :cool: :wavey:

[Rob67]

Have a Merry Christmas my Liberal and Conservative\Fleetwood Mac friends!

:D

Rob:cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am getting Dissention, Goldie, and Carne one for Christmas

http://oas.foxnews.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/root.foxnews/935148320/Right/NewsMax2_Dec03_Hmpg_250_Coul/coulter_doll_250x250.gif/63376164653130323366653664616330

That and a box of darts :cool: :wavey:

Oh my God! It actually exists! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks, Strand. Your generosity is unmatched. Hey, shouldn't you be in bed with a major hangover right now?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am getting Dissention, Goldie, and Carne one for Christmas

http://oas.foxnews.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/root.foxnews/935148320/Right/NewsMax2_Dec03_Hmpg_250_Coul/coulter_doll_250x250.gif/63376164653130323366653664616330

That and a box of darts :cool: :wavey:

I said I wanted something sparkly.:mad:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Have a Merry Christmas my Liberal and Conservative\Fleetwood Mac friends!

:D

Rob:cool:

Happy holidays!:wavey:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by Rob67
Have a Merry Christmas my Liberal and Conservative\Fleetwood Mac friends!

:D

Rob:cool:

it seems us <i><b>"independents"</b></i> are always getting left out, Even during the holidays!!! :laugh:


Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by estranged4life
it seems us <i><b>"independents"</b></i> are always getting left out, Even during the holidays!!! :laugh:


Brian j.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by estranged4life
it seems us <i><b>"independents"</b></i> are always getting left out, Even during the holidays!!! :laugh:


Brian j.

Happy Holidays to the Independents!:wavey:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by estranged4life
it seems us <i><b>"independents"</b></i> are always getting left out, Even during the holidays!!! :laugh:


Brian j.

Oops thought I was covering everyone by not using the terms, Republican or Democrat!:)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by estranged4life
it seems us <i><b>"independents"</b></i> are always getting left out, Even during the holidays!!! :laugh:


Brian j.

Something about that term. Does that make everyone else "dependents"?:)
Happy holidays.

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

Maybe Santa remembered you after all Brian.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/elec04.prez.nader/index.html

Green Party: Nader mulling independent run

[gldstwmn]

Great interview with John Kerry:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

"WRP: Senator Bill Nelson revealed last week that he and some 75 other Senators had been given an intelligence briefing by a Bush administration official just before the Iraq war vote, during the time frame of those quotes I just read. In that briefing, they were told that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but had the technical capability to strike American cities on the East Coast with unmanned drones filled with these poisons. Nelson refused to divulge who gave the briefing. I want to take you back to this time, to September and early October of 2002. What were you thinking about during this period, in the days and weeks before the Iraq resolution? I know you can’t reveal classified briefings, but were you getting at the time data that persuaded you that a yes vote was the proper course?

JK: Absolutely. More than that. I attended one particular briefing at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense was there, as well as the Admiral in charge of all intelligence. They passed photographs around showing us very specific locations and places where, they said, their intelligence confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were being held. This was in addition to those unmanned drones, which we were told about, and in addition to the 45-minute deployment capacity, which we were told about."

Click the link for the entire interview.

[gldstwmn]

This is total b.s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22764-2003Dec22.html

Under Bush, Expanding Secrecy

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
JK: Absolutely. More than that. I attended one particular briefing at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense was there, as well as the Admiral in charge of all intelligence. They passed photographs around showing us very specific locations and places where, they said, their intelligence confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were being held. This was in addition to those unmanned drones, which we were told about, and in addition to the 45-minute deployment capacity, which we were told about."

Click the link for the entire interview.

I can't believe this. They actually showed pictures that showed where the WMDs supposedly were? They were obviously fakes. But I'm sure the Bush admin. claims they were all moved from those locations right before we attacked them. Unbelievable. When will America wake up?

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
This is total b.s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22764-2003Dec22.html

Under Bush, Expanding Secrecy

Of course they want everything sealed off; they don't their misdeeds exposed. After all, it could cost them the election. :nod: ;)

Bastards.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
I can't believe this. They actually showed pictures that showed where the WMDs supposedly were? They were obviously fakes. But I'm sure the Bush admin. claims they were all moved from those locations right before we attacked them. Unbelievable. When will America wake up?

I don't know. Kerry did tell us who was at the briefings though. Rummy's name is coming up an awful lot. If things start looking really bad for Bush, they're going to need a fall guy. Wonder if Rummy's head will be on the block?

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I don't know. Kerry did tell us who was at the briefings though. Rummy's name is coming up an awful lot. If things start looking really bad for Bush, they're going to need a fall guy. Wonder if Rummy's head will be on the block?

They're already setting him up. Remember when Condie Rice was appointed to oversee what he should be doing? I think that spoke volumes.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
ITA - esp. the Democrats. The Democrats must win New York, which means they must win the Jewish vote. Therefore, they are never going to piss the Jewish vote off by making Isreal do something positive. Instead, we have these accords and summits which, so far, have been mostly iffeffective in acheiving any lasting peace.

In fact, it's such a political hot potato that they dodge any questions about it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031222.html

Q Is the President in favor of international inspection of Israel's nuclear arsenal, which is pretty well known?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I agree with that, the premise of your question. But the United States has a longstanding position of universal adherence to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. That has been our longstanding position --

Q They never signed it.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that is universal adherence. Well, we have urged all states that have not yet adhered to the treaty to do so, and to accept the IAEA safeguards on nuclear activities that would come with it.

Q Are we trying to persuade Israel to sign it, and to be open to inspection?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that, one, in terms of specifics about the Israeli government, you need to refer those questions to the Israeli government.

Q No, no, I'm asking our position.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I've told you that the long held position of the United States is the universal adherence to the nonproliferation treaty.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
They're already setting him up. Remember when Condie Rice was appointed to oversee what he should be doing? I think that spoke volumes.

The National Security Advisor babysitting the Secretary Of Defense? Her hands aren't clean either.

[Jason T.]

Originally posted by dissention
...When will America wake up?

When the find the weapons of mass destruction...:laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
JK: Absolutely. More than that. I attended one particular briefing at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense was there, as well as the Admiral in charge of all intelligence. They passed photographs around showing us very specific locations and places where, they said, their intelligence confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were being held. This was in addition to those unmanned drones, which we were told about, and in addition to the 45-minute deployment capacity, which we were told about."

Click the link for the entire interview.

If John Kerry believed this crap, he's too stupid to be president. Why didn't he listen to Scott Ritter, Richard Butler and others who were actually there?

Do we want to elect a guy who is easily duped? This man was in VIETNAM for crying out loud! Didn't he learn anything there?

Hell, even in the days leading up to the Gulf War, it was later exposed, the Bush I administration used fake satellite photos "showing" that Iraqi forces were amassing right outside Saudi Arabia, ready to pounce.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/24/politics/24ENVI.html?th

Administration Is Exempting Alaska Forest From Protection

[gldstwmn]

More b.s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/24/business/24drug.html?th

Medicare Law Might Limit Drug Discounts for Insurers

[dissention]

The pungent aroma of bullshit is heavy today!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20031224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_uranium

"Report: Bush Ignored CIA Uranium Warning"

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

Hell, even in the days leading up to the Gulf War, it was later exposed, the Bush I administration used fake satellite photos "showing" that Iraqi forces were amassing right outside Saudi Arabia, ready to pounce.

Well the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, now does it? Good points on Kerry. Now in my Christmas bag for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/24/opinion/24SAFI.html?th

Don't Stop Dean

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
The pungent aroma of bullshit is heavy today!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20031224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_uranium

"Report: Bush Ignored CIA Uranium Warning"

Let's play sit n' spin.:laugh

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Let's play sit n' spin.:laugh

Ha! I read that as shit 'n spin...:laugh:

But, I guess it's the same thing, huh?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Ha! I read that as shit 'n spin...:laugh:

But, I guess it's the same thing, huh?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Merf]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/24/politics/24ENVI.html?th

Administration Is Exempting Alaska Forest From Protection

Does anyone here know where I can find a list of the environmental protection laws put in place during the Clinton Administration that have been revoked/rolled back by the Bush II Administration? Because I think that is something that should be brought to light here-- good info for all.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/24/opinion/24SAFI.html?th

Don't Stop Dean

Somehow I don't think Safire has the best interests of the Democrats in mind. He is right about one thing: If Bush wins by a landslide, it will be bad for everyone.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Somehow I don't think Safire has the best interests of the Democrats in mind. He is right about one thing: If Bush wins by a landslide, it will be bad for everyone.

Except the majority of moderate\Conservative Americans! :wavey:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Except the majority of moderate\Conservative Americans! :wavey:

Rob:cool:

How so?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How so?

Well, I haven't seen much but Bush bashing from the left. They seem quick to criticize but are short of solutions for the problems. So until somebody comes along and presents a better and valid solution to global terrorism and the other pressing issues, Bush is the answer. I definitely haven't seen any from the current Democratic candidates. It's always the same blame game.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Oh my God! It actually exists! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks, Strand. Your generosity is unmatched. Hey, shouldn't you be in bed with a major hangover right now?

I MUST have one of these to go with my Pope JPII on a rope :laugh:

Yes, the hangover was fierce, but I survived. Sadly, no one sang anything but Chirstmas carols. I did, however get on my piano at one point and belted out something, much to the chagrain of the bowing legs!! :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I said I wanted something sparkly.:mad:

The arrowrs are diamond tipped to ensure deepest penetration (EEEEWWWW for the way that sounds :laugh: )

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Merf
Does anyone here know where I can find a list of the environmental protection laws put in place during the Clinton Administration that have been revoked/rolled back by the Bush II Administration? Because I think that is something that should be brought to light here-- good info for all.

I just read on article on this in this or last week's Time (I think ) on the plane. Be careful when comparing Bush and Clinton. Clinton did a lot of last minute things (like the current Alaska road building change) so that Bush would look bad for changing them (old old trick) when they were that way for the vast majority of Billy's Presidency.

[strandinthewind]

Oh that Dean and his sealed records!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/24/elec04.prez.dean.records/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well, I haven't seen much but Bush bashing from the left. They seem quick to criticize but are short of solutions for the problems. So until somebody comes along and presents a better and valid solution to global terrorism and the other pressing issues, Bush is the answer. I definitely haven't seen any from the current Democratic candidates. It's always the same blame game.

Rob:cool:


I meant what is Bush doing for you as a president. You know, personally. BTW, Lieberman would certainly seem to fit your list of credentials for President. What's wrong with him?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well, I haven't seen much but Bush bashing from the left. They seem quick to criticize but are short of solutions for the problems. So until somebody comes along and presents a better and valid solution to global terrorism and the other pressing issues, Bush is the answer. I definitely haven't seen any from the current Democratic candidates. It's always the same blame game.

Rob:cool:

I see your point. The only thing I disagree with is Kerry made a valid point in his position when he was The Factor with Bill O'Reilly. He said he would be for building world support for the U.S. before we invade essentially unilaterally a la Iraq. I think this approach is a better method than Bush's approach. I think other people, like Bush I for instance, would have been able to get Germany, France, and Russia on board as Bush I was a diplomat for years and was an ambassador, while his son had none of these accomplishments. So, from that perspective, I think Kerry has presented a more viable solution to confront terrorism that Bush II. Note: I fully realize Kerry is saying this in hindsight and that he voted to gave W the power to invade Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oh that Dean and his sealed records!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/24/elec04.prez.dean.records/index.html

What do you think he's hiding?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
What do you think he's hiding? I honestly do not know. I mean it cannot be that bad of if it will be revealed perhaps in 2013. Surely, the D party, assuming they know, would not allow that snake to bite them on the ass then. Also, his record of voting was the offspring of these records and that certainly was public. So, I just do not know. But, I do know this, I and probably most of America hates or at least raises an eyebrow to apparently dirty little secrets like this.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I just read on article on this in this or last week's Time (I think ) on the plane. Be careful when comparing Bush and Clinton. Clinton did a lot of last minute things (like the current Alaska road building change) so that Bush would look bad for changing them (old old trick) when they were that way for the vast majority of Billy's Presidency.

We can only start to fix what's wrong begining with this next presidency.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
We can only start to fix what's wrong begining with this next presidency.:) :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Here is another:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/24/white.house.uranium/index.html

Reminds me of Britany - "Oops - I did it again!"

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I meant what is Bush doing for you as a president. You know, personally. BTW, Lieberman would certainly seem to fit your list of credentitals for President. What's wrong with him?

You know, that's a great point. We were discussing politics this evening at my parents house. Lieberman came up as the most rational candidate from the Democratic candidates. You are right.

I think he understands what is trying to be accomplished on the foriegn policy front but I disagree with his economics. And how about Gore screwing him...WTF.

Still...I await the presidential race when the internal party BS is pushed aside....

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67


I think he understands what is trying to be accomplished on the foriegn policy front but I disagree with his economics. And how about Gore screwing him...WTF.
Rob:cool:

That didn't sit well with me at all. I'm still trying to figure out what Gore sees in Howard Dean. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Merf
Does anyone here know where I can find a list of the environmental protection laws put in place during the Clinton Administration that have been revoked/rolled back by the Bush II Administration? Because I think that is something that should be brought to light here-- good info for all.

Here's one that didn't go over:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4043104

Court Suspends Bush Pollution Rules

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Here's one that didn't go over:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4043104

Court Suspends Bush Pollution Rules

I just do not get what "they" (all politicians here) are trying to accomplish. I know it is expensive for power plants to upgrade, but the govts. in the end wind up paying for most if not all of it through tax deductions, subsidies to the consumer and plant, etc. Then, the consumer is charged more for the remaining balance and their bills never go down once the upgrade is paid for in about a year.

A good example of this is your phone bill, which is probably $25 for basic service with $15 in pass on taxes and regulatory charges slapped on there. Another example is higher airfare (covers costs of fitting planes with new security devices as well as lessened travel) with an additional $5.00 per ticket security charge. Finally, my personal fav., 911 emergency services is $1.50 a month in GA , which is about $15 million a month with a rough estimate of 10 million phones - that is $180 million a year to run 911 - have you ever called 911? There are the peopke that did not know where Olympic Park was during the 96 Olympics in Atlanta - all that for $120 million a year, a sum most small citites do not budget in a year :laugh:

So, all in all and over time, the precious bottom line and large bonuses of the power plant owners and execs. remain in tact. So, why not take the high road and just make cleaner air and rivers. Note: this is pretty much all politicians and not just the far right.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.bush.soros.reut/index.html

Soros, groups target Bush
President's campaign cites 'liberal special interests'
Friday, December 26, 2003 Posted: 3:32 PM EST (2032 GMT)

George Soros has pledged millions to independent groups, "to ensure that the money spent on trying to re-elect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush's most-feared political opponents for now may not be Democratic presidential candidates, but a billionaire financier and anti-Bush advocacy groups with big-spending plans.

"Liberal special interests, led by billionaire currency trader George Soros, are raising millions in soft, unregulated money to defeat President Bush," the Bush campaign says in an Internet posting.

Bush has already raised more than $110 million for his primary campaign, in which he has no challenger, far outstripping any Democratic rival.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said anti-Bush groups threaten to spend as much as $400 million, justifying the Bush primary-season goal of raising a record $170 million, largely through a network of major supporters who funnel donations to the campaign.

But campaign finance experts say there is little chance of Bush being outspent.

"The Bush campaign is raising money hand-over-fist. He has the aura of the incumbency and the power of the presidency. He's in the catbird seat," said Celia Wexler, research director of the Common Cause good-government group.

Along with Soros, the Hungarian-born financier who has pledged $12.5 million to ensure "we can write off the Bush doctrine as a temporary aberration," another chief target of Republican ire are independent political groups such as the Internet-based MoveOn.org.

The group has raised nearly $7 million to run ads attacking Bush, and launched an anti-Bush television-commercial contest which has drawn more than 1,000 submissions from the public.

Groups including MoveOn.org are banned from coordinating activities with any party or candidate. But they have gained prominence under last year's McCain-Feingold campaign finance act which ended unregulated "soft money" donations. Democrats had relied on soft money to help claw back a Republican advantage in individual donations. (Supreme Court upholds 'soft money' ban)

"They have the potential to do an incredible amount of damage," said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House. He said the independent groups could run "over the top" ads attacking Bush with political impunity, and there was little financial accountability.

He suggested Soros may be seeking "payback" for the Iraq war, reflecting business interests in France and Germany.

Independent groups
Soros pledged his money to two independent political groups -- MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. "My contributions help to ensure that the money spent on trying to re-elect President Bush doesn't overwhelm the process," he said in a Washington Post opinion piece earlier this month.

Soros -- whose new book on the subject is "The Bubble of American Supremacy" -- said he was "deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush administration is taking the United States and the world."

The Bush team's fund-raising appeals sharply criticize such efforts and accuse the independent groups of raising money overseas. "To beat these billionaire liberals and the flood of foreign money they're encouraging, we need your help today," an e-mail solicitation read.

MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd said the groups accepts no foreign donations and defended the group's methods. He said its donors have no expectation of access to a successful candidate, unlike those who donate directly to a campaign. "There's no strings attached," he said.

The Center for Public Integrity government watchdog group said independent committees from across the political spectrum have raised $32 million this year, although the Soros-backed America Coming Together had yet to report.

Wexler said it was too early to judge how effective the groups would be. The Federal Election Commission is expected to issue guidelines in February on their political activity.

Conservatives have also used independent political groups and are doing so again this year. "They're playing catch-up ball," after waiting for the Supreme Court's December ruling upholding the campaign finance reform legislation, Reed said.

The conservative Club for Growth has run ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the nation's first major nominating contests take place, attacking front-running Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

[gldstwmn]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093162/

Now It's a Scandal
New evidence that a House GOP leader offered a bribe.

[strandinthewind]

Slime :mad:

It reminds me of the time this guy's son was an awful artist and could not sell a painting. Then, his dad was elected gov. and his paintings were selling for tens of thousands of dollars with no appreciable rise in talent :cool:

[gldstwmn]

I hope the Washington Post plays it for all it's worth.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I hope the Washington Post plays it for all it's worth.

Fox nay have to pick it up :laugh:

Did you see their homepage is saying "Dean Not Ready to Pronounce Bin Laden Guilty" In reality and despite the spin/implication, Dean said it is for a jury to determine BL's guilt and that politicians historically (and IMO correctly) have refused to comment on a pending case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106758,00.html

They are also questioning Dean's "new found" belief in God.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106752,00.html

Yet, we hear nothing of the GOB taking bribes. How's that for "fair and balanced?" :eek:

Actually, this is a good thing for Dean and the Democratic Party if Fox, arguably the mouthpiece for the far right despite their slogan, is taking him that seriously.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Fox nay have to pick it up :laugh:

Did you see their homepage is saying "Dean Not Ready to Pronounce Bin Laden Guilty" In reality and despite the spin/implication, Dean said it is for a jury to determine BL's guilt and that politicians historically (and IMO correctly) have refused to comment on a pending case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106758,00.html

They are also questioning Dean's "new found" belief in God.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106752,00.html

Yet, we hear nothing of the GOB taking bribes. How's that for "fair and balanced?" :eek:

Actually, this is a good thing for Dean and the Democratic Party if Fox, arguably the mouthpiece for the far right despite their slogan, is taking him that seriously.

I'm so disgusted with it all at this point, I'm ready to vote Green.:eek:
I read about the Dean/Bin Laden comments and agreed with that as well.
Isn't Bush "God appointed'? He found his way to the Lord about 2 years before the election. When asked, he couldn't recite any of the bible passages he studied so fervently for those two years.
Bush got a nice bounce in the polls from finding Saddam, it will be interesting to see if he can sustain it.
I don't even watch Fox News becuase I can only watch it for about two minutes before I'm forced to change the channel. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, who's not even American. I thought the FCC prohibited that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm so disgusted with it all at this point, I'm ready to vote Green.:eek:
I read about the Dean/Bin Laden comments and agreed with that as well.
Isn't Bush "God appointed'? He found his way to the Lord about 2 years before the election. When asked, he couldn't recite any of the bible passages he studied so fervently for those two years.
Bush got a nice bounce in the polls from finding Saddam, it will be interesting to see if he can sustain it.
I don't even watch Fox News becuase I can only watch it for about two minutes before I'm forced to change the channel. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, who's not even American. I thought the FCC prohibited that.

And I even agree SH was a good catch, butm as we have discussed, it does not obviate his lies to go to war. :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

This is what I keep coming back to....

Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida operatives were directly responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11, which took the lives of nearly 3000 people on American soil.

Osama and his cronies are also responsible for the many threats that have frequently caused the US to go on a high security alert for attempted acts of terrorism, including the current threat which has holiday travellers worried.

Saddam Hussein... while a tyranical madman... has never been proven to have had any link whatsover to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and has never been proven to have had any recent plans to attack Americans on our soil.

Saddam Hussein has also never been proven to be in possession of those dreaded weapons of mass destruction he was accused of having.

And, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've ever conclusively proven that Saddam and Osama had any strong ties to one another.

So, which of the two men became the focus of the bigger war effort this year, and is the only one to have been captured so far... the man whose monstrous hatred of America resulted in the loss of nearly 3000 innocent lives and the continual uneasiness/fear that almost all American citizens feel?
Or the man whose retention of his position of power after the Gulf War, has often been noted as having cost Dubya's daddy the re-election?

I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein isn't evil, or that his inhumane treatment of the Iraqi people didn't need to be stopped... but I'm disturbed by the countless unfounded reasons (and the out-and-out lies) Americans were told to justify the campaign to topple Hussein. While Osama seems to have been all but forgotten up 'til now.

Was there really a pressing need to stop Saddam Hussein, ASAP, as part of this "War On Terror"?
And is it just me, or do other people feel this all seemed more like some kind of vendetta?

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And is it just me, or do other people feel this all seemed more like some kind of vendetta?

I think that you're assuming a lot, Johnny. For this to be a vendetta, Bush would be making decisions based on personal feelings. It would mean that somebody close to him also has a grudge against Saddam. Shame on you for these assumptions.:cool:

- Jake (obviously being facetious)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
to ensure deepest penetration

Doll--

I'd love to practice my aim on that thing, but I don't want frostbite.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
"Liberal special interests, led by billionaire currency trader George Soros, are raising millions in soft, unregulated money to defeat President Bush," the Bush campaign says in an Internet posting.

Bush has already raised more than $110 million for his primary campaign, in which he has no challenger, far outstripping any Democratic rival.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said anti-Bush groups threaten to spend as much as $400 million, justifying the Bush primary-season goal of raising a record $170 million, largely through a network of major supporters who funnel donations to the campaign.


There are so many funds being raised by the rich to oust Bush that it puts a smile on my face. :D

Hollywood has been having hush-hush, very private parties to fundraise for the Democrats. Musicians like Don Henley, Anthrax, Green Day, Mellencamp, and the Dixie Chicks are even planning an anti-Bush tour around the country together with all proceeds going to the Democrats. Now THAT is patriotism. :nod:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093162/

Now It's a Scandal
New evidence that a House GOP leader offered a bribe.

I've barely even seen this on the news, which is absolutely sickening.

Why don't the Republicans do us all a favor and disband?! :confused: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And is it just me, or do other people feel this all seemed more like some kind of vendetta?

Absolutely. It's "You threatened to kill my Daddy." I was reading an article about a couple of teenagers who broke in to a boathouse in Maine and messed with someone's boat. The boat turned out to belong to George I. Next thing you know, the kid's got the Secret Service at his house, they call it an act of terrorism and the send a 14 YEAR OLD BOY to Federal Prison for a teenage prank (not that I'm condoning it). These people are evil. Did you know that Laura Bush was involved in a car accident as a youngster that claimed the life of the other driver? And how about Governor Jeb Bush's daughter who was forging prescriptions for Xanax? Is she in jail? Nope.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Did you know that Laura Bush was involved in a car accident as a youngster that claimed the life of the other driver? And how about Governor Jeb Bush's daughter who was forging prescriptions for Xanax? Is she in jail? Nope.

From what I read, LB accidently ran a stop sign and the other driver was killed. So, it was an accident. Also, didn't La Noel go to jail when she was arrested (hence that priceless mugshot :laugh: ) and then the court let he go through rehab. instead of jail time, which I think is an option for most of these offenses?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
From what I read, LB accidently ran a stop sign and the other driver was killed. So, it was an accident. Also, didn't La Noel go to jail when she was arrested (hence that priceless mugshot :laugh: ) and then the court let he go through rehab. instead of jail time, which I think is an option for most of these offenses?

People that have drug problems should go to rehab. But it's funny that these folk don't have that kind of mercy until it comes down to them. Most of the non violent offenders in our prisons to day are there due to some kind of drug related offense. Instead of treating these people, the best thing our very educated legislators can come up with is to warehouse them in some prison cell to the tune of a lot of our dough. Let's face it, the war on drugs is a failure. How can it not be when one of the worst ones is also legal.
My point was they can put a 14 year old boy in federal prison but if one of them breaks the law (and there's a whole litany of it in the Bush family) then they want community service or rehab. Limbaugh hasn't even been charged with anything. I think it's clear in anybody's view he was doing something wrong. I can't believe the crap he and his attorney are spewing now. I also can't believe he's using his radio show to further his claim of innocence. Every time anybody else does something like that, the public nails their arse to the wall but apparently Rush's followers just swallow this stuff and continue to annoint him as "the messenger" of the neocons.
Well, that's enough cynicism form me today. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG


By David Martin 12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily


Everyone should read this. It's some scary stuff.

[gldstwmn]

More bullshit:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkee223594883dec22,0,6735184.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
People that have drug problems should go to rehab. But it's funny that these folk don't have that kind of mercy until it comes down to them. Most of the non violent offenders in our prisons to day are there due to some kind of drug related offense. Instead of treating these people, the best thing our very educated legislators can come up with is to warehouse them in some prison cell to the tune of a lot of our dough. Let's face it, the war on drugs is a failure. How can it not be when one of the worst ones is also legal.
My point was they can put a 14 year old boy in federal prison but if one of them breaks the law (and there's a whole litany of it in the Bush family) then they want community service or rehab. Limbaugh hasn't even been charged with anything. I think it's clear in anybody's view he was doing something wrong. I can't believe the crap he and his attorney are spewing now. I also can't believe he's using his radio show to further his claim of innocence. Every time anybody else does something like that, the public nails their arse to the wall but apparently Rush's followers just swallow this stuff and continue to annoint him as "the messenger" of the neocons.
Well, that's enough cynicism form me today. :laugh:


AMEN Sister...We agree on something!!!:laugh: :wavey:

Rob:cool:

On the drug laws and hypocracy...anyway!

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG


By David Martin 12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily


Everyone should read this. It's some scary stuff.

...One nation, under Shrub...

[gldstwmn]

Welcome to The Fatherland...

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Welcome to The Fatherland...

:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/04BUDG.html?th

Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs

"They said the president's proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would control the rising cost of housing vouchers for the poor, require some veterans to pay more for health care, slow the growth in spending on biomedical research and merge or eliminate some job training and employment programs."

[Rob67]

Here’s an interesting article that I came across. It was written by an independent Russian Foreign policy analyst for a Moscow newspaper. It’s an interesting take on US foreign policy (more specifically, the fight on terror) from an external perspective. This guy gets it…


U.S. Methods Paying Off
By Pavel Felgenhauer

2003 will primarily be remembered for the war in Iraq, the fall of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led invasion was strongly opposed by millions of Europeans and by former great powers France, Germany and Russia. But they protested in vain.

The U.S. march on Baghdad was a unique event in the history of modern warfare. The swiftness and zeal of the advancing armored columns, supported by relentless air power, is comparable to the best campaigns of the Israeli defense force. But the Israelis never achieved full victory; they did not manage or were not allowed by outside powers to occupy the entire territory of the opposing Arab nation.

Armed conflicts during the Cold War, when Russia and the West balanced each other globally, tended to be very bloody but strategically limited engagements: They were pitched battles on patches of disputed territory where the best possible outcome was to push the enemy back several kilometers and then fortify, awaiting a counteroffensive.

It was a time of frustrating tug-of-war conflicts in which clear and decisive victories were unachievable despite all the carnage. The 2003 campaign in Iraq, on the contrary, was a breath of fresh air for military history buffs -- almost like a return to Napoleonic times with the addition of modern military gear. This was a war that indeed achieved its goal of total enemy defeat and conquest.

Just before Christmas, a high-ranking French delegation of generals, admirals, defense industry officials and analysts came to Moscow. The French amazed their Russian counterparts by breaking to them something that is still news in Moscow today: The United States achieved a major victory in Afghanistan in 2001 and an even greater one in Iraq this year. Russian and French predictions of possible U.S. failure were totally off the mark, and today it would be wrong to expect a U.S. fiasco in suppressing the residual resistance in Iraq.

French and German leaders congratulated President George W. Bush with the capture of Hussein, while President Vladimir Putin remained silent. Die-hard antiwar Democrats like presidential hopeful Howard Dean, together with most Russians, still hope Bush will get a bloody nose in Iraq, but the reality of the situation on the ground does not lend support to this fantasy.

The vast majority of the Iraqi population does not support the resistance. On the contrary, as the guerrilla campaign has developed, the discretion in using force displayed by the Americans and the indiscretion in slaughtering innocent civilians of the jihadist resistance is effectively helping to win over hearts and minds. Today the United States is in a good position to achieve its ultimate goal: the installation of a pro-U.S. Iraqi authority equipped with a military, a police force and a cadre of informers that will keep the opposition down, while the United States will retain strategically important military bases in Iraq.

The Arab and Muslim world, despite many prophesies to the contrary and lots of agitation, did not rise as one to oppose the United States in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis and Arabs are waiting to see whether the United States will manage to make Iraq a better place to live than it was under Hussein. Everyone wants the Americans to hand over control to the locals eventually, but not immediately.

Extreme Islamists from abroad are helping pro-Hussein leftovers to resist in Iraq, but the resources of the jihadists are limited and stretched thin across many fronts: Fighting Israel, different Arab regimes, the Indian forces in Kashmir, the Russians in Chechnya, plotting terrorist attacks worldwide and so on. The jihadists surely cannot carry on a sustained Vietnam-like guerrilla war to chew up the U.S. military in Iraq.

Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has weighed up the odds and decided to make a deal with Washington to surrender his weapons of mass destruction, rather than providing support to the Iraqi resistance. This year has been remarkable with two former rogue nations, Iraq and Libya, cleared of WMD and a third, Iran, signing a protocol that may prevent it going nuclear.

It has been proven that U.S. military force or the threat of force is an effective method of reversing the proliferation of WMD worldwide. Modern precision warfare also seems to be a more humane method of dealing with rogues than traditional decade-long suffocating sanctions. While the U.S. military continues to be effective, it will surely be much in use in the future.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/12/29/009-print.html

[gldstwmn]

http://truthout.org/docs_04/010704B.shtml
Senator Urges White House on Leak Probe


" Editors Note | As the probe into who leaked the name of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame gathers steam the FBI will ask all White House staff members to sign waiver forms granting their permission to those reporters involved to name the source of the information. George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan is saying all the right things publicly but refuses to commit to the waiver forms. Privately some of the reporters have told British reporter Julian Borger of the Guardian that the source was in fact top Bush confidant Karl Rove."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/elec04.prez.lieberman.newrepublic/index.html

The New Republic endorses Lieberman

"The endorsement came as new polls show retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark -- the former NATO supreme allied commander -- emerging as a strong challenger to Dean, while Lieberman remains far behind."