transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
As it is, the only "terrorist" he's managed to capture is one who wasn't even a pressing threat to our country. While the true threat is still free, and his cronies are still making plans to terrorize the USA. Coming up on three years since 9/11

Point of Order :wavey:

While I agree it would have been nice if OBL had been caught and we should have caught him, your statement "the only 'terrorist' he's managed to capture is one who wasn't even a pressing threat to our country" is incorrect.

First, nothwithstanding the whole WMD bruhaha which I readily admit was wrong, SH was a known terrorist. If you don't believe me, ask the Kurds he gassed, just about aby Iraqi (he killed or tortured thousands), and the citizens of Kuwait (he invaded their country in an attemot to annex it.).

Moreover, the US and her allies have caught and/or killed 100's of members of Al-Q, a known terrorist group. Also, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya (a known terrorist) is disarming basically because he apparently is scared that what we did to Iraq, we will do to him.

So, the current administration has had a pretty successful record on catching terrorists, just not OBL, which I agree they need to do :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

I over-simplified, and that was wrong.
But the fact of the matter is, the entire "War On Terrorism" has been done under the banner of making the USA safe from the ongoing threat of terrorism... they've been playing on this country's fears and concerns since 9/11... and I'm sorry, but there has been absolutely nothing to prove that Saddam Hussein presented a current, realistic threat to the safety of the USA.

Yes, he is a despicable man, who has done a lot of evil and murderous things, but he was NOT a current threat.
Osama Bin Ladin and his Al-Queda were, and ARE, the biggest threat we face in regards to terrorism on US soil.

Meanwhile, the Bush family has a personal grudge against Hussein, and lo and behold, he's the only one of the "big-wig" evil leaders to have been captured.

If the Bush administration honestly thought they had a good reason to hunt down Hussein, they never would have felt the need to LIE about him possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Think of all the other avenues they could have been pursuing in order to make this country (and the WORLD) safer, during the time they spent pursuing this personal vendetta.

I completely agree that SOMETHING needed to be done in order to protect this country and the rest of the world, but I do not take kindly to being lied to when it comes to matters of life and death for innocent citizens.
Someone else could easily do just as good of a job... if not better... in regards to the "War On Terrorism."

Yet another reason I wouldn't vote for Bush if someone held a gun to my head.

[gldstwmn]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&newsId=20040128005636&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view

Legal Watch Dog Group CREW Alleges Cheney Leaked Classified Information, Breaking Federal Law

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I over-simplified, and that was wrong.
But the fact of the matter is, the entire "War On Terrorism" has been done under the banner of making the USA safe from the ongoing threat of terrorism... they've been playing on this country's fears and concerns since 9/11... and I'm sorry, but there has been absolutely nothing to prove that Saddam Hussein presented a current, realistic threat to the safety of the USA.

Yes, he is a despicable man, who has done a lot of evil and murderous things, but he was NOT a current threat.
Osama Bin Ladin and his Al-Queda were, and ARE, the biggest threat we face in regards to terrorism on US soil.

Meanwhile, the Bush family has a personal grudge against Hussein, and lo and behold, he's the only one of the "big-wig" evil leaders to have been captured.

If the Bush administration honestly thought they had a good reason to hunt down Hussein, they never would have felt the need to LIE about him possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Think of all the other avenues they could have been pursuing in order to make this country (and the WORLD) safer, during the time they spent pursuing this personal vendetta.

I completely agree that SOMETHING needed to be done in order to protect this country and the rest of the world, but I do not take kindly to being lied to when it comes to matters of life and death for innocent citizens.
Someone else could easily do just as good of a job... if not better... in regards to the "War On Terrorism."

Yet another reason I wouldn't vote for Bush if someone held a gun to my head.

I agree with you, but the Bush Administration did not lie about SH having WMD. If they did, then the UN lied as did the Clinton Administration, because they all said he had them as well based on essentially the same evidence.

What they lied about IMO was the nuclear stuff. They flat out knew that was false and said it anyway in an attempt to make their case more compelling. For that, W should be impeached in my book because if he and/or the people around him will lie about that, they will lie about anything.

To quote Bill O'Reilly "there's no question the White House was not skeptical enough when it came to Iraq. Bush wanted Saddam's head. And any information that led to that end was encouraged. That is not the way to conduct foreign policy in this very dangerous world. Any and all mistakes will come back to haunt."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109613,00.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you, but the Bush Administration did not lie about SH having WMD. If they did, then the UN lied as did the Clinton Administration, because they all said he had them as well based on essentially the same evidence.

What they lied about IMO was the nuclear stuff. They flat out knew that was false and said it anyway in an attempt to make their case more compelling. For that, W should be impeached in my book because if he and/or the people around him will lie about that, they will lie about anything.

They had the same intelligence but if you read O'Neill's book, he says that the problem was how this administration chose to portray it. Their agenda was to go into Iraq the entire time-before 9/11 and after. They lied. People should also be holding *'s feet to the fire on 9/11.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They had the same intelligence but if you read O'Neill's book, he says that the problem was how this administration chose to portray it. Their agenda was to go into Iraq the entire time-before 9/11 and after. They lied. People should also be holding *'s feet to the fire on 9/11.

Oops- Sorry - I edited as you posted. I think the Bill O'Reilly quote sums up what you're saying and I agree with you. I say impeach him. :mad:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0401280334jan28,1,1790110.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Sources say military is mapping operation to strike inside Pakistan

By Christine Spolar
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published January 28, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, deeply concerned about recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and a resurgence of Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan, is preparing a U.S. military offensive that would reach inside Pakistan with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, military sources said.

U.S. Central Command is assembling a team of military intelligence officers that would be posted in Pakistan ahead of the operation, according to sources familiar with details of the plan and internal military communications. The sources spoke on the condition they not be identified.

As now envisioned, the offensive would involve Special Operations forces, Army Rangers and Army ground troops, sources said. A Navy aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Arabian Sea.

Referred to in internal Pentagon messages as the "spring offensive," the operation would be driven by certain undisclosed events in Pakistan and across the region, sources said. A source familiar with details of the plan said this is "not like a contingency plan for North Korea, something that sits on a shelf. This planning is like planning for Iraq. They want this plan to be executable, now."

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you, but the Bush Administration did not lie about SH having WMD. If they did, then the UN lied as did the Clinton Administration, because they all said he had them as well based on essentially the same evidence.

What they lied about IMO was the nuclear stuff. They flat out knew that was false and said it anyway in an attempt to make their case more compelling. For that, W should be impeached in my book because if he and/or the people around him will lie about that, they will lie about anything. I do think they intentionally lied about the WMDs too.
I believe all the info they had, pointed to the fact that Iraq was no longer in possession of WMDs.

Don't forget all the many, many months they spent searching Iraq for WMDs before... and even then, they didn't find anything. And I don't believe they really thought they would... they were just looking for an excuse to go after Hussein, and they used it. Lying to the American people in the process.

Bush does not deserve to be re-elected. God only knows how much more damage he can do to us with another four years in the office.

[GypsySorcerer]

I just want to make a quick comment on OBL. I agree that he was and is a bigger threat to the US than Saddam ever was. (I do, however, think that the Iraqi people are much better off without him, and that they will see that in the long run.) But it really bothers me to see people blaming Bush for not capturing OBL. I mean, he was offered to Clinton (albeit under shady circumstances) and Clinton declined. But still, we could have had him. And no, I don't blame Clinton for 9/11.

I believe we are still looking for OBL. We have captured several Al-Qaeda members, including some top ranking officials.

Finally, I do believe the WMD debacle of the Bush Administration will probably be the end of his presidency.

[jwd]

As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right. :laugh:


Joe

[gldstwmn]

http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

"the nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"

--Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System

Many people have been wondering if our President has secret plans to reinstate the draft. This website will provide absolute proof that Bush is making plans to reinstate the draft by the middle of 2005.

In the last few months Bush has launched a recruiting drive for people to work on the draft boards around the country, the DefendAmerica government site posted an advert looking for volunteers, but when someone brought this to the attention of the press it was promptly removed, fueling rumours about the possibility of a draft.

There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25.

This site also has excellent links to document their position.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

"the nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"

--Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System

Many people have been wondering if our President has secret plans to reinstate the draft. This website will provide absolute proof that Bush is making plans to reinstate the draft by the middle of 2005.

In the last few months Bush has launched a recruiting drive for people to work on the draft boards around the country, the DefendAmerica government site posted an advert looking for volunteers, but when someone brought this to the attention of the press it was promptly removed, fueling rumours about the possibility of a draft.

There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25.

This site also has excellent links to document their position.


That website needs to get their facts straight.

Many Democrats have talked about reinstating the draft, citing a disproportionate representation of minorities and under class in the military. Most, if not all, of the sponsors/co-sponsors of those Senate and House bills are Democrats.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
That website needs to get their facts straight.

Many Democrats have talked about reinstating the draft, citing a disproportionate representation of minorities and under class in the military. Most, if not all, of the sponsors/co-sponsors of those Senate and House bills are Democrats.

Rangel supports the draft. However, he is not the one thinking of "liberating" Syria, Pakistan or God knows where else.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Rangel supports the draft. However, he is not the one thinking of "liberating" Syria, Pakistan or God knows where else.


Rangel isn't the only Democrat supporting this. And I know Rangel and co. aren't in charge of hte military.

However, it annoys me when people are posting "Bush wants to reinstate the draft" when the sponsors of the legislation are Democrats. :distress:

[DeeGeMe]

I'm not going to deny for one minute that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad man. But here's the thing--the United States supports dicatators in at least a dozen other countries in the world who make SH look like a rank amateur. Why aren't we invading them? Could it be because their countries aren't the oil rich mecca that Iraq is?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Rangel isn't the only Democrat supporting this. And I know Rangel and co. aren't in charge of hte military.

However, it annoys me when people are posting "Bush wants to reinstate the draft" when the sponsors of the legislation are Democrats. :distress:

The bill that they introduced is dead. The Bush administration are the ones pushing for the draft boards, not the Dems.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The bill that they introduced is dead. The Bush administration are the ones pushing for the draft boards, not the Dems.

Someone posted the link bushdraft.com as evidence that he wants to reinstate the draft, and they had those bills as "proof." That's what chapped my arse. I don't care if the bills are dead or not, it's false information.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Someone posted the link bushdraft.com as evidence that he wants to reinstate the draft, and they had those bills as "proof." That's what chapped my arse. I don't care if the bills are dead or not, it's false information.

No, I said "This site also has excellent links to document their position." What's false about that?

The rest of the page reads:

"Articles about the recruitment drive for draft board workers can be found here

A Copy of the DefendAmerica page

Bush drives to fill draft board positions
Draft Board Vacancies Prompt Questions of a Draft
Is the Draft on the Drawing Boards?
Talk of a Draft Grows
Will US Bring Back the Draft
Selective Service Notice Spurs Worries about Draft
US Raises Spectre of Conscription
Will Bush Reinstate The Draft?
Appeal for Draft Board Volunteers Revives Memories of Vietnam"

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No, I said "This site also has excellent links to document their position." What's false about that?


I wasn't referring to you in my post. I meant the bushdraft site linked to the Democrat-sponsored Senate and House bills, when the site, as I understood it, was documenting Bush's action to bring back the draft. It was not Bush who began the legislation, so I felt that information was misleading. Sorry I didn't articulate my point more clearly.

And the page I was looking at was this: http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html (http://http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html)

That's where I got the Senate/House stuff. I apologize if that wasn't the page you were referring to.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I wasn't referring to you in my post. I meant the bushdraft site linked to the Democrat-sponsored Senate and House bills, when the site, as I understood it, was documenting Bush's action to bring back the draft. It was not Bush who began the legislation, so I felt that information was misleading. Sorry I didn't articulate my point more clearly.

Since when does a president introduce legislation?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since when does a president introduce legislation?


Never. I was just saying that the site doesn't need to use Democrat introduced bills as evidence that Bush is wanting to reinstate the draft. It's confusing and misleading. And you pointed out that they bills are dead, and the site says they are "currently in Congress." I just don't get why those proposed bills are even ON the site. They don't belong there.

This got waaay too confusing. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Never. I was just saying that the site doesn't need to use Democrat introduced bills as evidence that Bush is wanting to reinstate the draft. It's confusing and misleading. And you pointed out that they bills are dead, and the site says are "currently in Congress." I just don't get why those proposed bills are even ON the site.

It points out on the site further down in the referneces that the bill is dead. They are on there in reference to this statement: "There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25."

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It points out on the site further down in the referneces that the bill is dead. They are on there in reference to this statement: "There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25."


I don't see that on the page I am viewing. But my whole point is that they shouldn't have been on there in the first place, which obviously, I didn't state very well. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I don't see that on the page I am viewing. But my whole point is that they shouldn't have been on there in the first place, which obviously, I didn't state very well. :laugh:

If you look at when the bill was introduced, about a year ago, then I think the motive is clear. The bill states that ALL men and WOMEN ages 18-25 should be eleigible for military service. What was getting ready to happen a year ago? Who has two daughters that would be eligible?
In short, while Rangel continues to support this, I believe the others introduced it to send a message to the Oval Ofiice that, if you're going to start a war, then you'd better be willing to send everybody's kids, including your own. JMO.:)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right. :laugh: If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job! :laugh:

But you know I love ya, Joe! :nod: :wavey:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If you look at when the bill was introduced, about a year ago, then I think the motive is clear. The bill states that ALL men and WOMEN ages 18-25 should be eleigible for military service. What was getting ready to happen a year ago? Who has two daughters that would be eligible?
In short, while Rangel continues to support this, I believe the others introduced it to send a message to the Oval Ofiice that, if you're going to start a war, then you'd better be willing to send everybody's kids, including your own. JMO.:)

Touche. :)

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job!

But you know I love ya, Joe!

Brian, I just don't agree with your assessment of the President. As for your first point about the President "lying", I would suggest this read:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

"It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

END QUOTE

And to think that the President of the U.S would send in American soldiers, risking their lives, for a personal vendetta is just incredulous to me. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that one. You'll never convince me that a president of this country, whether he's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative would be THAT cold hearted.

As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

I myself am a very strong supporter of gay "civil unions".

As for the last comment in your post, right back at ya! :)



Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Brian, I just don't agree with your assessment of the President.

And to think that the President of the U.S would send in American soldiers, risking their lives, for a personal vendetta is just incredulous to me. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that one. You'll never convince me that a president of this country, whether he's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative would be THAT cold hearted.

As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

I myself am a very strong supporter of gay "civil unions".I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

So do we believe that we were lied to, or merely that they're just that foolish?
Either way, it's not a very flattering commentary on the current presidency.

I also realize that gay marriages aren't "widely" supported... and I was extremely disappointed that Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage act. But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.
And, quite honestly, that offends me.

If they wish to only allow "civil unions," so be it... I can live with that. But I don't appreciate being told that what I am, is something that should be equated with perversion and sin... and something that the good, upstanding, moralled citizens of the USofA need protecting from.

This affects my future and the futures of many of my friends, and I'm sorry, but this is just a subject I can't be dispassionate about.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

I do remember that there was a general feeling that the inspectors were being given the run-around. Everyone believed Saddam had them, and if he didn't have them any longer, he wasn't forthcoming on what he did with them. He provided no documentation or proof of what happened to them. Once again, the intelligence indicated that he had them. At least that's the way I'm taking what's being reported in the news now.


Johnny Stew:

But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.

Actually I think it's his job to uphold the laws of the land as president. Like it or not the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is a law signed by William Jefferson Clinton himself. I don't believe George Bush has ever said anything to give one the impression that he believes homosexuals are sinners, deviant, and immoral. But I definitely understand how you would feel with the likes of Pat Robertson close by. I do feel your pain.


Joe

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right. :laugh:


Joe

Name it, funny guy.

[CarneVaca]

We are living in New Roman Times. If you don't know what happened to the Romans, you'd better bone up now. It might give you some clues to prepare for what's to come.

No world power ever lasts forever, and we ain't any different. The Romans, the Ottomans, the Brits, Spain, the Chinese dinasties, the Nazis, Genghis Kahn, etc., all thought they could rule the world (or what they perceived as "the world"). Can't be done, not even through corporations. Our undoing will be our perpetual misunderstanding of the Muslim world and the extremist contingent that's causing most of our problems. We have the technology but they have the numbers. Look back at history and you will see that the most technically advanced societies invariably failed and got embroiled in conflicts in which they repeatedly underestimated their enemies.

I hate to bring you this piece of bad news, but hey, don't shoot the messenger.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
That website needs to get their facts straight.

Many Democrats have talked about reinstating the draft, citing a disproportionate representation of minorities and under class in the military. Most, if not all, of the sponsors/co-sponsors of those Senate and House bills are Democrats.

I see the the Democrats support of the draft is an attempt to discredit and take down W. I think few would be so gung ho on the war if they were faced with a draft. But, that is my opinion - others may differ. Also, Rumsfeld has repeatedly stated, and correctly so IMO, that an army of volunteers performs better than an army of draftees. So, despite the current talk of reinstating the draft after the election (assuming a win by W), I remain skeptical.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since when does a president introduce legislation?

????? All Presidents introduce legislation r at least sed bills to Congress. Don't you remeber Michael Douglas in the "The American President" syig "I am dending a bill to Congress that calls for a ban on all assault weapons . . . . " :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job! :laugh:

But you know I love ya, Joe! :nod: :wavey:

Only in Mass. and since the Goodrich decision does the right for homosexuals to "marry" exist in any state and then only under the Mass. Const., not the U.S. Const. This could change if the state legilature amends the Mass Const.

Also, the statement "American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose" implies support for polygamy. I mean in theory why are gay rights more important that the rights of polygamists to coose without govt. interference? That is why I say the govt. should not sanction marriage in any way, shape or form. Leave it to the churches! :cool:

Also, I believe the Defense of Mariage Act, which interestingly enough Kerry did not sign because he believed it was a hate filled wedge issue, only prohibits one state from having to recognize the validity of a non one man and one woman marriage from a sister state as all states would be required to do under the "good faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Const. and related U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions.

[strandinthewind]

More religious zealot CRAP from R's and D's.!!!!!

Gays lose challenge to Florida adoption ban
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 Posted: 8:24 PM EST (0124 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Four gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign.

full story at http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/28/gay.adoption.ap/index.html

:rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I just want to make a quick comment on OBL. I agree that he was and is a bigger threat to the US than Saddam ever was. (I do, however, think that the Iraqi people are much better off without him, and that they will see that in the long run.) But it really bothers me to see people blaming Bush for not capturing OBL. I mean, he was offered to Clinton (albeit under shady circumstances) and Clinton declined. But still, we could have had him. And no, I don't blame Clinton for 9/11.

He lost him. OBL was trapped in a cave and they let him escape.

And Daddy Bush was having breakfast with the Bin Laden's the morning of 9/11. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

My word.

Our country is split down the middle when it comes to gay marriage. Bush has turned it into a religious thing when it ISN'T. He has no right to ammend our Constitution to further his religious views. I find it insulting, offensive, and despicable.

Clinton wasn't much better about gay marriage.

As for John Kerry, get your facts straight. His personal belief is that he isn't for gay marriages, but he's clarified that as his personal belief. He isn't for using the government to prevent people from marrying. Personally, he doesn't like it, but he said he won't use his personal beliefs to support legislation that discriminates against it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

So do we believe that we were lied to, or merely that they're just that foolish?
Either way, it's not a very flattering commentary on the current presidency.

I also realize that gay marriages aren't "widely" supported... and I was extremely disappointed that Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage act. But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.
And, quite honestly, that offends me.

If they wish to only allow "civil unions," so be it... I can live with that. But I don't appreciate being told that what I am, is something that should be equated with perversion and sin... and something that the good, upstanding, moralled citizens of the USofA need protecting from.

This affects my future and the futures of many of my friends, and I'm sorry, but this is just a subject I can't be dispassionate about.

Amazing post, Johnny. Very heartfelt and so true. :nod: :D Maybe you should move to MA in four months when gay marriage will be legal. ;) They already have some marriage cruises planned! :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
I do remember that there was a general feeling that the inspectors were being given the run-around. Everyone believed Saddam had them, and if he didn't have them any longer, he wasn't forthcoming on what he did with them. He provided no documentation or proof of what happened to them. Once again, the intelligence indicated that he had them. At least that's the way I'm taking what's being reported in the news now.

And I remember Kay saying that Saddam was taking steps to comply with the resolutions. Then ChimpCo pounced on him.

The thing that mystifies me about your position is that you don't seem to believe that ChimpCo should be held accountable for the faulty intel (if that's what it was and not complete fabrication like the African uranium joke). It is THEIR JOB to dig around and make abolutely sure that the intel was good. Instead, the supposedly just took it at face value. That makes the alarms go crazy because it shows they didn't do their job.

Blaming all of this on the intel communit is offensive. This admin takes no responsibility for anything it does. None at all.

[CarneVaca]

If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?

Exactly. It defies logic.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.
Joe

He's not trying to ban it either.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
????? All Presidents introduce legislation r at least sed bills to Congress. Don't you remeber Michael Douglas in the "The American President" syig "I am dending a bill to Congress that calls for a ban on all assault weapons . . . . " :cool:

Yeah. All those Hollywood movies are factual.:rolleyes: To clarify:

Submitting a Bill

Bills originate from several different sources, but primarily from individual members of Congress. In addition, bills might be brought to a member by a constituent or by a group of constituents; a bill can be submitted to a member of Congress by one or more state legislatures; or the President or his administration might suggest a bill.

However it is brought to the attention of a member, it must be submitted for consideration by the member. In the House, Representatives need merely drop a copy of a bill into a bin specifically placed to receive new bills. In the Senate, the bill is given to a clerk at the President's desk.

Bills can be introduced in either house, though as noted above, a bill must eventually pass both houses to become law. The exception to this is that bills for raising revenue must originate in the House, and never in the Senate.

[dissention]

Ain't this shocking? ;) :eek: :rolleyes:

Bush Budget Raises Cost of Medicare
1 hour, 4 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost one-third more than previously estimated and will predict a deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush's 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill's cost at about $540 billion, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bush will submit on Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts next Oct. 1.

Bush just signed the Medicare measure into law last month. While it was moving through Congress, Bush, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill's costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.

Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway, and many of them are already angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.

"I'm not the least bit surprised," said conservative Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who voted against the Medicare bill in November and who said he had heard that the cost estimate would rise. "Historically, our estimates of what these programs will cost have been so far off as to be meaningless."

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton would not comment on the Medicare figures. But an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the estimate would rise to nearly $540 billion.

"Both numbers provide what you can call a reasonable range of possible future costs for Medicare," the official said. "These are complex estimates, based on hundreds of individual programs, decisions and potential actions over an extended period of time."

CBO, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst, estimated the bill's 10-year cost at $395 billion. But administration officials repeatedly stood by the $400 billion figure, which Bush had included in the budget he proposed last February.

Bush's new budget will also estimate this year's budget deficit at about $520 billion, the congressional sources said. That would easily surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year, the highest deficit ever in dollar terms.

Just Monday, the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) projected this year's red ink would total $477 billion.

The new estimate comes as Bush braces for a difficult election-season fight with Congress over spending — after a budget year that he can hardly expect to top.

Although Bush sends his 2005 budget to Congress next week, lawmakers only last week completed their spending work for 2004. That process saw Bush win virtually all his major priorities including a tax cut, new Medicare prescription drug coverage, funds to fight a war with Iraq (news - web sites), and overall spending restraint.

"He wanted a carpet that looked like X, and generally speaking he got a carpet that looked like X," said Richard Kogan, who analyzes the budget for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Republican-run Congress avoided overt clashes with Bush but did not roll over completely.

Lawmakers trimmed his defense plans while boosting funds for highways, Amtrak and veterans. They ignored Bush's plan to make tax cuts permanent, scaled back his proposal to stop taxing corporate dividends, derailed his energy bill and added thousands of home-district projects to spending measures.

Even so, the results were a far cry from the "dead on arrival" label applied to the spending blueprints of some of Bush's recent predecessors. Democrats and moderate Republicans often gave that assessment to plans written by the first President Bush and President Reagan, who were forced to accept both tax and spending increases.

On the other hand, despite the GOP takeover of Congress two years into his tenure, President Clinton (news - web sites) won frequent spending concessions from lawmakers wary of battling him. Bush has followed a similar pattern.

"It would be hard to say he's not getting what he wants," Stan Collender, a senior vice president who follows the budget for the accounting firm Fleischman-Hillard.

Bush has yet to cast a veto after three years in office. He often uses the threat of a veto to get his way, issuing 19 as Congress considered the 13 annual spending bills for this year. In the end, lawmakers dropped challenges on issues like administration plans to change overtime pay rules and divert more government work to private contractors.

Major priorities Bush proposed last year included:

_Tax reductions of $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The bill he signed had $330 billion in tax cuts. That number is expected to grow should lawmakers, as anticipated, make some of its temporary reductions permanent. Congress added $20 billion he did not seek for financially strapped states.

_$400 billion over a decade for revamping Medicare and adding prescription drug coverage. Bush last month signed a bill resembling his proposal.

_$87 billion this year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), $500 million less than he got. The final bill gave him $1.7 billion less than the $18.6 billion he wanted to rebuild Iraq and less flexibility than he wanted for controlling the money.

[CarneVaca]

I think this thread belongs in RUMOURS. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I think this thread belongs in RUMOURS. ;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You're on fire today. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I think this thread belongs in RUMOURS. ;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd

And to think that the President of the U.S would send in American soldiers, risking their lives, for a personal vendetta is just incredulous to me. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that one. You'll never convince me that a president of this country, whether he's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative would be THAT cold hearted.
Joe

Then how do you explain this?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040129/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc_1

Bush Seeks to Deflect Calls for New Iraq Inquiry
Thu Jan 29, 9:52 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's national security advisor tried on Thursday to head off calls for an independent investigation into flawed intelligence about Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons programs and said the United States may never learn the truth because of post-war looting.



The administration sought to put the blame for any intelligence gaps on looters and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), whom National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said was so secretive that "he allowed the world to continue to wonder" what weapons he still had.


Critics say the administration did little to secure sensitive sites after the invasion, undercutting efforts to find the alleged weapons at the center of Bush's case for going to war.


David Kay, who had led the U.S. team hunting for Iraq's weapons, told Congress on Wednesday he would support an independent investigation into the intelligence used by the White House to justify going to war.


He said it was highly unlikely Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, as stated repeatedly by Bush and his top aides in advance of the war.


The White House brushed aside calls for an independent investigation.


Rice told NBC that the intelligence community had already launched its own investigation -- "a kind of audit of what was known going in and what was found when they got there."


A CIA (news - web sites) official said that investigation, headed by Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director, was under way.


Rice said Kay had raised "some questions that we will want to answer."


But the world "will never know fully" the extent of Iraq's weapons programs because documents and evidence were lost during the looting that took place when Saddam's regime collapsed, she said in an interview on ABC's morning news program.


Rice said the administration wants to get all the facts to compare what the White House thought would be found in Iraq and what was actually found.


"Nobody will want to know better and more about what we found when we got to Iraq than this president and the administration," she said.


Whatever the outcome, Rice said the administration would not change its position that Saddam had to go.


"The judgment is going to be the same: This is a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world and it was time to do something about this threat," she said.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jwd
As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right.


Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Name it, funny guy.



I believe he's strong on national defense, he supports cutting taxes, and he signed into law the ban on partial birth abortions to name a few.
No joke.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
He lost him. OBL was trapped in a cave and they let him escape.

And Daddy Bush was having breakfast with the Bin Laden's the morning of 9/11. ;)

Now Now let's not spin :laugh:

We assume he was in the Tora Bora caves. No one can actually prove that.

And, OBL's family has had nothing to do with him for years and vice versa. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And I remember Kay saying that Saddam was taking steps to comply with the resolutions. Then ChimpCo pounced on him.

Do you honestly belive this after 11 years of other false promises :laugh:

[jwd]

dissention:

As for John Kerry, get your facts straight. His personal belief is that he isn't for gay marriages, but he's clarified that as his personal belief.

My words: "John Kerry does not believe in gay mariage".


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
[B

I believe he's strong on national defense, he supports cutting taxes, and he signed into law the ban on partial birth abortions to name a few.
No joke.


Joe [/B]

Bad, bad and none of his God damn business.:)

[jwd]

dissention:

The thing that mystifies me about your position is that you don't seem to believe that ChimpCo should be held accountable for the faulty intel (if that's what it was and not complete fabrication like the African uranium joke). It is THEIR JOB to dig around and make abolutely sure that the intel was good. Instead, the supposedly just took it at face value. That makes the alarms go crazy because it shows they didn't do their job.

If you read the article from CNN that I posted previously in this thread, I'm not the only one who believes the intelligence was the major blame, as it has been for many years apparently. Personally I would like to find out what went wrong, what's been going wrong, and I think there should be a full investigation in to it. Quite frankly, I think it's real scary.


Joe

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

the govt. should not sanction marriage in any way, shape or form. Leave it to the churches!


Completely agree. I think the way to go is civil unions.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?

But that is just my point. What if four people want to "marry?" By the same logic, its their choice :shrug: Thus, I conclude the state should in no way comment on or sanction the effects of marriage and marriage should be a purely religious thing.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
If you read the article from CNN that I posted previously in this thread, I'm not the only one who believes the intelligence was the major blame, as it has been for many years apparently. Personally I would like to find out what went wrong, what's been going wrong, and I think there should be a full investigation in to it. Quite frankly, I think it's real scary.


Joe

While we're at it, let's find out who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, where Bin Laden is and what Bush really knew before 9/11.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But that is just my point. What if four people want to "marry?" By the same logic, its their choice :shrug: Thus, I conclude the state should in no way comment on or sanction the effects of marriage and marriage should be a purely religious thing.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
I believe he's strong on national defense, he supports cutting taxes, and he signed into law the ban on partial birth abortions to name a few.
No joke.


Joe

I guess to you "strong on national defense" means losing a handful of Americans a day in a criminal war that he claimed was over eight months ago. As for cutting taxes, don't make me laugh. And as for the abortion issue, I won't even go there with you. You know something? I'll discuss abortion with the woman who's been in the situation, or might be. I'd rather empathize and lend an ear than pass judgment on her. And Dubya should stay the hell out of it too

At ease.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:

I guess to you "strong on national defense" means losing a handful of Americans a day in a criminal war that he claimed was over eight months ago.

Strong national defense to me means not having been attacked again like we were on 9/11.

[CarneVaca]

Yeah, thank god for all those polka-dot, fuscia-with-hints-of-orange-and-burgundy-accents alerts.

[jwd]

Which brings me back to my original statement: "As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right." :nod:

[Sugar]

Originally posted by jwd
Which brings me back to my original statement: "As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right." :nod:

Hmmm...so I guess you feel the same way about Clinton too...I mean conservative America HATED him, so I guess you agree he must have been doing something right, too. :D

[jwd]

Hmmm...so I guess you feel the same way about Clinton too...I mean conservative America HATED him, so I guess you agree he must have been doing something right, too

Nooooo, that's how YOU would feel, not me. :D

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Sugar
Hmmm...so I guess you feel the same way about Clinton too...I mean conservative America HATED him, so I guess you agree he must have been doing something right, too. :D

You know, I disliked Clinton when he was in office. He was immensely popular and it bugged the heck out of me. He had a Republican-controlled Congress, and they worked together for a middle-of-the-road approach IMO. But Clinton got all the credit and I couldn't stand it.

Although his morals left a lot to be desired, his politics didn't. And Bush has spent tons more than Clinton ever did, which really ticks me off at Bush.

So I guess Slick Willy wasn't so bad after all. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And, OBL's family has had nothing to do with him for years and vice versa. :cool:

That's not the case. Bin Laden was at his nephew's wedding in July, right before the attacks.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Strong national defense to me means not having been attacked again like we were on 9/11.

As soon as we get rid of the Bush Crime Family, we'll be a lot safer.

[estranged4life]

I havent really decided who I want to waste my vote on as of yet...As usual I am stuck in the middle trying to decide.

Even if Stevie & Linds' endorse a candidate that couldnt sway me to vote for 'em...

Brian "Transferred reply to the post on the "Rumours" board" j.

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

As soon as we get rid of the Bush Crime Family, we'll be a lot safer.

Oh yea, back to the days of the terrorist attacks on the USS Cole in '00, the Khobar Towers in '96, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in '98. It'll be a much safer world. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now Now let's not spin :laugh:

We assume he was in the Tora Bora caves. No one can actually prove that.

And, OBL's family has had nothing to do with him for years and vice versa. :cool:

"Assume" is the word that's thrown around to cover up the fact that we lost him.

And do you honestly believe that OBL's family has nothing to do with him? I find that funny.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Strong national defense to me means not having been attacked again like we were on 9/11.

Using that logic, I guess you could say almost every President of this century was strong on defense.

Your rationale makes no sense, IMO.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But that is just my point. What if four people want to "marry?" By the same logic, its their choice :shrug: Thus, I conclude the state should in no way comment on or sanction the effects of marriage and marriage should be a purely religious thing. But see, Jason, that's the same nonsensical and diversionary logic the Republican party is using, to drum up support for their desire to block gay marriages.

I do not see how allowing two people of the same gender to enter into marriage, suddenly opens the flood-gates for bigamists and polygamists.

They've used the bigamy-polygamy-incest argument to put a twisted spin on the whole thing, and to convince people that gay marriages are a bad idea.
It's the little "whisper in the ear" tactic... "You know, if we let gay people get married, we might also have to let these people get married... and surely a good American like you, would never agree to that, would you?"

Other countries recognize gay marriages, and that "worst case scenario" hasn't happened there.

All our government needs to do, is define marriage as a union between two people aged 18 or older, who are not related by blood, or currently married to someone else... and it's a done deal.
But they don't want to do that... so they're doing everything in their power to stop that from happening.

And I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate my relationship with someone, being compared to that of bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous relationships.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But see, Jason, that's the same nonsensical and diversionary logic the Republican party is using, to drum up support for their desire to block gay marriages.

I do not see how allowing two people of the same gender to enter into marriage, suddenly opens the flood-gates for bigamists and polygamists.

They've used the bigamy-polygamy-incest argument to put a twisted spin on the whole thing, and to convince people that gay marriages are a bad idea.
It's the little "whisper in the ear" tactic... "You know, if we let gay people get married, we might also have to let these people get married... and surely a good American like you, would never agree to that, would you?"

Other countries recognize gay marriages, and that "worst case scenario" hasn't happened there.

All our government needs to do, is define marriage as a union between two people aged 18 or older, who are not related by blood, or currently married to someone else... and it's a done deal.
But they don't want to do that... so they're doing everything in their power to stop that from happening.

And I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate my relationship with someone, being compared to that of bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous relationships.

I agree with you to the extent I do not care about polygamists. But, my point is what is to prevent polygamist from using the same argument that gay people are currently using. Why is it okay for gay people but not polygamists to tell the govt. not to discrimminate against them and redefine the meaning of marriage. I mean why shouldn't four consenting adults be allowed to commit? Moreover, why is it okay for the govt. to tell them their commited relationship is offensive or not recognizable, but gay and straight two person unions are? I submit it is rank hypocrisy (not by anyone just in general :cool: ) to say redine marriage only for gay people and no one else. :shrug: Therefore, I conclude the govt. ought to stay the hell out it marriage altogether.

Note, I fully realize my utopia will never happen :laugh: So I hypocritically, but practically, say let's have only two person gay/heterosexual civil unions/marriage/whatever and screw the polygamists, etc., even though I think they should have the same rights as everyone. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Yeah, thank god for all those polka-dot, fuscia-with-hints-of-orange-and-burgundy-accents alerts.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: and :nod: :nod:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Our undoing will be our perpetual misunderstanding of the Muslim world and the extremist contingent that's causing most of our problems. We have the technology but they have the numbers. Look back at history and you will see that the most technically advanced societies invariably failed and got embroiled in conflicts in which they repeatedly underestimated their enemies.

Is it so hard to believe that it may be THEIR (the extremist Muslims) perpetual misunderstanding of the "free & Democratic" world that is causing most of our problems?;)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?

We may actually be in agreement on an issue!! YEAH!!!!:laugh: :wavey:

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Is it so hard to believe that it may be THEIR (the extremist Muslims) perpetual misunderstanding of the "free & Democratic" world that is causing most of our problems?;)

Rob:cool:

I agree. But, it goes way deeper than that on both sides.

To me, in general, the Muslim people will NEVER agree that we have done anything for them. They agree that without our need for their oil and our demonstrating to them how to get to their oil, they would not be rich nations most are. They are like thank you now get out. And, by the way, we will never respect you enough to discipline our rouge extremist until you stop all defense for Isreal. So, in general, the Arab world is thankful to us for wanting their oil (and boy do we want it!) and showing them how to develop it. But, now that we have done that they want us out. But, that is just one factor. I think the other is the 1500 or so years of Christian history wherein the Muslim empires were declining and the Christians in the name of GOD took it upon themselves to raid the Holy Land. Not that the Muslims are not guilty of doing the same type of thing before then.

In sum, I agree with Carne (I think :laugh: ) in that until both sides are willing not only to put aside the past wrongs both have committed and say "let's start anew and agree to respect each other" no peace will be had.

I maintain that until the last drop of oil is extracted, that will never happen.

Also, my experience with Muslim people is they are mostly peaceful. Yet, I know a few that frighteningly think the West is evil because our women run around in mini-skirts. I am being serious and that scares me because our religious fundamentalist say essentially the same things about them.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I guess to you "strong on national defense" means losing a handful of Americans a day in a criminal war that he claimed was over eight months ago. As for cutting taxes, don't make me laugh.

Why is cutting taxes bad, again?:confused:

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Why is cutting taxes bad, again?:confused:

Rob:cool:

Interestingly, as I have said before historically cutting taxes will generate the economy as it apparently has done now. But, W spends more than any President we have ever had and placed more financial burden through new govt. standards on local govt. (mostly Dept. of Homeland Sec. stuff). So, I am scared the historical effect of tax cuts may be lessened. So far, it has not.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Using that logic, I guess you could say almost every President of this century was strong on defense.

Your rationale makes no sense, IMO.

Unless you consider the fact that extremist, Muslim-backed terrorism hasn't been in existence for the entire century.:confused: :)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, as I have said before historically cutting taxes will generate the economy as it apparently has done now. But, W spends more than any President we have ever had and placed more financial burden through new govt. standards on local govt. (mostly Dept. of Homeland Sec. stuff). So, I am scared the historical effect of tax cuts may be lessened. So far, it has not.

I definitly have my issues with Bush and this is one of them. Tax cuts were good, but they also need to cut some of the pork barrel garbage and wasted spending programs.

I am behind Bush on the Foreign Policy front. I believe in what they are trying to do. But, I have to say that Clinton was a stronger president on domestic issues, Bush's tax cuts aside. I wish they could combine the strengths of both!

The less the government has a say in where our money goes, the better, IMHO.

Rob

[ERigby818]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
We are living in New Roman Times. If you don't know what happened to the Romans, you'd better bone up now. It might give you some clues to prepare for what's to come.

No world power ever lasts forever, and we ain't any different. The Romans, the Ottomans, the Brits, Spain, the Chinese dinasties, the Nazis, Genghis Kahn, etc., all thought they could rule the world (or what they perceived as "the world"). Can't be done, not even through corporations. Our undoing will be our perpetual misunderstanding of the Muslim world and the extremist contingent that's causing most of our problems. We have the technology but they have the numbers. Look back at history and you will see that the most technically advanced societies invariably failed and got embroiled in conflicts in which they repeatedly underestimated their enemies.

I hate to bring you this piece of bad news, but hey, don't shoot the messenger.


Excellent point, Carne! I agree with just about everything you've said on this and the Kerry thread on Rumours.

It's so refreshing to read the opinions of Dissention and Johnny Stew and others. I've just moved from southwest Connecticut to southwest Virginia where "liberal" seems to be such a dirty word. Needless to say, I'm experiencing culture shock. This President is so awful for everyone in our country except for his corporate fat cat friends and too many middle class people fail to see this. They actually think they got a tax cut! :laugh:
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees how Bush is dividing, not uniting our country and promoting hate:distress:. I generally disagree with Republicans when it comes to national politics (local politics is a whole other story) though I think we need balance in government so having a Democrat President and Republican congress is ok. What we have right now is a federal government that is way too far to the right.

I don't know if Kerry is my favorite...I really do like them all for different reasons and will be happy no matter which wins as long as he beats Bush (even Lieberman-though I like him more as a Senator than presidential candidate, I think it's time we had a Jewish President and he is a uniter because of his centrist and often non-partisan views--there's something to be said for that)...I really do like Dean and Clark. I don't think they're duds. :shrug:

You know, I was thinking...I hope that if Dean, Kerry or Edwards wins the nomination and goes on to win the presidency, they appoint Clark Secretary of Defense. If General Clark were running the pentagon, how wonderful that would be!! He is so brilliant when it comes to military planning and strategy unlike our current Defense Secretary :rolleyes:.
(sidebar: I hate the way Rums is so rude to reporters at news conferences-- Doesn't he realize they are the only ones getting the info to the us, the taxpayers who are paying for the war and have a right to know everything as long as it doesn't compromise our national security? I mean I know sometimes the reporters ask dumb, annoying or invasive questions but he shouldn't roll his eyes at them and be sarcastic. He DOES owe the public an explanation for what he's doing and thees are the people who are bringing it to us. Anyway, that was a rant.)

Well, this is the first time I've ever gotten political on the Ledge (I think). It's also the first time I've posted in a couple of months because I moved and had to settle in and get an ISP and all that. I love my new home, but it's crazy how different the politics here are. I guess I took for granted what it's like to be in a place where people have the same values that I do.

It's good to be back on the Ledge! :wavey:

-Sonia

[Rob67]

Originally posted by ERigby818
This President is so awful for everyone in our country except for his corporate fat cat friends and too many middle class people fail to see this. They actually think they got a tax cut! :laugh:
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees how Bush is dividing, not uniting our country and promoting hate:distress:.

It's good to be back on the Ledge! :wavey:

-Sonia

Um...well, I got a tax cut and I'm about as middle class as you can get. And, it went to good use. This whole "tax cut for the rich" argument is ridiculous. The rich pay most of the taxes in this country!

As far as promoting hate, I guess that is a matter of interpretation. I the only hate promotion seems to be coming from the Dem candidates!

But anyway...Welcome back!!!:wavey: :)

Rob:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
I the only hate promotion seems to be coming from the Dem candidates!Hmm... perhaps this time. But take a look back at the past six or seven elections, and note who slung the most mud then. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by ERigby818
Excellent point, Carne! I agree with just about everything you've said on this and the Kerry thread on Rumours.

It's so refreshing to read the opinions of Dissention and Johnny Stew and others. I've just moved from southwest Connecticut to southwest Virginia where "liberal" seems to be such a dirty word. Needless to say, I'm experiencing culture shock. This President is so awful for everyone in our country except for his corporate fat cat friends and too many middle class people fail to see this. They actually think they got a tax cut! :laugh:

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees how Bush is dividing, not uniting our country and promoting hate:distress:. I generally disagree with Republicans when it comes to national politics (local politics is a whole other story) though I think we need balance in government so having a Democrat President and Republican congress is ok. What we have right now is a federal government that is way too far to the right.

It's good to be back on the Ledge! :wavey:

-Sonia

Welcome back, Sonia! I hope things get better for you down there! :)

I've spent summers in the south and, in general, it isn't very welcoming to liberals (no offense, Jason!). If you talk about a Democrat in a positive tone, they look at you as if you're speaking Taiwanese. :laugh:

And I agree with a LOT of the things you said! :wavey:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Rob67
I definitly have my issues with Bush and this is one of them. Tax cuts were good, but they also need to cut some of the pork barrel garbage and wasted spending programs.

I am behind Bush on the Foreign Policy front. I believe in what they are trying to do. But, I have to say that Clinton was a stronger president on domestic issues, Bush's tax cuts aside. I wish they could combine the strengths of both!

The less the government has a say in where our money goes, the better, IMHO.

Rob


:nod: You're right and I agree with you. Bush is a tax-cut and spender. :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

Big surprise, eh?

Bush Won't Endorse Call for Iraq Probe
1 minute ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday "I want to know the facts" about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.

The issue of an independent commission has blossomed into an election-year problem for the president, with Democrats and Republicans alike supporting the idea. Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has concluded that Iraq (news - web sites) did not possess weapons of mass destruction, which Bush had cited as a rationale for going to war against Iraq.

Bush said he wants to be able to compare the administration's prewar intelligence with what will be learned by inspectors who are now searching for weapons in Iraq. There is no deadline for those inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, to complete their work.

"One thing is for certain, one thing we do know ... that Saddam Hussein was a danger, he was growing danger," the president told reporters during a brief question and answer session after a meeting with economists.

Parting company with many of his fellow Republicans, Sen. John McCain said Thursday he wants an independent commission to take a sweeping look at recent intelligence failures.

Some of the Democratic candidates for president said they support an independent commission.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites) criticized Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), saying that he berated CIA (news - web sites) operatives because he did not like their intelligence reports. "It seems to me that the vice president of the United States therefore influenced the very reports that the president then used to decide to go to war and to ask Congress for permission to go to war," Dean said during a campaign debate Thursday night.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) said his support for the Iraq war was based on years of intelligence briefings and evidence of Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people. He supports an independent commission "that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said that whether Cheney berated CIA officials to shape the intelligence that he wanted is "a very legitimate question. ... There's an enormous question about the exaggeration by this administration."

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
As far as promoting hate, I guess that is a matter of interpretation. I the only hate promotion seems to be coming from the Dem candidates!

But anyway...Welcome back!!!:wavey: :)

Rob:cool:

With all due respect, that is bovine discharge! What would you call the marriage amendment proposal? What would you call the claims that this moron of a president has gotten a directive from god?

[CarneVaca]

Sonia, why in the world did you move to Virginia? Unless you live right outside Washington, that place is like a different planet. :eek:

[jwd]

Rob 67:

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dissention
Using that logic, I guess you could say almost every President of this century was strong on defense.

Your rationale makes no sense, IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Unless you consider the fact that extremist, Muslim-backed terrorism hasn't been in existence for the entire century.


BINGO! Rob, have I told you how great it is to have you here posting on the Ledge?! :nod:


Joe

[jwd]

I love my new home, but it's crazy how different the politics here are. I guess I took for granted what it's like to be in a place where people have the same values that I do.

I've spent summers in the south and, in general, it isn't very welcoming to liberals (no offense, Jason!). If you talk about a Democrat in a positive tone, they look at you as if you're speaking Taiwanese.

Sonia, why in the world did you move to Virginia? Unless you live right outside Washington, that place is like a different planet.


Well I remember that in the not too distant past the South was solidly Democratic and embraced the party. The last two presidents from the Democratic Party were from the South. I wonder what happened? My guess would be is that the party has become too liberal, much in the same way that some might view the Republican Party becoming too "right wing". Maybe it's time to start a party that caters to the moderates of the country. Or is there one already that I don't know about? Libertarian maybe?


Joe

[ERigby818]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Sonia, why in the world did you move to Virginia? Unless you live right outside Washington, that place is like a different planet. :eek:

:DHehe...Well, the short answer is I got a great job here and it's by far the best job I've had since graduating from college (3 years ago).

But other than the fact that it is a different planet politcally, the quality of life here is awesome. In Southwestern CT you have to spend loads of money to have the things you can have here for a lot less. I can afford to live almost luxuriously for the same price I was paying for a dump in CT in a crummy suburban neighborhood. I live in a little city now where there's plenty to do (shows, museums, etc) and I can actually afford it. Before I used to go to NYC on the weekends and spend $8 on a beer, and $20 for a stupid cover charge to get into a fun place to dance with my friends. I grew up in NYC and Boston so I'm not one of those people who grows up in a small town thinking "I've gotta get out of here!" I don't plan to be here for more than a couple of years so I'll just enjoy it!

Truly the only thing that I find disturbing here is the right-wing mentality which is often mixed with this weird religious stuff which I don't really understand. I'm NOT talking about your average church-going American Christians. I'm talking about this extremist stuff that seems a little scary, because it comes across as angry. I don't know. I don't get it.

JWD, your last point is interesting. While my personal views are probably way more to the left and liberal than most people in this country (which wasn't so obvious to me till recently), I like to see our federal government be more moderate and more in the middle...that way everyone is more fairly represented. During the Clinton years, most people were pretty happy with how the government was operating and it was doing good business (i.e. balancing the budget, funding higher education programs, helping people get off welfare, providing miltiary deployments where needed, engaging in constructive diplomacy with other nations and creating more legislation to proetct the environment). Corporations didn't have much to complain about because they were rolling in dough from the economic boom. But they paid more in taxes than they do now. Obviously the economy helped a lot and we had no idea how much we needed to better protect ourselves against terrorism. But the federal government in those years was not liberal at all, IMO. I think it was pretty much down the middle, and while not everyone got what they wanted, more people did than do now. Right now it's SO far to the right that a huge part of our country is not being fairly represented or getting what they want. I don't know if Bush stole the election, but if he did, that might have something to do with it! In so many congressional races in the last 4 years the results are so close, and the Repubs have the advantage that their party has more money. Either that or the Democrat candidates aren't getting the message out to enough people. I don't know. But in this election year we have got to change the face of the American government to listen to more Americans from all sides of every political debate and come up with more solutions to problems that more people can live with. This right wing stuff just doesn't work for everyone.

-Sonia

[strandinthewind]

The New York Times today (1/31/04) has a fantastic article regarding the U.S. Intelligence on the Iraqui WMD.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/international/middleeast/01WEAP.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[Rob67]

Originally posted by jwd
BINGO! Rob, have I told you how great it is to have you here posting on the Ledge?! :nod:


Joe

Just keeping it real, Joe!;) :laugh:

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by jwd
Well I remember that in the not too distant past the South was solidly Democratic and embraced the party. The last two presidents from the Democratic Party were from the South. I wonder what happened? My guess would be is that the party has become too liberal, much in the same way that some might view the Republican Party becoming too "right wing".

Joe

A couple of years ago I saw some PBS documentary that claimed that Ronald Reagan was able to break the Democratic allegiance there by beating the Bible more than his predecessors did. He was able to garner the support of the Bible Belters and those who loved talk of a less intrusive and smaller federal government.

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

I maintain that until the last drop of oil is extracted, that will never happen.



Shouldn't be long now...

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Unless you consider the fact that extremist, Muslim-backed terrorism hasn't been in existence for the entire century.:confused: :)

Rob:cool:

Really?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Shouldn't be long now...

There is so much oil there I think it will not be in our lifetimes. Sad - but true.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Really?

Yup...at least on a global scale...

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Yup...at least on a global scale...

Rob:cool:

No. How long has guerilla warfare been around?

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No. How long has guerilla warfare been around?

The origins.... hmmm. Probably a while back. But the colonials sure put it to good use during the War of Independence. The Brits weren't happy about it at all. Although, you gotta question the intelligence of any army that opts to clothe itself with red uniforms.

Eh, what do I know?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
The origins.... hmmm. Probably a while back. But the colonials sure put it to good use during the War of Independence. The Brits weren't happy about it at all. Although, you gotta question the intelligence of any army that opts to clothe itself with red uniforms.

Eh, what do I know?

I know - the Brits were like "these rebels are not playing by the rules of war!!!" :laugh: To us today, it seems so foreign :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

327 b.c.- (encountered by)Alexander The Great, in what is now known as Afghanistan.

[CarneVaca]

Darn Greeks! :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

:eek:

There is hope for our country yet! :p :D

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek:

There is hope for our country yet! :p :D

:nod: :nod: :nod:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No. How long has guerilla warfare been around?

That's not terrorism, by definition. Guerilla warfare assumes that official hostilities have begun and is just unconventional engagement. Of course, the definition of "unconventional" has changed over the centuries as warfare has changed.

Regarding the British and their “red coats,” in hindsight, it seems like a bad idea but that red color was part of their intimidation factor. The Brits had the most powerful and well trained army in that time period and it was demoralizing for the enemy to see a line of red coats marching at it.

Of course, now, the Napoleonic military tactics (as seen in the Revolutionary and Civil War) also seems outdated, but it was the tactics of the times. Guerilla warfare was one of the major factors of the US winning the Revolution because they rarely could go toe to toe in conventional battle with the Reds.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
That's not terrorism, by definition. Guerilla warfare assumes that official hostilities have begun and is just unconventional engagement. Of course, the definition of "unconventional" has changed over the centuries as warfare has changed.

Rob:cool:

Technicality.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Technicality.

Not really...blowing yourself up on a bus full of innocent people because of some fanatical belief that Allah will grant you 72 virgins, or whatever looney thing they believe, is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers (non military targets) killing thousands of innocent people is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Peace out,

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Not really...blowing yourself up on a bus full of innocent people because of some fanatical belief that Allah will grant you 72 virgins, or whatever looney thing they believe, is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers (non military targets) killing thousands of innocent people is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Peace out,

Rob:cool:

These people have been fighting each other for years. The only reason we got mixed up in it was for the oil and a bit of our Israeli interests. That's why they are so pissed off at us. This is their method of fighting. The roots of terrah are in guerilla warfare. What other way would they fight us?

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
These people have been fighting each other for years. The only reason we got mixed up in it was for the oil and a bit of our Israeli interests. That's why they are so pissed off at us. This is their method of fighting. The roots of terrah are in guerilla warfare. What other way would they fight us?

Lord, they've been fighting since the dawn of the century until the British stepped in during the late twenties.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Lord, they've been fighting since the dawn of the century until the British stepped in during the late twenties.


Actually, this region has been fighting in one way or another since the dawn of recorded history :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
These people have been fighting each other for years. The only reason we got mixed up in it was for the oil and a bit of our Israeli interests. That's why they are so pissed off at us. This is their method of fighting. The roots of terrah are in guerilla warfare. What other way would they fight us?

They have been fighting each other and the rest of the world for more then just years...let's talk centuries! I disagree wholeheartedly with the oil theory as the only reason. Yes, i believe we have become overly dependant on oil in this age of industrialization. But, that as it is, it isn't the sole reason for hostilities in the mid-east.

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

And, Arabs are pissed off that everyone for more complex reasons then just Israel. Perhaps it is a hate of the west that has been bred by their information controlling and totalitarian governments? They live in poverty while their Kings and Presidents live in luxury, and the government blames the "lazy and commercialized" West for dominating their culture....it's all BS. I hope another Democratic nation in the area will be like a wake up call for those people.

And, I hate to tell you, but if suicide bombing, hijacking planes and killing innocent people are the only ways you feel you can get your point across, then you have serious issues of credibility with the rest of the world. Like it or not. It is wrong.

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually, this region has been fighting in one way or another since the dawn of recorded history :laugh:

Yup. :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.


I'm afraid I can't agree with that. It was because of Iran that we didn't take out Hussein in '91. Remember, he was our lapdog before he was our enemy.

http://www.idc-world-usa.com/important-issues/Printable-military-articles/Printable-getting-rid-of-Hussein.aspx

"As a starting point for examining the bigger picture, ask yourself the following question: Who was the greatest threat to Middle Eastern peace before and immediately after Operation Desert Storm? Chances are you and almost everyone else will say Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but of course there are always a few odd-balls that will claim the U.S. was the greatest threat). However, contrary to popular opinion, the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East prior to and immediately after Operation Desert Storm was not Iraq but the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran. At the time, Iran openly called for the destruction of Israel, and also advocated the overthrow of the governments of the moderate Arab states - such as Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia - and establishing in their place Islamic fundamentalist governments answering solely to Tehran. Please keep in mind that the Islamic fundamentalists we're talking about here are of the Shiite sect of Islam that is based in Iran and not the Sunni sect of Islam to which Al-Qaeda belongs and who has ties to Saudi Arabia. Iran's thirst for power and influence did not stop with the Arab states of the Middle East - it extended to all states with large Islamic populations including Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan and the former Islamic Soviet Republics.

At that time, if Iran's military and economic growth continued and if it succeeded in seizing the majority of oil fields in the Middle East from its Arab neighbors; imagine the power it would have had over the entire Islamic world, to say nothing of the consequences for U.S. and world security. The growth of Iranian influence was a major factor in the development of U.S. policy towards Iraq immediately after Operation Desert Storm. There are also a lot of other factors that need to be considered if you really want to get an appreciation for the consequences of removing Saddam Hussein back in 1991."


Click the rest of the link for the article.

[strandinthewind]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rob67

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

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

Along with what gldstwmn posted, it also is widely rumored but not confirmed that the reason we did not annex Iraq or at least got into Iraq and oust SH at the time (which I and many other greater minds think we should have done) is because Saudi Arabia made a deal with Bush I not to go into Iraq. I am uncertain what that deal was, but Bush I sure has made millions consulting with Saudi Arabia since the end of his Presidency in the Carlyle Group (I think that is the name). It probably is not that accurate or at least that simple of a chain of event, but you gotta admit, it looks suspicious :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rob67

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

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

Along with what gldstwmn posted, it also is widely rumored but not confirmed that the reason we did not annex Iraq or at least got into Iraq and oust SH at the time (which I and many other greater minds think we should have done) is because Saudi Arabia made a deal with Bush I not to go into Iraq. I am uncertain what that deal was, but Bush I sure has made millions consulting with Saudi Arabia since the end of his Presidency in the Carlyle Group (I think that is the name). It probably is not that accurate or at least that simple of a chain of event, but you gotta admit, it looks suspicious :shrug:

The rest of that article that I posted covers the reasons why the Saudi's didn't want us to take Hussein out as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The rest of that article that I posted covers the reasons why the Saudi's didn't want us to take Hussein out as well. :nod: :nod: :nod:

And the funny thing is I do not disagree with alot of these reasons when put into context of the times, etc.

But, don't you think Bush I made a deal/understanding on some level for financial gain? I mean, the Saudi's were the main reason we did not go into Iraq then. Then all of a sudden Bush I is making millions in bed with the Saudis two years later. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:nod: :nod: :nod:

And the funny thing is I do not disagree with alot of these reasons when put into context of the times, etc.

But, don't you think Bush I made a deal/understanding on some level for financial gain? I mean, the Saudi's were the main reason we did not go into Iraq then. Then all of a sudden Bush I is making millions in bed with the Saudis two years later. :shrug:


Well, Bush I and the Bin Ladens were together in the Carlyle Group along with Prince Bandar for a looong time. The did other business on the side as well. So i think he certainly was protecting certain interests. His own.:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Well, Bush I and the Bin Ladens were together in the Carlyle Group along with Prince Bandar for a looong time. The did other business on the side as well. So i think he certainly was protecting certain interests. His own.:laugh:

Was Bush I in the CG prior to the 1980 election, after which he could not be in it as the VP? Note: I am too lazy to look it up :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Was Bush I in the CG prior to the 1980 election, after which he could not be in it as the VP? Note: I am too lazy to look it up :laugh:

No. George I was brought on after his term ended. CG was established in 1987 with Jim Baker being one of the founding members. Bush II was doing business with them even sooner. A lot of their business partners are members of the Saudi Arabian royal family. Check this out:

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?f=Articles/Archive/vc/2002/0111/947.xml&hed=Carlyle's%20way

"Perhaps even more disconcerting than Carlyle's ties to the Pentagon are its connections within the White House itself. Aside from signing up George Bush Sr. shortly after his presidential term ended, Carlyle gave George W. Bush a job on the board of Texas-based airline food caterer Caterair International back in 1991.
Shortly after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, he broke off talks with North Korea regarding long-range ballistic missiles, claiming there was no way to ensure North Korea would comply with any guidelines that were developed. The news came as a shock to South Korean officials, who had spent years negotiating with the North, assisted by the Clinton administration. By June, Mr. Bush had reopened negotiations with North Korea, but only at the urging of his own father. According to reports, the former president sent his son a memo persuasively arguing the need to work with the North Korean government. It was the first time the nation had seen the influence of the father on the son in office.

But what has been overlooked was Carlyle's business interest in Korea. The senior Bush had spearheaded the group's successful entrance into the South Korean market, paving the way for buyouts of Korea's KorAm Bank and Mercury, a telecommunications equipment company. For the business to be successful, stability between North and South Korea is critical. And though there is no direct evidence linking the senior Bush's business dealings in Korea with the change in policy, it is the appearance of impropriety that excites the watchdogs. "We are clearly aware that former President Bush has weighed in on policy toward South Korea and we note that U.S. policy changed after those communications," says Peter Eisner, managing director at the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., which has an active file on the Carlyle Group. "We know that former President Bush receives remuneration for his work with Carlyle and that he is capable of advising the current president, but how much further it goes, we don't know."