Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M [Archive]

Rob67

01-08-2004, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm

1-year gap in Bush's Guard duty

No record of airman at drills from 1972-73

"But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen."

But later reporting proved Bush wasn't AWOL. National Guard Magazine (http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/main101.asp) said it best in its Jan. 2001 edition:

Bush also was accused of skirting the draft by joining the Texas Air Guard in 1968. He became an F-102 fighter pilot before being discharged as a first lieutenant in 1973. [Former National Guard Bureau historian retired Col. Michael] Doubler says it is unfair to criticize those who joined the Guard during the Vietnam War. "The government allowed it and in many ways encouraged it," he said "There were a lot of things the government did to authorize people to serve in places other than the front lines."

Bush's drill performance also stirred controversy during the campaign. Some reports charged that he was absent for a year. However, probably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the online version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr.

Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual. "In any six-year time frame you probably can find some problems," says retired Rep. G.V. 'Sonny' Montgomery, D-Miss., founder of the House Guard and Reserve Caucus. "Just learning to fly the F-102 and not getting hurt and not hurting anybody is an accomplishment." Montgomery called Bush's election, "nothing but a plus for the Guard."

The New York Times also looked into the charge and found it lacked substance:

Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story.

Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.

Even the Boston Globe's story admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot:

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service.

Incidentally, Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. While Bush's unit never got called to Vietnam, the 147th was. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. The 147th came off runway alert on Jan. 1, 1970 to start a new mission of training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard.

Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, on May 28, 1968 - at a time when the 147th was actively participating in combat in Vietnam. However, one can not train overnight to be a pilot. Bush completed basic flight training and then, from December 1969 through June 27, 1970, he was training full-time at Ellington to be an F-102 pilot.

Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70817FD3D5D0C708CDDA80994D8404482

FYI....Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 01:13 AM

Isn't it past your bedtime?

The articles you posted never said that Bush wasn't AWOL. In fact they alluded to the fact that he was. The New york Times only says:

"Democratic senators Daniel K Inouye and Bob Kerrey call on Gov George W Bush to release full military record to clear up doubts raised by Boston Globe about whether he reported for required drills while member of Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973; review by New York Times shows concerns may be unfounded; Bush spokesman says he fulfilled all military obligations or would not have received honorable discharge (M)"

More:
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/05/28_Scrubbed.html

When Walter Robinson of the Boston Globe broke the story about the gap in the service record, dozens of Texas National Guardsmen broke ranks and reported information to the Austin American Statesman giving more details. The information to Dick Stanley never saw the light of day. An Associated Press writer had a story until she talked with Karen Hughes and the story died.

I was outside the Adjutant general of Texas office when I overheard a call from Joe Allbaugh and Dan Bartlett that told General James to "make sure there is nothing embarrassing in the Governor's file" in preparation for his reelection run and a run for the presidency. I was present when James and Asst AG General Marty told a state services employee to do the same. I was there when the retained records person surrendered files under order of COL William Goodwin, Chief of Staff, for the scrub of the Governor's files.

Even with all of these first hand accounts, no one dared to ask questions after they talked with Bartlett, Hughes, Rove or Allbaugh. Why?

James further shielded official public files from the press and otherwise ran interference for Bush, Hughes, Bartlett and Rove during the campaign --"obstructing" the judicial and public review of this record.

Last December 1, 2001, Bush nominated James to be the Director of the Air National Guard of the United States. As Director of the Air National Guard of the US, James will be responsible for the direct control of all airspace over the Continental United States and will be the first responsible Officer for managing the network which scrambles fighters in air hijacking or hostage situations. By Standard operating Procedure (SOP) a certain number of jets are on tactical alert at all times. This means that aircraft are airborne within ten minutes of a scramble for interception. Did anyone notice that it took up to ninety minutes to scramble National Guard intercept aircraft in this hijacking situation? Unheard of - especially since they were warned.

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 01:42 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/24/bushguard.cnn/

Bush dismisses report he skipped Air National Guard service

"Responding to the Globe's report that his Alabama base commander had no recollection of Bush ever showing for drills, the governor said "I pulled duty in Alabama and I read the comments and the guy said he didn't remember me. That's 27 years ago, but I remember being there."

Asked about his Air National Guard attendance record, Bush told reporters it was "spotty attendance but I did the duty necessary... I did the time that was required in the Guard."

http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/05/24/guard/

Though Bush promised to continue his service while stationed in that state, there is no evidence that he ever showed up for Alabama Guard duty. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," said retired Gen. William Turnipseed, who commanded the Alabama unit at the time Bush claims to have served. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59151-2000Jun25&notFound=true

Records of Bush's Ala. Military Duty Can't Be Found

"In May, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, the former commander of the Alabama Guard unit, said Bush did not report to him, although the young airman was required to do so. His orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, said: "Lieutenant Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training."

This one's dated May 31, 2003

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0531-03.htm

"Mr. Bush learned to fly in the National Guard at a taxpayer expense of $1 million, then proceeded to become absent without leave — also known as AWOL — for which many service personnel have received jail sentences. Mr. Bush's official biography shows that he served as a pilot with the Texas Guard from 1968 to 1973. Mr. Bush did not go to Vietnam. According to Mr. Gallagher's and other published reports, Mr. Bush went to weekend meetings at the Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Field in Houston from June 1970 until April 1972. Then a funny thing happened.

Mr. Bush went to Alabama to work on the U.S. Senate campaign of one of his father's friends. He continued serving in the National Guard, he says. That may be a lie. It wouldn't be his first and it certainly won't be his last. The records of the Montgomery unit he claims to have joined do not show that he ever served there. His annual effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, said he had not been observed at the unit to which he was assigned."

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=633

"More curious, the records showed Bush had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of that period. Had the future commander-in-chief been AWOL?

In May 1972, with two years to go on his six-year commitment to the Guard, Bush moved to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. He asked if he could do his Guard duty there. This son-of-a-congressman and fighter pilot won permission to do "equivalent training" at a unit that had no aircraft and no pilots. The national Air Reserve office then disallowed this transfer. For months, Bush did nothing for the Guard. In September 1972, he won permission to train with a unit in Montgomery. But the commander of the unit and his administrative officer told the Boston Globe that they had no recollection of Bush ever reporting for duty. And when Bush returned to Texas after the November election, he did not return to his unit for months, according to his military records. His annual performance report, dated May 2, 1973, noted he had "not been observed at this unit" for the past year. In May, June and July of that year, he did pull 36 days of duty."

How do you fly at a unit with no pilots and no planes?

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 08:25 AM

Well, if he did the required time, what more could he do? I mean, he satisfied the National Guard's rules. :shrug:

Also, I submit that becoming a F-102 fighter pilot required at least a minimum amount of training, which took a significant amount of time; also, becoming a F-102 fighter piolt belies the argument that W is an idiot. I mean it takes some smarts to operate that aircraft. So, although he cannot speak very well :eek: :laugh: ;) , he is not a complete and total idiot as come assert. :cool:

Note: I am not saying W did not get advantages from his family's status. I am just saying the NG was satisfied with his performance, so he was not AWOL as that term is defined, i.e., he had leave and fulfilled his duty according to their rules no matter what we may think of the way it was fulfilled.

Rob67

01-08-2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, if he did the required time, what more could he do? I mean, he satisfied the National Guard's rules. :shrug:

Also, I submit that becoming a F-102 fighter pilot required at least a minimum amount of training, which took a significant amount of time; also, becoming a F-102 fighter piolt belies the argument that W is an idiot. I mean it takes some smarts to operate that aircraft. So, although he cannot speak very well :eek: :laugh: ;) , he is not a complete and total idiot as come assert. :cool:

Note: I am not saying W did not get advantages from his family's status. I am just saying the NG was satisfied with his performance, so he was not AWOL as that term is defined, i.e., he had leave and fulfilled his duty according to their rules no matter what we may think of the way it was fulfilled.

Absolutely, but the nature of Bush-Hate (or any politician for that matter) means you have to dig through every single minute of the person’s entire life so you can find an inconsistency and go “AH-HAH! Look how bad he is!!!” Assumptions and allegations about events that happened 30 years ago are irrelevant to me judging a current situation. Besides, these same people who use this argument were defending Clinton for being a Rhodes Scholar, or whatever he was, during the war. It is all BS because there are few real issues they have to complain about.

Just my 2 cents…

Rob:cool:

Rob67

01-08-2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Isn't it past your bedtime?

You know, you’re right, I don’t have the time to be discussing and looking up obscure facts about an irrelevant topic when I could be devoting time to more important endeavors like sleep!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Does anyone know know why everyone did not apply for the National Guard? I mean if it guaranteed not going to Vietnam . . . :cool:

A lot of people did apply to the National Guard. There was quite a waiting list. so some of them got drafted while they were waiting. In fact, there was a waiting list of 500 men when Shrub's daddy called in a favor and got him moved to the head of the line in Texas. It's in a few of the articles I posted above.:)

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Rob67
You know, you’re right, I don’t have the time to be discussing and looking up obscure facts about an irrelevant topic
Rob:cool:

Yeah, I guess when you're wrong the topic becomes irrelevant. Are you sure you don't work for the current administration?

Rob67

01-08-2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah, I guess when you're wrong the topic becomes irrelevant. Are you sure you don't work for the current administration?

Get into politics??? You would have to be crazy. Imagine the stress of being hated by thousands of people who didn't even really know you?

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Rob67
Get into politics??? You would have to be crazy. Imagine the stress of being hated by thousands of people who didn't even really know you?

Making the world a better place is all about sacrifice.:)

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Making the world a better place is all about sacrifice.:) Agreed.

But I think there has to be a line between someone going so far up your a$$ with a microscope to find fairly minor faults we all have as human beings and then spinning those faults to make you out to be some sort of monster. For example, people complain Bush got a DWI about 30 years ago. Well, my response was who hasn't driven when they should not have. I certainly have (now I take cabs :laugh: ) and know no one who has not (remember the legal limit is about one, possibly two cocktails/beer/wine). Yet, people are like "See - W got a DUI so he is a bad person!" I just think that was being human and we are all guilty of things like that even if not this exact example. So, I think the sacrifice today is just too great.

Now - if you want to get into whether W lied about getting one - that is a different ball of wax :laugh:

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 11:06 AM

I still want to know if he's a convicted felon. He never fully answered that question either.
I think we both agree that the electoral process needs to be overhauled. The first step is to take the money out of it.

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I still want to know if he's a convicted felon. He never fully answered that question either.
I think we both agree that the electoral process needs to be overhauled. The first step is to take the money out of it. A complete and total overhaul!!!!!

Interestingly, I support Bush's right to say I am not answering anything about my life before age 21 (or whenever). Yet, you gotta wonder about what happened before then. :cool:

dissention

01-08-2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, I support Bush's right to say I am not answering anything about my life before age 21 (or whenever). Yet, you gotta wonder about what happened before then. :cool:

Interestingly, Bush likes to call his drunk driving a "youthful indiscretion," but he was in his thirties at the time. Also, he was *convicted* of drunk driving with three other people in the car, as reflected in legal documents. He was an alcoholic who continued to drink well after his arrest. When he was called for jury duty in 1996, he conveniently forgot to mention his criminal conviction on the jury pool form and came up with a cockamamie excuse for why he shouldn't be called for jury duty. He was also arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 and flatly denied that he was arrested after 1968. That proved to be a lie. Not only was arrested, he was convicted. However, he told the public that he never went to court for the drunk driving and that it was taken care of the night that it happened. That's another lie; he had two court dates and got continuances twice. He didn't pay the fine until a month and a half later, not that same night. They were going to put his ass is jail overnight, but someone paid the $500 bond to keep him out, as reflected in legal papers. The fact that he changed his drivers license number in 1995, at the height of his political career at the time, is also highly suspicious. In fact, because of his drunk driving in Maine, his license was suspended for two years in that state. Let's also not forget his past with cocaine.

We can spin it all we want, but the fact is that his dodge-drafting during Vietnam was and is highly suspicious. He's unaccounted for for lengthy periods of time, some of his former staff from when he was governor have claimed that his records were doctored by the Bush camp, former officers from the Texas National Guard claim the same thing, the public portion of his records that would have been released under an FOIA request have turned up completely missing, he used his family's power to avoid everything that he didn't want to do, etc. If he served as well is he supposedly did, then why are all of these inconsistencies turning up? It makes no sense, but the Right will spin it to make him look saintly.

Shrub has some major issues with credibility.

Rob67

01-08-2004, 12:26 PM

dissention

01-08-2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Yeah...so does Teddy Kennedy and probably every other politician....:)

Rob:cool:

Fortunately, not to the extent that Bush has.

I notice that you didn't try to refute any of the facts.

:wavey:

hayley

01-08-2004, 01:33 PM

You know, all of your political squabbling just became silly, meandering, and pointless after the first forty-seven back and forth posts.

Half the country found enough merit in Bush to vote for him as president. While I am no fan of his, he's still the president, and to insinuate as it seems like you all so often do that anyone who supports him or at least doesn't spend all their free time trashing him is either A) dumb or B) uninformed is silly.

The political squabbling just gets ridiculous.

As for Bush compared to Ted Kennedy- are you KIDDING me to say that Bush's credibility in terms of his prior history with alcohol, drugs, etc. is millions worse than Ted Kennedy's... George Bush never KILLED anyone, now did he?

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Interestingly, Bush likes to call his drunk driving a "youthful indiscretion," but he was in his thirties at the time. Also, he was *convicted* of drunk driving with three other people in the car, as reflected in legal documents. He was an alcoholic who continued to drink well after his arrest. When he was called for jury duty in 1996, he conveniently forgot to mention his criminal conviction on the jury pool form and came up with a cockamamie excuse for why he shouldn't be called for jury duty. He was also arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 and flatly denied that he was arrested after 1968. That proved to be a lie. Not only was arrested, he was convicted. However, he told the public that he never went to court for the drunk driving and that it was taken care of the night that it happened. That's another lie; he had two court dates and got continuances twice. He didn't pay the fine until a month and a half later, not that same night. They were going to put his ass is jail overnight, but someone paid the $500 bond to keep him out, as reflected in legal papers. The fact that he changed his drivers license number in 1995, at the height of his political career at the time, is also highly suspicious. In fact, because of his drunk driving in Maine, his license was suspended for two years in that state. Let's also not forget his past with cocaine.

We can spin it all we want, but the fact is that his dodge-drafting during Vietnam was and is highly suspicious. He's unaccounted for for lengthy periods of time, some of his former staff from when he was governor have claimed that his records were doctored by the Bush camp, former officers from the Texas National Guard claim the same thing, the public portion of his records that would have been released under an FOIA request have turned up completely missing, he used his family's power to avoid everything that he didn't want to do, etc. If he served as well is he supposedly did, then why are all of these inconsistencies turning up? It makes no sense, but the Right will spin it to make him look saintly.

Shrub has some major issues with credibility.

Once again, who has never, ever in their lives driven under the statutory definition of "over the limit." I submit few have. Moreover, who would not try and get out of it if caught. I submit no one (fess up, a cop has never let you go even though you broke the traffic law - its the same thing in that the crime was committed, the law was broken, etc.). Moreover, W recognized he had a problem and quit. he should be lauded for that - not beaten down IMO. Also, it is not unethical to get a continuance in a case or to post bond or to pay the fine after it is levied. Most of the stuff you bring up is just reg. procedure you assert is a bad thing (someone is spinning :laugh: ). I submit if W had been up to no good in this, he would have tried to have it fixed and been busted doing so. But, he did not.

My point is few people are willing to point the accusatory finger at themselves before judging. Another good example is how many of us have run a red/caution light (with intent or not)? I submit we all have done this. Did we then go immediately to the police station and turn ourselves in? I didn't. :wavey:

So, I say nail Bush on the big issues (Lord knows there are plenty :laugh: ) and leave this petty, human nature stuff alone. It is not the battle that will win the war so to speak :cool:

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by hayley
You know, all of your political squabbling just became silly, meandering, and pointless after the first forty-seven back and forth posts.

Then I suggest that you skip the political threads.:) We aren't squabbling. A group of us are engaged in a political debate and we enjoy talking to each other about it.

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by hayley

Half the country found enough merit in Bush to vote for him as president.

Actually half the country didn't vote for him and he still "won" the election. Go figure.:laugh:

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Actually half the country didn't vote for him and he still "won" the election. Go figure.:laugh: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by hayley
George Bush never KILLED anyone, now did he?

Well...probably not. His wife did though.:)

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
not.

My point is few people are willing to point the accusatory finger at themselves before judging.

Of course not but we're not running for leader of the free world either. There are different standards for that.

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Of course not but we're not running for leader of the free world either. There are different standards for that.

Touche - but still - I do not fault anyone for these little things. Now, if we can prove he obstructed justice, etc., then I may care. :cool:

Rob67

01-08-2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Fortunately, not to the extent that Bush has.

I notice that you didn't try to refute any of the facts.

:wavey:

What facts? Honestly...I never really cared what the guy did in his younger life, the same with Clinton. Who cares what he did 25 years ago? He didn't kill anyone. He is an admitted alcoholic. He got arrested for disorderly conduct..woopee!!! That would be one of my college roommates every other week!

What I am concerned with is his policies and actions as president, not some hearsay stories of his past who's accuracy is questionable....I don't have the will to even try and look up that stuff. That's what ticked me off about the Right with Clinton...things were going well and they had nothing major to gripe about so here comes the background check and personal issues.

Nitpicky issues about a person's past mean absolutely nothing. They won't change the fact that Bush is president and they don't affect the economy. Cheers!:)

Rob:cool:

Rob67

01-08-2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Of course not but we're not running for leader of the free world either. There are different standards for that.

I agree...but the same people who are now accusing Bush of all this stuff defended Clinton when he was cheating on his wife in the Oval Office. It's hypocracy.

(I don't mean gldstwm or dissention in particular, I don't know how you two saw that!)

Besides...shouldn't we give the guy a little credit for kicking the booze if he had a problem?

WTF?

I enjoy the political banter but, man, this stuff is out there.

I mean Kennedy killed a woman and fled the scene for Pete's sake! And he's still a senator

Rob:cool:

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
I mean Kennedy killed a woman and fled the scene for Pete's sake! And he's still a senator

Rob:cool:

What did you want him to do? Drown in the car with her or go get help?

dissention

01-08-2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Once again, who has never, ever in their lives driven under the statutory definition of "over the limit." I submit few have. Moreover, who would not try and get out of it if caught. I submit no one (fess up, a cop has never let you go even though you broke the traffic law - its the same thing in that the crime was committed, the law was broken, etc.). Moreover, W recognized he had a problem and quit. he should be lauded for that - not beaten down IMO. Also, it is not unethical to get a continuance in a case or to post bond or to pay the fine after it is levied. Most of the stuff you bring up is just reg. procedure you assert is a bad thing (someone is spinning :laugh: ). I submit if W had been up to no good in this, he would have tried to have it fixed and been busted doing so. But, he did not.

You must be confused, then. I was hoping to point out that he lied on all points about what happened. Maybe it isn't a big deal to you, but it is to me. He lied about how it was handled, whether or not he went to court, whether his license had been suspended, whether or not he had someone post bond, etc. Moreover, he tried to have it covered up in the early nineties to protect his public persona. And I don't know about you, but it isn't normal for the defendant to request AND receive two continuances in this kind of thing. I'm not asserting that ANY of the procedures are bad or wrong, I'm asserting that the cover-up and lies about it are wrong.

Someone needs to read my post again. :laugh: :nod:

dissention

01-08-2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
What I am concerned with is his policies and actions as president, not some hearsay stories of his past who's accuracy is questionable....I don't have the will to even try and look up that stuff. That's what ticked me off about the Right with Clinton...things were going well and they had nothing major to gripe about so here comes the background check and personal issues.

They aren't hearsay stories, they are facts that have been reflected in court papers and other legal documents. :)

dissention

01-08-2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by hayley
You know, all of your political squabbling just became silly, meandering, and pointless after the first forty-seven back and forth posts.

Half the country found enough merit in Bush to vote for him as president. While I am no fan of his, he's still the president, and to insinuate as it seems like you all so often do that anyone who supports him or at least doesn't spend all their free time trashing him is either A) dumb or B) uninformed is silly.

The political squabbling just gets ridiculous.

As for Bush compared to Ted Kennedy- are you KIDDING me to say that Bush's credibility in terms of his prior history with alcohol, drugs, etc. is millions worse than Ted Kennedy's... George Bush never KILLED anyone, now did he?

Don't read these threads, then. We're having a discussion where some may not like to participate or agree with (as Rob never does!), so if you don't, there's no need to pop in and complain about what's being posted. Leave well enough alone.

sparky

01-08-2004, 06:00 PM

Regardless of the President's past, the real issue, IMO is that the public at large doesn't really care about these issues. Even if they are all true ! If he had been involved in a sex scandal, it would be a different story. Also, the people who support Bush no matter what - knee jerkers like Limbaugh - will never, ever say a bad thing about him. It's akin to a blind religous conversion.

I personally can't stand the man. From his family's ties to oil and the middle east, to the election suspicions, I think he is higher on the slippery scale than most politicians. For the record, I think it is impossible to get involved in politics and not become slippery. However, something about the way he looks, talks, walks, and comes across makes my flesh crawl. So do the majority of his policies. I won't even get into that Reptilian cabinet. They all look like they were doctored up by a Hollywood creature effect shop to look sinister. The look in the eyes of those people scares me. Again - the word Reptile comes to mind...the squinty eyes, the suspicious tones of voice, the indignance in their speeches.

Some Democrats are pretty slippery too, but that group is like something out of a horror movie.

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by dissention
You must be confused, then. I was hoping to point out that he lied on all points about what happened. Maybe it isn't a big deal to you, but it is to me. He lied about how it was handled, whether or not he went to court, whether his license had been suspended, whether or not he had someone post bond, etc. Moreover, he tried to have it covered up in the early nineties to protect his public persona. And I don't know about you, but it isn't normal for the defendant to request AND receive two continuances in this kind of thing. I'm not asserting that ANY of the procedures are bad or wrong, I'm asserting that the cover-up and lies about it are wrong.

Someone needs to read my post again. :laugh: :nod:

You're right. We have seen that his administration completely lacks accountablility, which would seem to be one of the holdovers from his other life. Part of having a successful recovery is being accountable for your behavior.

wondergirl9847

01-08-2004, 06:04 PM

WHY are ALL politicians this way? Are there NONE out there without some sort of illegal activity on their rapsheet?

I am in NO WAY a saint, but I consider myself a clean living person with no arrests or drug issues.

WHY do they all seem so slimy and conniving?

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by sparky
Regardless of the President's past, the real issue, IMO is that the public at large doesn't really care about these issues. Even if they are all true ! If he had been involved in a sex scandal, it would be a different story. Also, the people who support Bush no matter what - knee jerkers like Limbaugh - will never, ever say a bad thing about him. It's akin to a blind religous conversion.

I personally can't stand the man. From his family's ties to oil and the middle east, to the election suspicions, I think he is higher on the slippery scale than most politicians. For the record, I think it is impossible to get involved in politics and not become slippery. However, something about the way he looks, talks, walks, and comes across makes my flesh crawl. So do the majority of his policies. I won't even get into that Reptilian cabinet. They all look like they were doctored up by a Hollywood creature effect shop to look sinister. The look in the eyes of those people scares me. Again - the word Reptile comes to mind...the squinty eyes, the suspicious tones of voice, the indignance in their speeches.
Some Democrats are pretty slippery too, but that group is like something out of a horror movie. :

You know Rumsfled taking the credit for The Soldiers being nominated for Time's Person Of The Year just made me sick to my stomach today. I don't understand why people take everything they say as gospel when it's just so obvious to me that they are the real "evildoers."
Thanks for sharing.:)

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
WHY are ALL politicians this way? Are there NONE out there without some sort of illegal activity on their rapsheet?

?

Paul Wellstone (dead), John Kerry, Wesley Clark, John McCain...there are some men in white hats left.

dissention

01-08-2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You're right. We have seen that his administration completely lacks accountablility, which would seem to be one of the holdovers from his other life. Part of having a successful recovery is being accountable for your behavior.

Damn skippy! :nod:

I think that's this admins true calling: passing the buck. :nod:

dissention

01-08-2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Paul Wellstone (dead), John Kerry, Wesley Clark, John McCain...there are some men in white hats left.

Don't forget Braun and Kucinich. :nod:

Rob67

01-08-2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Don't forget Braun and Kucinich. :nod:

John Heinz...the senator that died and was replaced by Santorum in PA would have made a great presidential candidate...he was a good man. They said he was in line for the Republican nomination....

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
What did you want him to do? Drown in the car with her or go get help? Well, while he was getting help, it did take him time to go back the compund, get his lawyers, . . . :laugh: :cool:

Rob67

01-08-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by dissention
We're having a discussion where some may not like to participate or agree with (as Rob never does!), so if you don't, there's no need to pop in and complain about what's being posted. Leave well enough alone.

Hey!! That's not fair!! We agreed on the fast food thing!:D

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by dissention
You must be confused, then. I was hoping to point out that he lied on all points about what happened. Maybe it isn't a big deal to you, but it is to me. He lied about how it was handled, whether or not he went to court, whether his license had been suspended, whether or not he had someone post bond, etc. Moreover, he tried to have it covered up in the early nineties to protect his public persona. And I don't know about you, but it isn't normal for the defendant to request AND receive two continuances in this kind of thing. I'm not asserting that ANY of the procedures are bad or wrong, I'm asserting that the cover-up and lies about it are wrong.

Someone needs to read my post again. :laugh: :nod:

I know I know - I got the lying part. I was also just responding to the "Bush got a DUI -and was a drug addict/alcoholic - therefore he is the devil" vibe is was getting :laugh:

Also, people, esp. people in power, get many more than two continuances all of the time, esp. in a smaller jurisdiction where they do not live all of the time. Trust me on that.

So, yes, I agree if this was a cover up and he obstructed justice, which no evidence supports, then that is wrong.

As for the lying about when it was handled, that was a long time ago. So, I give the guy a break if he said that.

strandinthewind

01-08-2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Hey!! That's not fair!! We agreed on the fast food thing!:D

Rob:cool:

Would you like fries with that . . . . :cool:

estranged4life

01-08-2004, 08:09 PM

to miss it as I hate both of these guys...Maher moreso than even O'Reilly!!!

Brian "The only good politicians are the Dead politicians!" j.

gldstwmn

01-08-2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Don't forget Braun and Kucinich. :nod:

Sorry I was in a hurry.:laugh: I like John Edwards and my own congresswoman, Diana DeGette too.

Johnny Stew

01-08-2004, 11:59 PM

Unfortunately I think a good amount (I hate to say "all") of the politicians on both sides of the fence, are corrupt and shady... the only trouble I have is the fact that Clinton was raked over the coals for every single thing he did, and yet the not-just-a-few things that Bush has done are continually brushed off.

I'm 31 years old, and if I were arrested for drunk-driving at this age, there's no way in hell anyone would believe it was a "youthful indescretion."
If you don't know right from wrong by the time you're in your 30s, then there's a problem there.

And it just seems fishy to me that it's just one more thing that we're all supposed to just forget about... but Bill Clinton putting a joint to his lips in college, was a horrible, horrible thing, and proof that he didn't have the strength of character to be President.

You all know my pet-peeve about double-standards...!

But it would have been interesting if Dubya had actually been the first "boomer" president, and Clinton hadn't been there first to sort of "pave the way"... almost like a first-born child does.

Rob67

01-09-2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
And it just seems fishy to me that it's just one more thing that we're all supposed to just forget about... but Bill Clinton putting a joint to his lips in college, was a horrible, horrible thing, and proof that he didn't have the strength of character to be President.

Well I guess that means that 75% of the people I went to college with will never be president!;)

There are worse things in life....

Rob:cool:

dissention

01-09-2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know I know - I got the lying part. I was also just responding to the "Bush got a DUI -and was a drug addict/alcoholic - therefore he is the devil" vibe is was getting :laugh:

Also, people, esp. people in power, get many more than two continuances all of the time, esp. in a smaller jurisdiction where they do not live all of the time. Trust me on that.

So, yes, I agree if this was a cover up and he obstructed justice, which no evidence supports, then that is wrong.

As for the lying about when it was handled, that was a long time ago. So, I give the guy a break if he said that.

Was the tone of my post THAT obvious?! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

He hasn't just lied once or twice about it, he's made a habit of lying about it. He went so far as to change his drivers license number AND he failed to make note of it when he had jury duty and was required by law to disclose it. He doesn't get any special privileges on that avenue, doll. :D

Johnny Stew

01-09-2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Well I guess that means that 75% of the people I went to college with will never be president!;)

There are worse things in life.... I guess I could be president if I wanted to... I've never so much as smoked a cigarette (let alone pot), I've never taken an illegal drug of any kind, and I've never driven while drunk. In fact, I've never even been drunk.

I thoroughly agree that there are worse things in life... that Clinton once found himself holding a joint (if that's all he did with it) was never something that I personally had a problem with.

My problem is with the conservatives and Republicans who did make an issue out of it, while now turning a blind-eye to various things Dubya has done, that are... in my opinion... much worse.
And that's not some kind of liberal bias... I feel that it's VERY wrong to drive while intoxicated. I don't care if "everyone has done it," or not... it's irresponsible to risk the lives of other people, simply because you don't know when to say "when."

strandinthewind

01-10-2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I guess I could be president if I wanted to... I've never so much as smoked a cigarette (let alone pot), I've never taken an illegal drug of any kind, and I've never driven while drunk. In fact, I've never even been drunk.

I thoroughly agree that there are worse things in life... that Clinton once found himself holding a joint (if that's all he did with it) was never something that I personally had a problem with.

My problem is with the conservatives and Republicans who did make an issue out of it, while now turning a blind-eye to various things Dubya has done, that are... in my opinion... much worse.
And that's not some kind of liberal bias... I feel that it's VERY wrong to drive while intoxicated. I don't care if "everyone has done it," or not... it's irresponsible to risk the lives of other people, simply because you don't know when to say "when."

First of all Johnny - have a cosmo - once you do THERE'S NO TURNING BACK!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was not saying someone should drive while drunk - they should not - take a cab for goodness sake or don't drink - that is what I do. Moreover, I submit if you can afford a cocktail - you can afford a cab.

What I am saying is "drunk" is a legal term, which usually means one, perhaps two drinks/beer/wine/whatever. If someone drinks alcohol, the odds are they have driven over the legal limit because in some states one drink can put you over the limit. So, if someone does that they are breaking the law just like W did. Yet, people think if they do not get caught, they are not breaking the law. That is just wrong to me.

Also, I think W commenting in his 50's on something that happened in his early 30's was the source for the term "youthful." I do not think he was saying he was 18 at the time, esp. when his age was published.

Finally, I say that if people did not want Clinton judged for the fellatio (obstruction issues aside) and/or pot smoking (but no inhaling :rolleyes: ), both of which were crimes, then why is it right to bring up W's past problem with alcohol and drugs and/or his DUI (obstruction issues aside). Yet, human nature is not like that and we all do it. Certainly, it has been done in this thread by "both sides." :laugh:

Right or wrong - people love dirt and are holier than thou about it.

Rob67

01-11-2004, 12:25 PM

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Rob67

I say legalize pot. Control it and tax it like cigarettes.

Rob:cool:

If that was to happen Oklahoma would be hella-rich...It is already the number 1 (!!!) cash crop in ths state even though it is illegal.

I can just imagine how many people would love to work at the local "Co-op" if that happened (If pot was legalized we would have to move because we live behind the grain elevators and I cant imagine smelling it everyday)..."Can I take home a little of the crop boss?" "Sure...Help yer self" :laugh:

Brian j.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Of course not but we're not running for leader of the free world either. There are different standards for that.

Then how exactly does Clinton measure up with his background?

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
What did you want him to do? Drown in the car with her or go get help?

He waited, like, 12 HOURS to get help. Yeah, that is totally understandable ;)

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Then how exactly does Clinton measure up with his background?

He's not president anymore. Are you referring to Hillary?

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He's not president anymore. Are you referring to Hillary?

NO, but when he was president, were you as critical of him for his indiscretions and lies?

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
NO, but when he was president, were you as critical of him for his indiscretions and lies?

Yesterday's gone.:)

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yesterday's gone.:)

Well, isn't that convenient? ;)

That just confirms alot . . . ;)

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Well, isn't that convenient? ;)

That just confirms alot . . . ;)

It confirms what? It doesn't change the fact that we can start to fix what's broken with the next election.
BTW, I notice you came to this thread to bicker with me instead of the one with the real issues on it. That's okay. You win. Feel better now?:)

Sugar

01-11-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
NO, but when he was president, were you as critical of him for his indiscretions and lies?

Are we talking about Monica Lewinsky?

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It confirms what? It doesn't change the fact that we can start to fix what's broken with the next election.
BTW, I notice you came to this thread to bicker with me instead of the one with the real issues on it. That's okay. You win. Feel better now?:)

Now hold on. I have posted in this thread and the other one. I am not hear to "bicker" - in fact, weren't you the one to say this:

"Then I suggest that you skip the political threads. We aren't squabbling. A group of us are engaged in a political debate and we enjoy talking to each other about it."

I am just trying to find the consistency in your argument, and I don't see it. That is what I am trying to point out. I apparentely struck a nerve . . .

How is it consistent to blame GW for what his family did years and years ago (the other thread) and go to the extent to compare him to Hitler, but totally avoid the same background "digging" when it comes to Clinton?

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Now hold on. I have posted in this thread and the other one. I am not hear to "bicker" - in fact, weren't you the one to say this:

"Then I suggest that you skip the political threads. We aren't squabbling. A group of us are engaged in a political debate and we enjoy talking to each other about it."

I am just trying to find the consistency in your argument, and I don't see it. That is what I am trying to point out. I apparentely struck a nerve . . .

I guess I don't know what the question is.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Now hold on. I have posted in this thread and the other one. I am not hear to "bicker" - in fact, weren't you the one to say this:

"Then I suggest that you skip the political threads. We aren't squabbling. A group of us are engaged in a political debate and we enjoy talking to each other about it."

Absolutely. You're making this about me, while I'm here to talk about politics.:)

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Absolutely. You're making this about me, while I'm here to talk about politics.:)

I am not making this "about" you, but I am trying to understand the consistency in your argument, as I stated before.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
I am not making this "about" you, but I am trying to understand the consistency in your argument, as I stated before.

Okay. What's the question?

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
How is it consistent to blame GW for what his family did years and years ago (the other thread) and go to the extent to compare him to Hitler, but totally avoid the same background "digging" when it comes to Clinton?

Oh, sorry. Didn't see your edit. First of all, let me start by saying that I find it amusing that when the right has nothing better to say, they bring up Clinton. I've stated the purpose for my comparisons between the Bush and Hitler regimes in several threads. You can look for them. Frankly, I don't see what Clinton has to do with that.

dissention

01-11-2004, 05:00 PM

Clinton is the Right wings dirty bomb. Everytime an argument is brought up against Shrub, they retort with Clinton and his blow jobs. There is no comparison; getting fellatio from a woman that isn't your wife is not illegal. Taking a puff from a joint is illegal, but that can be called a youthful discretion since Clinton was quite young at the time, unlike Shrub who was in his thirties when convicted of drunk driving. Next to Shrub, Clinton is a god.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Next to Shrub, Clinton is a god.

I am not sure whether to be offended or laugh.:eek:

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Clinton is the Right wings dirty bomb. Everytime an argument is brought up against Shrub, they retort with Clinton and his blow jobs. There is no comparison; getting fellatio from a woman that isn't your wife is not illegal.

No - but lying about it under oath is.

And I don't see any way around that.

I couldn't care less that the man is a womanizer; as alot of moderate conservatives will probably tell you, it is the fact that he lied about it.

I think everyone should be held to the same standard - liberal or conservative. No one is perfect and everyone has skeletons in their past. That is truly all I am trying to say here.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
First of all, let me start by saying that I find it amusing that when the right has nothing better to say, they bring up Clinton.

And when the left has nothing better to say, they bring up GW's ancestors or his quarter-century old DUI. ;)

Sorry - couldn't resist. :cool:

dissention

01-11-2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
No - but lying about it under oath is.

And I don't see any way around that.

I couldn't care less that the man is a womanizer; as alot of moderate conservatives will probably tell you, it is the fact that he lied about it.

I think everyone should be held to the same standard - liberal or conservative. No one is perfect and everyone has skeletons in their past. That is truly all I am trying to say here.

My problem with his whole deposition was that it happened at all. It was not right, in my eyes, for anyone but his family to question him about his affairs and sexual acts. The whole Ken Starr bull**** was a witch hunt, perpetuated by the Republicans. Hillary was right when she said it was a right-wing conspiracy; they didn't conspire to make him cheat and lie about it, but they conspired to taint him by making his conquests public.

Almost all of us would have lied when asked those questions. IMO, by answering them at all, it was like saying it was alright for them to be asked in the first place. And it wasn't right.

As for questionign whether you should be offended or laugh at what I said, do whichever pleases you. When you stack Clinton's performance record next to Shrub's, there is no comparison; Clinton did more for this country than Shrub could EVER do. Yeah, some of his policies were ill-conceived, no one has a perfect batting average, but he made this coutnry great again, IMO. Then the conservatives and Shrub rode in on their black horse and threw everything down the toilet. Shrub is an embarassment, a stain on this country who perpetuates nothing but hate and greed. And those will be my dying words. ;)

dissention

01-11-2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
And when the left has nothing better to say, they bring up GW's ancestors or his quarter-century old DUI. ;)

Sorry - couldn't resist. :cool:

You don't seem to understand why it's being brought up: to show that Shrub is a liar, that he's continued to lie about for a quarter-century. He lied about it to the press, lied about it to the Texas government, and lied about it to the voters.

And I'm sorry to hear that Shrub's possession of Jewish blood money doesn't bother you. :(

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by dissention
And I'm sorry to hear that Shrub's possession of Jewish blood money doesn't bother you. :(

You are making a huge leap here. I never said that. Please see my posts in the other thread.

I am not trying to attack or insult anyone here - and I don't condemn anyone for not agreeing with me. I don't take the fact that people have differing points of view as a personal attack unless this kind of thing is said, which is just a bit too much (see above).

However, I do think the best arguments are ones that show consistency and an appreciation for both strengths and weaknesses of your point of view. That is why I ask some of the questions that I do.

I will be the first to acknowledge that I usually do not get involved in the political threads here; mostly because there seem to be very few people that post who have a moderate/conservative point of view, and there seems to be a good deal of intolerance about those viewpoints. However, I do appreciate a well-reasoned argument from any standpoint. Irregardless of whether I agree with it or not, I look at it as an opportunity to expand my way of thinking about issues. In other words, I am NOT a conservative who has blinders on.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by dissention
You don't seem to understand why it's being brought up: to show that Shrub is a liar, that he's continued to lie about for a quarter-century. He lied about it to the press, lied about it to the Texas government, and lied about it to the voters.

I do understand why you are bringing it up. For the same reason that I am asking for Clinton to be held to the same standard. I have never once said that I absolve ANYONE from lying. I just think that everyone should be judged by the same standard. Why isn't that fair?

dissention

01-11-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
I do understand why you are bringing it up. For the same reason that I am asking for Clinton to be held to the same standard. I have never once said that I absolve ANYONE from lying. I just think that everyone should be judged by the same standard. Why isn't that fair?

Unfortunately, that's not the impression that I've gotten. I got the impression that you thought the drunk driving incident had no merit to what's happening now and I disagree. It shows a pattern of lying and trying to cover-up misdeeds, which I see as very relevant to the type of man that is (unfortunately) in charge of our country. I think lying about a criminal conviction is a big deal.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Unfortunately, that's not the impression that I've gotten. I got the impression that you thought the drunk driving incident had no merit to what's happening now and I disagree. It shows a pattern of lying and trying to cover-up misdeeds, which I see as very relevant to the type of man that is (unfortunately) in charge of our country. I think lying about a criminal conviction is a big deal.

I am not saying that Bush is absolved from any guilt about that incident. A distinction that I do make is that Clinton lied under oath about things that he did WHILE IN OFFICE.

To say that "most of us would have done the same" in reference to Clinton does not make what he did right in my eyes. And I think lying under oath when you are supposed to be the person who enforces the law is a big deal. I would have much more respect for the man if he would just have fessed up to begin with. Look at all the trouble Martha, Inc. has gotten herself into by trying to "cover-up" what she did.

dissention

01-11-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
I am not saying that Bush is absolved from any guilt about that incident. A distinction that I do make is that Clinton lied under oath about things that he did WHILE IN OFFICE.

To say that "most of us would have done the same" in reference to Clinton does not make what he did right in my eyes. And I think lying under oath when you are supposed to be the person who enforces the law is a big deal. I would have much more respect for the man if he would just have fessed up to begin with. Look at all the trouble Martha, Inc. has gotten herself into by trying to "cover-up" what she did.

I actually don't think Martha did what the government claims, but we shall see. :D Don't you find it funny that she isn't being charged with insider trading, but she is being charged with trying to cover up insider trading? It smells very fishy.

Back to the topic at hand, no one is saying that lying under oath was the proper thing to do; it was wrong. Personally, I think Clinton should have refused to answer the question. I don't believe it was right to have been asked and I never will. At the same time, however, you could say that Bush lied to the government while filling out papers for jury duty by claiming he had no convictions. Lying on those things is akin to lying under oath and is punishable by law, too. ;)

jwd

01-11-2004, 07:21 PM

Hey does any one feel that having sex with a co-worker at your job is unethical? Do you think that those parties would be fired if they were caught? Some people just seem to be above the law. He's not called Slick Willy for nothing. I think his legacy will live on for a long time. :rolleyes:

Joe

dissention

01-11-2004, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Hey does any one feel that having sex with a co-worker at your job is unethical? Do you think that those parties would be fired if they were caught? Some people just seem to be above the law. He's not called Slick Willy for nothing. I think his legacy will live on for a long time. :rolleyes:

Joe

It's unethical, but not illegal. The White House was Clinton's home; every single room was at his disposal and ready for his inhabitance. As long as he wasn't breaking the law, he did nothing wrong (note that I said law, not moral).

jwd

01-11-2004, 07:26 PM

Yea, I heard he slept(around) a lot in the Oval Office. :laugh:

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Hey does any one feel that having sex with a co-worker at your job is unethical? Do you think that those parties would be fired if they were caught? Some people just seem to be above the law. He's not called Slick Willy for nothing. I think his legacy will live on for a long time. :rolleyes:

Joe

I think it depends on what you job is. If you have "clients" as I do, you absolutely should not have sex with them! That is unethical. However, I don't think that if you meet your significant other at the workplace, you can call that unethical. If that person is your boss, then there are some potential harassment issues.

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Yea, I heard he slept(around) a lot in the Oval Office. :laugh:

Shouldnt it be the "Oral" office instead???

Brian "Couldnt resist it" j.

dissention

01-11-2004, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Yea, I heard he slept(around) a lot in the Oval Office. :laugh:

Laugh all you want, it's the truth. :wavey:

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:32 PM

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Oh, sorry. Didn't see your edit. First of all, let me start by saying that I find it amusing that when the right has nothing better to say, they bring up Clinton. I've stated the purpose for my comparisons between the Bush and Hitler regimes in several threads. You can look for them. Frankly, I don't see what Clinton has to do with that.

Interestingly, the Clinton Administration used the ATF far more than Bush has. Although I agree with its legality and really do not question its use at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or with Elian Gonzales, to me the use of these stortroopers was far more Hitleresq than anything Bush has done. But, that is just me. I know the reply may be the Iraq thing, but I view that as a necessity and to me all facts point to the invasion of Iraq not anywhere near Hitler's invasion of Poland as I mentioned earlier. :cool:

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 07:37 PM

was his choice of women...The dude needs to realize he was president but he had his thing with Monica & Paula "the Snooozzz" Jones...Tsk, tsk, tsk...Well, At least Jennifer Flowers was beautiful, So 1 outta 3 isnt bad (.333 AVG) :laugh:

Brian j.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by dissention
My problem with his whole deposition was that it happened at all. It was not right, in my eyes, for anyone but his family to question him about his affairs and sexual acts. The whole Ken Starr bull**** was a witch hunt, perpetuated by the Republicans. Hillary was right when she said it was a right-wing conspiracy; they didn't conspire to make him cheat and lie about it, but they conspired to taint him by making his conquests public.

Almost all of us would have lied when asked those questions. IMO, by answering them at all, it was like saying it was alright for them to be asked in the first place. And it wasn't right.

As for questionign whether you should be offended or laugh at what I said, do whichever pleases you. When you stack Clinton's performance record next to Shrub's, there is no comparison; Clinton did more for this country than Shrub could EVER do. Yeah, some of his policies were ill-conceived, no one has a perfect batting average, but he made this coutnry great again, IMO. Then the conservatives and Shrub rode in on their black horse and threw everything down the toilet. Shrub is an embarassment, a stain on this country who perpetuates nothing but hate and greed. And those will be my dying words. ;)

Did you actually just argue this? I am a little floored. Are you saying it is okay for a male boss to use his superiority to get sexual favors, which by all accounts Clinton did and repeatedly at that. Moreover, is it okay for a woman to sleep her way to the top? If your answer is yes, I am going to call you a Republican :laugh:

The bottom line for Clinton for me was that he sent his entire cabinet out to lie for him and he kept heads of state waiting while he was having an extramarital affair in the office of the leader of the free world, which by the way is a crime in and of itself. Other than that, I say have at it and more power to you.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
was his choice of women...The dude needs to realize he was president but he had his thing with Monica & Paula "the Snooozzz" Jones...Tsk, tsk, tsk...Well, At least Jennifer Flowers was beautiful, So 1 outta 3 isnt bad (.333 AVG) :laugh:

Brian j.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah - you are the leader of the free world and those are the women that you pick?!:laugh:

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Although I agree with its legality and really do not question its use at Waco

but Waco lead to the Murrah Bombing...So I cant pick sides in that issue, Nor do I blame Clinton directly.

Brian j.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by dissention
It's unethical, but not illegal. The White House was Clinton's home; every single room was at his disposal and ready for his inhabitance. As long as he wasn't breaking the law, he did nothing wrong (note that I said law, not moral).

Not exactly, I believe having sex in a federal workplace is against the law. Moreover, I am unsure of D.C.'s law, but in many states, an extramarital affair is illegal. Finally, sending out your entire cabinet to perpetuate your lie much less lying under oath is obstruction of justice pure and simple. Clinton was a revolving lier about his rank womanizing. But, I do not hold that against him because I do not care about that. Whitewater, on the other hand, let's just say he is lucky Susn M. staid loyal. :laugh:

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Not exactly, I believe having sex in a federal workplace is against the law.

Wow! I never knew that.

Good thing I have never worked for the federal government!;)

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
but Waco lead to the Murrah Bombing...So I cant pick sides in that issue, Nor do I blame Clinton directly.

Brian j.

Agreed, but I was talking about the use of force being legitimate under the law. It was. Now - we could argue all day about was that the best method, etc. :laugh:

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Moreover, I am unsure of D.C.'s law, but in many states, an extramarital affair is illegal.

Just for clarification, are you saying "illegal" in that criminal charges could be brought?

Here in PA, it isn't "illegal", but it is grounds for a "fault" divorce.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 07:50 PM

So are we saying that it is not a big deal that Bush overstated reasons to go to war, especially since the administration seems real close to admitting that?

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Just for clarification, are you saying "illegal" in that criminal charges could be brought?

Here in PA, it isn't "illegal", but it is grounds for a "fault" divorce.

Yes, illegal in that you could go to jail for it. These laws have been on the books for a long time in many states. They are rarely enforcedd from what I hear. But, a violation of them is nonetheless against the law. :cool:

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
So are we saying that it is not a big deal that Bush overstated reasons to go to war, especially since the administration seems real close to admitting that?

I am not saying that. I think they should be slammed from here to hell for that if for nothing else than for their stupidity in going it. IMO, they did not need to because they could have just relied on SH unwillingness for 11 years to comply with his agreement to demonstrate he had destroyed his WMD. Also, W has already admitted the nuclear thing was a mistake.

Interestingly, the Clinton administration used almost all of the same intelligence to justify its bombing of Iraq and its maintenance of the "no fly zones," which the UN never really officially sanctioned. So, W is not alone in this boat IMO.

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Agreed, but I was talking about the use of force being legitimate under the law. It was. Now - we could argue all day about was that the best method, etc. :laugh:

True...

The use of force never bothered me, Just the fall-out that came afterwards...

Brian j.

jwd

01-11-2004, 07:53 PM

Okay that was fun(ny), but seriously(back to the topic somewhat) I wanted to say that Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect was a piece of crap. You liberals talk about how biased O'Reilly supposedly is. How can you not say that his show was nothing more than liberal propaganda? His panel was undisputedly tilted in his favor or in favor of his viewpoints. Not to mention his audience. I think Bill just wanted to "make believe" that almost everyone agreed with him. Puhhlease!!!

Joe

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 07:55 PM

Going down the Clinton road is a complete waste of time.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Okay that was fun(ny), but seriously(back to the topic somewhat) I wanted to say that Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect was a piece of crap. You liberals talk about how biased O'Reilly supposedly is. How can you not say that his show was nothing more than liberal propaganda? His panel was undisputedly tilted in his favor or in favor of his viewpoints. Not to mention his audience. I think Bill just wanted to "make believe" that almost everyone agreed with him. Puhhlease!!!

Joe :nod: :nod:

People IMO and we are all guilty of it :cool: call everything they do not believe in crap and everything they believe in the truth. For example, Bill O. is far from a very conservative right winger - he's for gun control, he is for the govt. not being able to shove religion down anyone's throat, he is against the death penalty in most cases, etc. Yet, few liberal will admit that. Now, they are right about Coultergeist :laugh:

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am not saying that. I think they should be slammed from here to hell for that if for nothing else than for their stupidity in going it. IMO, they did not need to because they could have just relied on SH unwillingness for 11 years to comply with his agreement to demonstrate he had destroyed his WMD. Also, W has already admitted the nuclear thing was a mistake.

Interestingly, the Clinton administration used almost all of the same intelligence to justify its bombing of Iraq and its maintenance of the "no fly zones," which the UN never really officially sanctioned. So, W is not alone in this boat IMO.

Very good point. :wavey:

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Going down the Clinton road is a complete waste of time.

Agreed, but I think it is waste of time to go down that same road with W for the reasons I stated earlier.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
So are we saying that it is not a big deal that Bush overstated reasons to go to war, especially since the administration seems real close to admitting that?

Thank you for taking this "pshychotic horse galloping towards a burning barn" thread back onto topic. Like I said, the Clinton redux is completely uselesss, unless you are trying to feel better about justifying your own politics. :)

jwd

01-11-2004, 07:58 PM

gldstwmn:
Going down the Clinton road is a complete waste of time.

Oh I thought we were reviewing the high set of standards established for the Presidency of the U.S.A. :confused:

Joe

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Okay that was fun(ny), but seriously(back to the topic somewhat) I wanted to say that Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect was a piece of crap.

Joe

I hated having to wait for his show to go off just to watch Nightline...I tried giving it a chance but I just couldnt be "fair and balanced®©" enough to care to (There FOX-News, I added yer lil' pathetic copyright & registered symbols...Dont mistake me for Stuart "Al Franken" Smalley)

Brian "Politicians-Gods' lil' sick joke" j.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Agreed, but I think it is waste of time to go down that same road with W for the reasons I stated earlier.

Sorry, he's the sitting president. I don't expect you to agree with my views but I do have a right to state them. The Bush regime bears similarities to that of Nazi Germany. If we want to start criticizing past presidents, we'd be here for a very long time.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Oh I thought we were reviewing the high set of standards established for the Presidency of the U.S.A. :confused:

Joe

No just the current administration.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Going down the Clinton road is a complete waste of time.

As I have stated many times, I just think everyone should be judged by the same "presidential" standard.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The Bush regime bears similarities to that of Nazi Germany.

Am I the only one who is scared by this?! :eek: ;)

I don't think I will ever "get" it! :laugh:

Sugar

01-11-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
As I have stated many times, I just think everyone should be judged by the same "presidential" standard.

So does this mean that it's OK that the Bush Administration lied since Clinton did?

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Am I the only one who is scared by this?! :eek: ;)

I don't think I will ever "get" it! :laugh:

I'm not asking you to "get it." Do you have any defense of the Bush administration besides former President Clinton?

jwd

01-11-2004, 08:21 PM

strandinthewind:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sugar
So are we saying that it is not a big deal that Bush overstated reasons to go to war, especially since the administration seems real close to admitting that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not saying that. I think they should be slammed from here to hell for that if for nothing else than for their stupidity in going it. IMO, they did not need to because they could have just relied on SH unwillingness for 11 years to comply with his agreement to demonstrate he had destroyed his WMD. Also, W has already admitted the nuclear thing was a mistake.

Interestingly, the Clinton administration used almost all of the same intelligence to justify its bombing of Iraq and its maintenance of the "no fly zones," which the UN never really officially sanctioned. So, W is not alone in this boat IMO.

I totally agree Jason. I think saying that W. told a flat out lie leading us into war is stretching it a bit. However there's no disputing that Slick Willy LIED UNDER OATH, amongst other things. I could care less if Clinton was getting blow jobs in back alleys or strip clubs or wherever, it's the circumstances that matter to me. It's not just about blow jobs people! :D

Joe

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sorry, he's the sitting president. I don't expect you to agree with my views but I do have a right to state them. The Bush regime bears similarities to that of Nazi Germany. If we want to start criticizing past presidents, we'd be here for a very long time.

I agree. But that is my point. Every human being has imperfections, whether its a wandering eye or a past DUI, both of which were lied about. To me these and the lies that went with them have nothing to do with being the President because I think if they thought they could get away with it, everyone would lie about them. So, I say the relevant things for me are the Iraq lying, the effrontery to appoint Ashcroft as payoff to the religious right, and his wanting to pass a Const. Amendment banning gay marriage (talk about no clue as to the proper use of the Const., which is to grant rights not prohibit them a la Prohibition (boy that sure worked :laugh: )). So, the reason I was bringing up Clinton was to show all Presidents are humans.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:23 PM

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 08:23 PM

what an interesting topic this has become...

If the current regime bears similarities to that of Nazi Germany than I guess Texas is actually the "Evil Empire" afterall!!! :laugh:

Brian "Panzer Squad Leader of Okla...err...Poland, Keepin' those DAMN Texas-Nazi's out of my state/country" j.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
So does this mean that it's OK that the Bush Administration lied since Clinton did? No, but the far left complained bitterly when Clinton was taken to task for it - calling it unfair, etc. I say both W and Clinton should be taken to task for their lies.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by jwd
I totally agree Jason. I think saying that W made a flat out lie about leading us into war is stretching it a bit.

Joe

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is' is...

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 08:27 PM

jwd

01-11-2004, 08:29 PM

Sugar:
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is' is...

Or your definintion of sex. :shrug:

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm not asking you to "get it." Do you have any defense of the Bush administration besides former President Clinton?

Every comparison you and Dissention gave for saying the Bush Administration is similar to Nazi Germany just does not make sense to me. Again, Hitler invaded Poland in an attempt to make the Aryan race the only race on earth and for Global domination. While people may not agree with the invasion of Iraq, to say that W is trying to eliminate the Arab people and that W has overt and stated ambitions of Glonbal dominance is simply not supported by any facts I have ever read. Moreover, while citizens are being held without benefits granted in the Const., that is a far cry from being scooped up in the middle of the night and hauled off to a concentration camp. Moreover, the "enemy combatant" philosophy is not unconstitutional per se because the USSC said so in the 1940's. So, other than Bush's grandfather, like the vast majority of the rest of America, making money off the Germans, I just do not see a direct comparison. That is not to say I am saying you shuld not make the comparison, I am just pointing out that I think it is not a correct comparison :cool:

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Or your definintion of sex. :shrug: Its been so long - I've forgotten :laugh: (sorry could not resist :cool: )

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is' is...

I just finished watching 60 minutes with Paul O'Neill and while I had little doubt about the lies and lying liars who brought us to Iraq, let me say I have very little doubt about it now. What I don't think a lot of people understand is, Bush and his administration are by far the most dangerous administration we have ever had. We are watching our freedoms slowly creep out the window, along with all of our money, jobs and foreign allies. If he is reelected, I don't even want to imagine what this country will be like. I can only think it will be akin to the era after Kennedy was shot, only much, much worse.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Boy, I think I should just keep my hole shut and let you speak for me! Agreed! :laugh: If only OTHER PEOPLE on this thread would do that :cool: (I am just joking :cool: )

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I just finished watching 60 minutes with Paul O'Neill and while I had little doubt about the lies and lying liars who brought us to Iraq, let me say I have very little doubt about it now. What I don't think a lot of people understand is, Bush and his administration are by far the most dangerous administration we have ever had. We are watching our freedoms slowly creep out the window, along with all of our money, jobs and foreign allies. If he is reelected, I don't even want to imagine what this country will be like. I can only think it will be akin to the era after Kennedy was shot, only much, much worse.

And I am not disagreeing with you in principle. i am just saying they are far from Nazi's and some of the to me irrelevant points cloud this exact point.
BTW - while I am sure Paul O. is telling the truth, he does come off as a pissed off fired employee. To me, his book would have more apparent credibility if he had toned down the rhetoric.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No, but the far left complained bitterly when Clinton was taken to task for it - calling it unfair, etc. I say both W and Clinton should be taken to task for their lies.

Point taken. Essentially I posted that because the conversation had gone to, "Well look at Clinton" and Bush had completly gone out of the discussion. The Clinton administration, for good or bad, is over. This is the task at hand. Again the Bush Administration is all but admitting that the truth had been stretched and that things presented as facts were overstated. Like that "What does it matter if he had them or he was trying to get them..." quote. Just trying to see if anyone actually is OK with this. I remember when Clinton's lies were being exposed there were liberals who still defended him and those who were disappointed by him. But it seems no conservative will DARE say a bad word about Bush, and that's more frightening to me that any of gldstwmn's opinions...

estranged4life

01-11-2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
If only OTHER PEOPLE on this thread would do that :cool: (I am just joking :cool: )

mmmmm....mmmm...mmmmmm (Translation: Damn gag!) :laugh:

Brian j.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
Point taken. Essentially I posted that because the conversation had gone to, "Well look at Clinton" and Bush had completly gone out of the discussion. The Clinton administration, for good or bad, is over. This is the task at hand. Again the Bush Administration is all but admitting that the truth had been stretched and that things presented as facts were overstated. Like that "What does it matter if he had them or he was trying to get them..." quote. Just trying to see if anyone actually is OK with this. I remember when Clinton's lies were being exposed there were liberals who still defended him and those who were disappointed by him. But it seems no conservative will DARE say a bad word about Bush, and that's more frightening to me that any of gldstwmn's opinions...

Actually, Bill O-Reilly lambastes Bush fairly regularly. Hence, my calliong him a moderate. But, you are correct, like with Clinton, the party faithful just blindly follow - a little like lemmings in this case IMO.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And I am not disagreeing with you in principle. i am just saying they are far from Nazi's and some of the to me irrelevant points cloud this exact point.
BTW - while I am sure Paul O. is telling the truth, he does come off as a pissed off fired employee. To me, his book would have more apparent credibility if he had toned down the rhetoric.

How do you know? The book doesn't even come out until Tuesday.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
mmmmm....mmmm...mmmmmm (Translation: Damn gag!) :laugh:

Brian j. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

BTW - I listened to Rush's "Spirit of the Radio" during my 45 minute drive (each way) today. Greatness!

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How do you know? The book doesn't even come out until Tuesday. I have read sniglets. And - I was talking about the Bush being a blind man in a room full of deaf people comment. I mean, while perhaps true, it does come off as bitter to many.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
If only OTHER PEOPLE on this thread would do that :cool: (I am just joking :cool: )

I don't need anyone to speak for me. I'm quite capable of defending myself.:)

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I don't need anyone to speak for me. I'm quite capable of defending myself.:) :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

That's what I love about ya darlin' :wavey:

jwd

01-11-2004, 08:47 PM

Sugar:
But it seems no conservative will DARE say a bad word about Bush,

I think his attitude about a constiutional ban on gay marriage is way off base and I totally disagree with it. I agree with Jason's(strandinthewind) sentiments in a previous post of his about it.

I'm not necessarily fond of his speech or his mannerisms. He's got that "cowboy with an attitude" look about him.

Is that enough?

Joe

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have read sniglets. And - I was talking about the Bush being a blind man in a room full of deaf people comment. I mean, while perhaps true, it does come off as bitter to many.

He didn't strike me as being bitter. I think he's a straight shooter, ala McCain or Dean. The Bushies sure are in quite a dather over it though, which further leads me to believe they are in trouble. hell, they've even lost bin Laden. How do you lose a guy that's on kidney dialysis?

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by jwd
I think his attitude about a constiutional ban on gay marriage is way off base and I totally disagree with it. I agree with Jason's(strandinthewind) sentiments in a previous post of his about it.

I'm not necessarily fond of his speech or his mannerisms. He's got that "cowboy with an attitude" look about him.

Is that enough?

Joe

Come on. There are a lot bigger issues at work here and you know it.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Come on. There are a lot bigger issues at work here and you know it.

Agreed - but to amend the Const. to enforce a religious priciple held by about half of Americans is the far right at its "best" and is scarier to me than many other things W has done.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Agreed - but to amend the Const. to enforce a religious priciple held by about half of Americans is the far right at its "best" and is scarier to me than many other things W has done.

Remind you of anyone?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sugar

01-11-2004, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by jwd
I think his attitude about a constiutional ban on gay marriage is way off base and I totally disagree with it. I agree with Jason's(strandinthewind) sentiments in a previous post of his about it.

I'm not necessarily fond of his speech or his mannerisms. He's got that "cowboy with an attitude" look about him.

Is that enough?

Joe

If the Bush Administration admits to overstating the threat posed by Iraq to the US, do you have a problem with that?

jwd

01-11-2004, 09:04 PM

If the Bush Administration admits to overstating the threat posed by Iraq to the US, do you have a problem with that?

Of course I do, and I've already said that I agreed with Jason(strandinthewind) when he replied to your previous inquiry about this.

Joe

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 09:07 PM

How about Karl Rove outing a CIA agent? That's a felony.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Of course I do, and I've already said that I agreed with Jason(strandinthewind) when he replied to your previous inquiry about this.

Joe

You were a little vague, saying that you thought the truth was being stretched, but I appreciate the clarification. :)

Mad4Stevie, do you also agree with strandinthewind?

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
But it seems no conservative will DARE say a bad word about Bush, and that's more frightening to me that any of gldstwmn's opinions...

There are several things that I don't agree with GW on - such as capital punishment. But that is another thread entirely.

I agree with Strand in that GW had more than enough reason, irregardless of the WMD argument, to take Iraq to task. You cannot let bullies run rampant, and in my opinion, that is exactly what SH was doing. This guy was going to run wild until someone did something to hold him accountable for all the atrocities that he inflicted on his people. Eventually, you have to stand up to these type of people to stop them, or they will just continue the same damn activities. People like that will take advantage until you draw a line in the sand and are willing to hold your ground and show that talk is cheap, and action is everything. Again, just my opinion.

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
Mad4Stevie, do you also agree with strandinthewind?

About which point? There are alot in this monster thread.

If you are talking about stretching the truth - I think it is wrong to mislead people - but I think that there were more than enough other reasons to take SH to task (as posted above) - so I still think it was the right thing to do.

If GW did knowingly LIE about how much he knew about WMD, then that was an incredibly stupid thing to do. I personally cannot understand why you would state something as a specific fact about SH having WMD, unless you know it to be true, when everyone is going to find out eventually whether the WMD are there or not.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
About which point? There are alot in this monster thread.

Same one jwd was agreeing on, but your last point pretty much answered that. So do we invade North Korea next, in your opinion?

jwd

01-11-2004, 09:24 PM

Damn, I feel like I'm being cross examined. I didn't do anything wrong, really I didn't! :laugh:

Sugar:
You were a little vague, saying that you thought the truth was being stretched, but I appreciate the clarification.

What I agreed with(Jason's post) is that Bush didn't overstate the reasons for going to war per se himself, he was using intelligence given to him much in the same way Clinton did when he carried out bombing raids etc on Iraq. I never said the truth was being stretched, I said that saying Bush was telling a flat out lie was inaccurate.

Joe

Sugar

01-11-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Damn, I feel like I'm being cross examined. I didn't do anything wrong, really I didn't! :laugh:

What I agreed with(Jason's post) is that Bush didn't overstate the reasons for going to war per se himself, he was using intelligence given to him much in the same way Clinton did when he carried out bombing raids etc on Iraq. I never said the truth was being stretched, I said that saying Bush was telling a flat out lie was inaccurate.

Joe

Ah, there's that "C" word again...but I get what you're saying...

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
Same one jwd was agreeing on, but your last point pretty much answered that.

I added to this - all you liberals should love that I used "GW" and "stupid" in the same sentence!
:laugh:

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How about Karl Rove outing a CIA agent? That's a felony. Now Now - no dispositive proof exists to support that :cool: If however, there is or it becomes available, they will fry him to save W.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
Same one jwd was agreeing on, but your last point pretty much answered that. So do we invade North Korea next, in your opinion?

Well, North Korea is factually different in that the UN is not as involved and, unlike the Middle East, let that idiot leader of North Korea go one step past what China is willing to put up with and North Korea will be part of China. So, I think the ousting of him can be acheived via other methods. If not, however, then yes, I say we take him out. After all he HAS nukes and is nuts.

jwd

01-11-2004, 09:34 PM

Sugar:
Ah, there's that "C" word again...but I get what you're saying...

:laugh: I know, and I TOTALLY get what you're saying. Our government really needs to do something about its' intelligence. :)

Joe

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now Now - no dispositive proof exists to support that :cool: If however, there is or it becomes available, they will fry him to save W.

Someone has already named Rove, it's just a matter of them signing some sort of non-confidentiality agrrement. It's in one of the articles I posted on one of the other threads.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 09:37 PM

Interestingly, I think we should Israel to task for its human rights violations and apparent desire to control far more land than was robbed from other people and given to it when it was formed. But, that will never happen for earlier stated reasons.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 09:38 PM

Mad4stevie

01-11-2004, 09:38 PM

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, I think we should Israel to task for its human rights violations and apparent desire to control far more land than was robbed from other people and given to it when it was formed. But, that will never happen for earlier stated reasons.

I agree with you 100 percent. Doing this will go a long way to better our image in the Arab world.

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So then where are all the troops going to come from? Are we reinstating the draft?

There is gossip that the draft will be reinstated after the election if W wins. But, I have no way of confirming that etc. So, take it for what it is worth.

Interestingly, aside from the political suicide the draft will cause, I agree a volunteer armed forces is better from the point of view that the people that are there for the most part are there because they signed up for it. I know exceptions exist, but I am speaking about the majority of the people in the armend forces. I do think, however, the child of every elected official should be forced to go the war zone and participate in combat as should the President. :cool:

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
There is gossip that the draft will be reinstated after the election if W wins. But, I have no way of confirming that etc. So, take it for what it is worth.

.

Yes, I have heard this but am so glad it came out of your mouth, so to speak.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, North Korea is factually different in that the UN is not as involved and, unlike the Middle East, let that idiot leader of North Korea go one step past what China is willing to put up with and North Korea will be part of China. So, I think the ousting of him can be acheived via other methods. If not, however, then yes, I say we take him out. After all he HAS nukes and is nuts.

Can I get an approximate timeline from you on this--:laugh:

What I'm saying that as far as I know there is a son waiting to take Dad's place and he isn't any different. Your opinion is that Iraq was in a dominant place in the Middle East so "us big guys" had to go in there, but you're content to let China police that part of the world?

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
Can I get an approximate timeline from you on this--:laugh:

What I'm saying that as far as I know there is a son waiting to take Dad's place and he isn't any different. Your opinion is that Iraq was in a dominant place in the Middle East so "us big guys" had to go in there, but you're content to let China police that part of the world?

In the end - if it costs less US soldiers' lives - yes, let the Chinese do it. I do not, however, think China will let it come to that. I mean they are far less diplomatic about things then America is and THAT is saying alot :laugh: Not to mention Japan.

In the end, I wish the UN would do it. But, the UN has proved to be inept at stopping world conflict and I am not just talking about Iraq.

Sugar

01-11-2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
In the end - if it costs less US soldiers' lives - yes, let the Chinese do it. I do not, however, think China will let it come to that. I mean they are far less diplomatic about things then America is and THAT is saying alot :laugh: Not to mention Japan.

China's got an awful lot on its plate these days, but I guess that's one thing you can say about the Communists: they usually feed the soldiers. ANYWAY do you know China's opinion on things these days? How concerned are they with North Korea?

strandinthewind

01-11-2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
China's got an awful lot on its plate these days, but I guess that's one thing you can say about the Communists: they usually feed the soldiers. ANYWAY do you know China's opinion on things these days? How concerned are they with North Korea? Well, the newspapers in the West have printed that China is opposed to NK having nukes, etc. Moreover, I do know China historically has shown little patience or regard for basic human rights as perceived in the West. So, I conclude China will not tolerate any act of aggression by NK and any action China may take will be done with little regard to human rights. Having said all of that, I think NK will buckle under international pressure. I mean I may be wrong, but unlike Iraq, everyone is on board with the idea that NK should disarm its nukes.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 10:16 PM

I wonder how much of our debt the Chinese actually own right now?

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 10:21 PM

http://www.journalstandard.com/articles/2004/01/11/opinion/op02.txt

Bush's dismal record speaks for itself
By Steve Spyrison

In less than 11 months we will be electing the next president of the United States. Our current president has the polished appearance of a sincere, devout gentleman who gives the convincing impression that he is working hard for the best interests of our country. He prays openly, which pleases many.

Here is a little more of the picture of this man and the accomplishments of the present administration and his immediate history:

He was elected governor of Texas with the endorsement of his father and help of the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay. During his governorship he helped change Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the union. During that time, Houston displaced Los Angeles as the most polluted city in our country. He helped set a record number of executions - more than any other governor in American history. He cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

With the help of his brother, the governor of Florida, and his father's Supreme Court appointments, he became president after losing by a half million votes. In his first year in office, more than two million Americans lost their jobs and America continues to lose more. He spent more time on vacation than any other president. He set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips and holds the U.S. and world record for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. He has appointed more convicted criminals to his administration and his cabinet is the wealthiest presidential cabinet ever.

While professing fiscal responsibility under this administration, we have observed the highest gasoline prices, the greatest drop in the U.S. stock market, the most private bankruptcies filed and the most bank foreclosures. He has given tax rebates, cut taxes and shattered the record for the largest annual federal deficit.

One week before Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. representatives walked out of the U.N. Council on Human Rights, which at the time was focusing on Israel's treatment of its neighbors. His stated goal early in office was to "win the first war of the 21st century," and he bombed Baghdad during his first 30 days in office. Under this administration, for the first time ever in the history of the United States, a pre-emptive attack and military occupation of another nation was ordered. And he did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens and the world community. Seven "Axis of Evil" nations have been named, and two countries have been invaded with costs expected to rise to nearly $200 billion soon. In the State of the Union address he was dishonest about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then cited our allies, the British, for his misinformation.

While the U.S. has long held world respect, we now are at the lowest point in world opinion; through the eyes of the world we are no longer seen as defenders of human rights but as the military aggressor. After months of U.N. weapons inspections and being advised that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, our administration insisted there were.

None have been found during our occupation. On our own home front, he supports the development of the nuclear Tactical Bunker Buster, which is a WMD, and we have withdrawn from the International Ban on Nuclear Weapons Treaty. While we had strong worldwide sympathy following the World Trade Center attacks, less than a year later, for the first time in history, the majority (71 percent) of Europeans viewed our president personally as the single greatest threat to world peace and security. Our leader set the all-time record for simultaneous protests against his actions in public venues (15 million people) - more than anyone else in the history of mankind. His visit was not well received while recently visiting our closest military ally - England.

Under this administration, we are the only western nation to fail to sign the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and the only nation among 130 to refuse to sign on the world ban on land mines. Of 192 nations that signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed on. He withdrew from the World Court of Law.

We were the only country to be removed by the United Nations from the Human Rights Commission. He has broken more international treaties than any other U.S. president. He violated the Geneva Convention by refusing to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war. He was also the first president to refuse U.N. election inspectors during the 2002 elections.

Friends at Enron and Halliburton were protected against investigation or prosecution. More money was spent on investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than investigations into one of the largest corporate scandals in history. Under the name of national security, we have fewer rights than before and, at the same time, all records of SEC investigation into Bush's insider trading and bankrupt companies are now being kept secret. Also sealed and unavailable to the public are records or minutes of public energy policy meetings that he or the vice president attended. He refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed during the biggest energy crisis in history.

And he has made the fewest number of press conferences of any president since the inception of television.

This, to the best of my knowledge, is an accurate summary of the recent tenure. There is no need to express an opinion here as this brief history speaks for itself. Thanks for reading.

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:10 PM

JEEZUM CROW!!!!

Ya'll have been busy since I last logged in, dammit! I'm going to be here for an hour reading and responding!

Thanks a lot!! :laugh:

:wavey:

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Did you actually just argue this? I am a little floored. Are you saying it is okay for a male boss to use his superiority to get sexual favors, which by all accounts Clinton did and repeatedly at that. Moreover, is it okay for a woman to sleep her way to the top? If your answer is yes, I am going to call you a Republican :laugh:

What frigging post did you read?

:confused:

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Okay that was fun(ny), but seriously(back to the topic somewhat) I wanted to say that Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect was a piece of crap. You liberals talk about how biased O'Reilly supposedly is. How can you not say that his show was nothing more than liberal propaganda? His panel was undisputedly tilted in his favor or in favor of his viewpoints. Not to mention his audience. I think Bill just wanted to "make believe" that almost everyone agreed with him. Puhhlease!!!

Joe

You obviously never watched the show, pal, and you most certainly never watched his show on HBO. The show is about political incorrectness, which in itself is part of the "liberal agenda." It was a dig at a liberal cause. Also, Maher ALWAYS had conservatives on his program who were then challenged by liberal guests about certain areas of politics. He has Ann Coulter on quite frequently, Dennis Miller, many Republican reps and congressmen, former Republican cabinet members, etc. It would have been a pretty dull show if all of the guests agreed with him because they loved to spread the "liberal propaganda."

:rolleyes:

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The Bush regime bears similarities to that of Nazi Germany.

Amen. :nod:

The intolerance and deceit that they foster reminds me of Nazi Germany.

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by jwd
I totally agree Jason. I think saying that W. told a flat out lie leading us into war is stretching it a bit. However there's no disputing that Slick Willy LIED UNDER OATH, amongst other things. I could care less if Clinton was getting blow jobs in back alleys or strip clubs or wherever, it's the circumstances that matter to me. It's not just about blow jobs people! :D

Joe

He lied under oath and Bush violated the laws of the Geneva Convention. Which, I ask you, is more disturbing???

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And I am not disagreeing with you in principle. i am just saying they are far from Nazi's and some of the to me irrelevant points cloud this exact point.
BTW - while I am sure Paul O. is telling the truth, he does come off as a pissed off fired employee. To me, his book would have more apparent credibility if he had toned down the rhetoric.

1. This administration has taken away civil liberties and human rights, justifying it with the word "safety." Very Nazi-esque to me.

2. Paul's book hasn't been released yet, read it before you review it.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by dissention
JEEZUM CROW!!!!

Ya'll have been busy since I last logged in, dammit! I'm going to be here for an hour reading and responding!

Thanks a lot!! :laugh:

:wavey:

Honey, all hell was breaking loose here a little while ago.:wavey:

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually, Bill O-Reilly lambastes Bush fairly regularly. Hence, my calliong him a moderate. But, you are correct, like with Clinton, the party faithful just blindly follow - a little like lemmings in this case IMO.

He didn't until a few months ago, doll. I'm still waiting for his apology to the American people. :rolleyes:

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Honey, all hell was breaking loose here a little while ago.:wavey:

I am so mad that I missed it...but Alias was on, so...

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
I agree with Strand in that GW had more than enough reason, irregardless of the WMD argument, to take Iraq to task. You cannot let bullies run rampant, and in my opinion, that is exactly what SH was doing.

We're running rampant, though.

The fact is that one country does not and should not have the power to act however they want and exert military strenght on any country it chooses. We were wrong to invade Iraq and we're still wrong today.

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
If you are talking about stretching the truth - I think it is wrong to mislead people - but I think that there were more than enough other reasons to take SH to task (as posted above) - so I still think it was the right thing to do.

Tell that to the other dozen police states on this globe. What made iraq the one that needed help??? It makes no sense. Was it the violence endured under Saddam? No. Was it because invading Iraq could greatly benefit us? Maybe...

dissention

01-11-2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by jwd
What I agreed with(Jason's post) is that Bush didn't overstate the reasons for going to war per se himself, he was using intelligence given to him much in the same way Clinton did when he carried out bombing raids etc on Iraq. I never said the truth was being stretched, I said that saying Bush was telling a flat out lie was inaccurate.

Joe

Do you HONESTLY believe that he didn't know the intelligence was fake????

My sympathies.

jwd

01-11-2004, 11:42 PM

dissention:
You obviously never watched the show, pal, and you most certainly never watched his show on HBO. The show is about political incorrectness, which in itself is part of the "liberal agenda." It was a dig at a liberal cause. Also, Maher ALWAYS had conservatives on his program who were then challenged by liberal guests about certain areas of politics. He has Ann Coulter on quite frequently, Dennis Miller, many Republican reps and congressmen, former Republican cabinet members, etc. It would have been a pretty dull show if all of the guests agreed with him because they loved to spread the "liberal propaganda."

Well actually yes I used to watch the show on ABC. He had conservatives on just like O'Reilly has liberals on. Difference was it that it was always three to one liberals to conservatives. Yea that's balanced! I think he paid his audience to clap every time a liberal idea was proposed. What bull!! :laugh:

Joe :wavey:

jwd

01-11-2004, 11:49 PM

dissention:
Do you HONESTLY believe that he didn't know the intelligence was fake????

My sympathies.

Do YOU honestly believe he knew the intelligence was fake? My sympathies likewise.

Joe

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Tell that to the other dozen police states on this globe. What made iraq the one that needed help??? It makes no sense. Was it the violence endured under Saddam? No. Was it because invading Iraq could greatly benefit us? Maybe...

Tell me about it. After reading some of Alex's posts, I'm pissed that we didn't "liberate" Cuba. No oil there though.

Irony.

gldstwmn

01-11-2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by jwd
Do YOU honestly believe he knew the intelligence was fake? My sympathies likewise.

Joe

In a word, yes. Especially the uranium intelligence. No sympathy.:) I base this belief on two things. First, Ambassador Joe Wilson went to Niger at the request of the CIA to check out the intelligence. It turned out to be false. When Wilson heard that the administration was going to use the intelligence anyway, he again let the administration know it was false. Stunned that they planned to use it anyway as part of the case for war in Iraq, Wilson went public with his account. He then received a phone call from neocon lapdog jounalist Ralph Novak, who let him know that his wife was "fair game." Novak then published the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover agent with the CIA for many years, thereby endangering her life, as well as the life of anyone she ever came into contact with. Whoever leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Novak is guilty of a felony.
The second is the new intelligence coming from Paul O'Neill's book and other sources that the Iraqi invasion was being planned within days of Bush taking the oath of office, with the administration grasping at any seemingly relevant intelligence they could get their hands on to sell the war to the American public.

estranged4life

01-12-2004, 12:03 AM

Thank the Almighty for my Neutral/Sometimes Moderate/and always Independent political views (I don't vote for straight Independent in elections but for WHO I think is best qualified/suited for the job at hand.)

Just think my poor Moderate Democrat wife has to contend with my views on a daily basis...Tsk, tsk, tsk :laugh:

Brian j.

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 01:29 AM

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/01/11/build/nation/55-terrorreport.inc

New Army war college report blasts Bush on war on terrorism
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by visiting professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaida terrorist network.

"(T)he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former senator Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, that he published work critical of the Clinton administration.

His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the director of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al-Qaida. But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.

In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means."

He scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "(T)he potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."

The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly non-controversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps, a position that appears to be gathering support in Congress. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by dissention
He lied under oath and Bush violated the laws of the Geneva Convention. Which, I ask you, is more disturbing???

Obstruction is just wrong - period. If you do not agree, then how can you fault W for doing the same (as you assert) in the DUI matter.

Also, here is the website for the laws of the Geneva convention relating to POW's. I suggest W has broken no laws with respect to AQ or in any other way in that AQ is not a country.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by dissention
He didn't until a few months ago, doll. I'm still waiting for his apology to the American people. :rolleyes: Wrong. He has lambasted W for being a free and big spender pretty much since the first few months of this administration.

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 12:17 PM

dissention

01-12-2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Obstruction is just wrong - period. If you do not agree, then how can you fault W for doing the same (as you assert) in the DUI matter.

Also, here is the website for the laws of the Geneva convention relating to POW's. I suggest W has broken no laws with respect to AQ or in any other way in that AQ is not a country.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Hey, I never said obstruction was right; don't put words in my mouth. You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors. :rolleyes:

The fact is that it is illegal to invade another country, seize their assets, and then sell them off to whoever we want. It is illegal.

dissention

01-12-2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
IT was not one country - it was several!!!

Oh yeah, I forgot, we had the support of so many countries. :rolleyes: And by golly, look at all the support we have now!!!

dissention

01-12-2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Wrong. He has lambasted W for being a free and big spender pretty much since the first few months of this administration.

I've never seen him lambast that administration about spending. I've seen him criticize, but not lambast.

Still waitin' on that apology from Bill...

Merf

01-12-2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by dissention
The fact is that it is illegal to invade another country, seize their assets, and then sell them off to whoever we want. It is illegal.

:nod: Yeah, who is the BULLY now? Or should I say COWBOY??

People tend to forget that it's illegal to invade a country and overthrow a sovreign ruler. But I guess since God told Dubya to invade Iraq and get rid of all terrorists, than it's ok.

My prayer every night before bed? That Dubya goes the way of his father as another one-termer... and the world is free of another cowboy, I mean, BULLY.

dissention

01-12-2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Merf
:nod: Yeah, who is the BULLY now? Or should I say COWBOY??

People tend to forget that it's illegal to invade a country and overthrow a sovreign ruler. But I guess since God told Dubya to invade Iraq and get rid of all terrorists, than it's ok.

My prayer every night before bed? That Dubya goes the way of his father as another one-termer... and the world is free of another cowboy, I mean, BULLY.

Amen. :nod:

I find Shrub's god-speak quite comical. It's so ridiculous that it's funny. :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I've never seen him lambast that administration about spending. I've seen him criticize, but not lambast.

Still waitin' on that apology from Bill...

I say analogies between W and Hitler are far fetched. Its all a personal opinion. :D

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Merf
:nod: Yeah, who is the BULLY now? Or should I say COWBOY??

People tend to forget that it's illegal to invade a country and overthrow a sovreign ruler. But I guess since God told Dubya to invade Iraq and get rid of all terrorists, than it's ok.

My prayer every night before bed? That Dubya goes the way of his father as another one-termer... and the world is free of another cowboy, I mean, BULLY.

Illegal? Where is that law posted? I submit no where. Conversely, the President of The U.S. has the legal authority to defend the U.S. and her allies from a security threat.

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Hey, I never said obstruction was right; don't put words in my mouth. You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors. :rolleyes:

The fact is that it is illegal to invade another country, seize their assets, and then sell them off to whoever we want. It is illegal.

What I am pointing out is that obstruction is wrong period. Yet, when it is asserted that W did it in the DUi matter it is as if the world should end - yet, Clinton did it on a much larger scale in the Whitewater/Lewinsky matter and it is all of a sudden, well he should not have been asked the question, etc. Where is the fairness in that? To me lying is lying and breaking the law is breaking the law - it does not matter who does it.

Also, regarding "You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors. :rolleyes: " - I was referring to your post I cited that said Clinton should never have been asked the question about Lewinsky, etc. If you believe that, then to me that is saying no boss should ever be asked about sexual indiscretions in the workplace because they are the boss' personal business. I am fairly certain, as I suggested earlier that you do not agree with that - but I could be wrong :cool:

Rob67

01-12-2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Am I the only one who is scared by this?! :eek: ;)

I don't think I will ever "get" it! :laugh:

Don't be scared...people can spin history any way they wnat to advance their theories...The Bush=Hitler thing is completely ridiculous and only seriously backed up by liberal blogs and web pages. "Bush Hate Syndrome" is very interesting. The “bashers” tend to believe any op-ed article written to back up their claims. You could play six degrees of separation with any political figure and find lies, special interest motivation, skeletons in the closet, etc.

And, I think talking about Clinton is very relevant when discussing the Bush Bashing that is going on. The reason is to find consistency with the arguments. To simply say “It doesn’t matter, he isn’t president” or, whatever, isn’t the point. The point is that the arguments and values that you hold to someone should be similar and consistent. How can you defend the lies of one president and then, demonize the next (actually, it was sort of humorous to see Liberal feminists defend Clinton after that whole escapade)?

If you disagree with Bush, that’s great. That’s what makes this country great. But if you actually “hate” the guy, your views and arguments can be clouded by that and they loose credibility to us moderates who try and look objectively at both sides. And the “hate” refers to Regan, Clinton, Carter, FDR, or whomever. As I said before, the extreme Right was guilty of this during the Clinton years.

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 01:42 PM

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108113,00.html

Sad - very sad

But, I think the case with the American citizens being held as enemy combatants is still a go. Does anyone know about this case?

Merf

01-12-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Illegal? Where is that law posted? I submit no where. Conversely, the President of The U.S. has the legal authority to defend the U.S. and her allies from a security threat.

The fact is that the United Nations would not support us in our witch hunt to overthrow Saddam... because they knew we had no legal basis to do so. I submit that I want to see the PROOF that the US was under a "security threat" from Iraq.

This can only happen if:

1) WMDs are found.
2) A solid tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is found.

Over two years since 9/11, and neither one of these has materialized. There are a lot of reasons why Dubya took our young men and women into Iraq, and none of those reasons include the ones I listed above. (Money, oil, money, oil, power, money, and oil are not good reasons.)

The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

By no means do I believe that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy and it's okay to be a ruthless dictator, but the fact is that it was not our place to move in and overthrow him. Because if our sole basis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was because he was a dictator, then Dubya has a LONG list of dictators in this world he has yet to take care of.

I WANT TO SEE PROOF that our president did not lead us into this war on false pretenses!!!! I don't think that is too much to ask. Too many American soldiers have died since Dubya declared an end to "major combat" back in May. MAY 2003. IT IS NOW JANUARY 2004 and our soldiers are dying every day. It's time for this to be over!!!!

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Merf
The fact is that the United Nations would not support us in our witch hunt to overthrow Saddam... because they knew we had no legal basis to do so. I submit that I want to see the PROOF that the US was under a "security threat" from Iraq.

This can only happen if:

1) WMDs are found.
2) A solid tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is found.

Over two years since 9/11, and neither one of these has materialized. There are a lot of reasons why Dubya took our young men and women into Iraq, and none of those reasons include the ones I listed above. (Money, oil, money, oil, power, money, and oil are not good reasons.)

The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

By no means do I believe that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy and it's okay to be a ruthless dictator, but the fact is that it was not our place to move in and overthrow him. Because if our sole basis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was because he was a dictator, then Dubya has a LONG list of dictators in this world he has yet to take care of.

I WANT TO SEE PROOF that our president did not lead us into this war on false pretenses!!!! I don't think that is too much to ask. Too many American soldiers have died since Dubya declared an end to "major combat" back in May. MAY 2003. IT IS NOW JANUARY 2004 and our soldiers are dying every day. It's time for this to be over!!!!

Your two positions are falese. WMD have been found buried in a marsh. Granted these were older weapons, but the fact that they were there (hell - we probably gave them to him :laugh: ) and buried proves my point that SH was in violation of his agreement with the UN to account for and dispose of all WMD, which for about 11 years the UN unanimously agreed he had. Did he just forget about these 36 warheads that he buried to hide from detection? If anyone believes that, well I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale :laugh: So, WMD have been found and who knows how many more are buried in the desert or shipped off to Syria or some other place.

Secondly, you argue "A solid tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is found." I assert no link is necessary. Moreover, I am unsure if W has ever made that exact assertion - I know his administration has denied the link between the two - but they certainly did not go out of their way to end it, which a bad thing to do. But, post 9/11 clearly created a world in which a person like SH that had WMD and had used them and had invaded neighboring countries in an attempt to conquer them could no longer be tolerated. So, I say America was justified in getting rid of SH and his 11 years of lies and the world's appeasment of him a la Hitler. Do I think the rest fo the world should have come along, yes. Do I think France, Russia, and Germany did not because they all had prior dealing with SH (some possibly illegal) and they all stood to lose billions by doing so - yes.

Interestingly, is no one but me willing to admit that this entire Iraq mess was caused by SH and his unwillingness for 11 years to comply with the unanimous world opinion via the UN? If not, I just do not see a valid contrary argument.

Also, I agree, I think the Iraqi intelligence should be made public.

GardenStateGirlie

01-12-2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Merf
The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

And I don't think we've forgotten about him. I think right now, attention in the MEDIA has been shifted to the war in Iraq. Who's to say that we've not been attempting to locate Osama Bin Laden and who's to say we don't have any leads on his whereabouts?

Finding Saddam was a shock to many people BECAUSE the media was not alerted and tipped off on the mission to extract him from his hole. We didn't see that one coming...and that's the way it should have been. No need to broadcast it to everyone so someone can let him know, hey, they're onto you! Get out! I don't feel we should be alerted on EVERY movement and EVERY tactic that will be taken in efforts to find Osama or any other threat for that matter.

That's the problem with this country. Do you honestly believe that leaders of OUR historical past didn't run the country the way Bush currently is? Do you think he's the first President to be a "bully?" The problem is that years ago, you NEVER saw it because it wasn't out there for everyone to see. Now, we've got live coverage from the battle grounds of Iraq, journalists hanging out in rooms of hotels that are about to be bombed so you can hear the silence and see shocking green lights from the bombs in the distance...etc

Media plays a part in shaping and forming opinions. If it's not out there for you to see, you don't believe it exists or that it's going on...that goes with EVERYTHING not just politics.

My .02 for the new year.

Rob67

01-12-2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Sugar
If the Bush Administration admits to overstating the threat posed by Iraq to the US, do you have a problem with that?

Sure, but I agree with the foreign policy. Hopefully, the end with justify the means and a free and Democratic Iraq will have a profound effect on the Middle East. Hopefully, in the long run, it will bring about a greater peace and stability in the region. We’ve tried everything else and nothing has worked.

Not to keep harping back to Clinton (but it is relevant here), but I remember both Al Gore and him both referred to the WMD’s of Iraq as being a grave problem. WMD production was given as the excuse to fire rockets into Iraq in ’98, wasn’t it? It isn’t old news that we thought they were there.

Did the administration use this as the Ace in the hole for motivation? Maybe. Was it wrong if they did? Sure, and they should answer for it. But hopefully, as I said, the end justifies the means….

And Bush did say we would go after any nation that has supported or promotes terrorism as a means of political dialogue and Iraq has….

BTW…strandinthewind always backs up his position with facts AND logic. Much respect…even when we agree to disagree. Extremism from the left or the right doesn’t impress me.;)

Rob

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, regarding "You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors. :rolleyes: " - I was referring to your post I cited that said Clinton should never have been asked the question about Lewinsky, etc. If you believe that, then to me that is saying no boss should ever be asked about sexual indiscretions in the workplace because they are the boss' personal business. I am fairly certain, as I suggested earlier that you do not agree with that - but I could be wrong :cool:

I think you interpreted that post the way you wanted to interpret it.

I said that I didn't believe that Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions. I believe that it is not right for Clinton's private sexual indiscretions to be made public in the way that they were. It was a right wing conspiracy designed to attack Clinton, nothing more, nothing less.

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:16 PM

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I think you interpreted that post the way you wanted to interpret it.

I said that I didn't believe that Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions. I believe that it is not right for Clinton's private sexual indiscretions to be made public in the way that they were. It was a right wing conspiracy designed to attack Clinton, nothing more, nothing less. No - Congress gave Ken Starr the right to ask that question. So, he was completely proper to do so. Moreover, Bill Clinton set it up so it was proper to do so. If Clinton had not lied in the first place, then Starr probably could not have asked about subsequent sexual indiscretions. But, Clinton, like every other male on the planet :laugh: , lied about other women. So, Clinton put it at issue.

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:23 PM

Well, I have to say that you can count me out of these kind of political discussions from now on. We've circled the same things for over a month, the extreme liberals only agree with the extreme liberals, the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (whether some of you care to admit it) only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, the moderate Republicans only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, and the ones who try to stay objective cannot do so, even if they claim they can.

It's gotten tedious and has degenerated into snarky remarks and vicious attacks on each others politics, none of which are appealing. I take responsibility for my hand in it, y'all should for yours. I won't single anyone out, you KNOW who you are.

Vote for whoever you want, most of you will vote Republican anyways.

:wavey:

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by dissention
We had him cornered in a cave, but came back to the press with our tails between our legs because we managed to lose him.

You know this for a fact? The press and the MI consistently said we thought he was there. No conclusive proof has demonstrated he was actually there.

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - Congress gave Ken Starr the right to ask that question. So, he was completely proper to do so. Moreover, Bill Clinton set it up so it was proper to do so. If Clinton had not lied in the first place, then Starr probably could not have asked about subsequent sexual indiscretions. But, Clinton, like every other male on the planet :laugh: , lied about other women. So, Clinton put it at issue.

Doll-

READ MY POST AGAIN. I said that I didn't believe Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions.

Good lord.

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 03:26 PM

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Doll-

READ MY POST AGAIN. I said that I didn't believe Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions.

Good lord.

So - you are saying Congress should never have authorized a special counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter? The Clintons should just have been allowed to get away with that? Morevoer, if complaints of sexual harrassment are levied against the President of the United States, Congress should just ignore that? Finally, when the President of the United States consistently lies about sleeping around with women in his employ (before and during his Presidency) and he gets them or tries to get them swell jobs as hush money, that is okay? If so, as I said before, I am a little floored.

In my book, I agree Bill Clinton should never have been asked about Lewinsky. But, he put it at issue by screwing his subordinates and then trying to pay them off by getting them better jobs and then lying about it for years. The blame falls on him and no one else in my book. AND I still like the guy and would vote for him again :laugh:

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I enjoy your comments (and actually agree with some of them ;) ) and am sorry to see you go :cool:

Just call that post a fit of aggravation.

Do you honestly think I'll be able to stay away? :laugh:

I think we should all take a look at how we respond to each other, though. The veiled remarks of rudeness and "I'm-smarter-than-you-are-about-politics" really need to go out the door, or else it is really going to become an unpleasant discussion. Before people label themselves as objective, they need to read their posts over again and think before they say that. As you probably know, I never once claimed to be objective. ;) :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Just call that post a fit of aggravation.

Do you honestly think I'll be able to stay away? :laugh:

I think we should all take a look at how we respond to each other, though. The veiled remarks of rudeness and "I'm-smarter-than-you-are-about-politics" really need to go out the door, or else it is really going to become an unpleasant discussion. Before people label themselves as objective, they need to read their posts over again and think before they say that. As you probably know, I never once claimed to be objective. ;) :laugh:

:laugh: WELL THANK GOODNESS!!!!!!!

Seriously, I was set to type one of my "Gone With the Wind" in length PM's trying to cajole you into staying ;)

Since I was going to offer bait to do so - here is some

Bush flat out lied about the nuclear threat of Iraq and or that he should be lobotamized :laugh:

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
So - you are saying Congress should never have authorized a special counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter? The Clintons should just have been allowed to get away with that? Morevoer, if complaints of sexual harrassment are levied against the President of the United States, Congress should just ignore that? Finally, when the President of the United States consistently lies about sleeping around with women in his employee (before and during his Presidency) and he gets them or tries to get them swell jobs as hush money, that is okay? If so, as I said before, I am a little floored.

I'm still not convinced about Whitewater. The fact that Ken Starr and his staff asked what's-her-face (her name escapes me) to lie about the Clintons over the Whitewater deal made me even more suspect. Take that for what you will.

Also, Lewinsky never complained of "sexshul harrassment." Jones sued ten years after the fact and Gennifer Flowers had a consensual relationship. Willey never cried sexshul harrassment either. (Note, i'm not saying I agree with his conduct, I don't).

The Ken Starr investigation was a witch-hunt. A right wing witch-hunt.

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh: WELL THANK GOODNESS!!!!!!!

Seriously, I was set to type one of my "Gone With the Wind" in length PM's trying to cajole you into staying ;)

Since I was going to offer bait to do so - here is some

Bush flat out lied about the nuclear threat of Iraq and or that he should be lobotamized :laugh:

:D :D :D

I'm here for good. :laugh:

As for the bait: he doesn't need a lobotomy, he would have to fulfill the requirement of having a brain.

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I'm still not convinced about Whitewater. The fact that Ken Starr and his staff asked what's-her-face (her name escapes me) to lie about the Clintons over the Whitewater deal made me even more suspect. Take that for what you will.

Also, Lewinsky never complained of "sexshul harrassment." Jones sued ten years after the fact and Gennifer Flowers had a consensual relationship. Willey never cried sexshul harrassment either. (Note, i'm not saying I agree with his conduct, I don't).

The Ken Starr investigation was a witch-hunt. A right wing witch-hunt.

I agree it became a witch hunt, esp. after it was apparent the Whitewater investigation was going nowhere, but it does not obviate Billy C's lies (obstruction of justice) in my book. I am however, not really sure that rose to the level of an impeachable offense as that term is historically used. Hillary went into great detail in her book about this issue and she was correct.

Also, that for the $50 million price tag of the Starr report all we got factually was that the Pres. was a typical male cheating pig who lied about it when cornered - I have to say I want my money back because I could have told you that for free :laugh:

dissention

01-12-2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, that for the $50 million price tag of the Starr report all we got factually was that the Pres. was a typical male cheating pig who lied about it when cornered - I have to say I want my money back because I could have told you that for free :laugh:

I feel bad for the folks who bought the report when it went on sale. :nod: :laugh:

Why not just read the Penthouse Forums???:laugh:

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 04:12 PM

Intersting article.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/12/moveon.org.ap/index.html

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Don't be scared...people can spin history any way they wnat to advance their theories...The Bush=Hitler thing is completely ridiculous and only seriously backed up by liberal blogs and web pages. Rob:cool:

Guess you missed this quote from a professor at the Army War College in the article I posted:

"Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means."

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
"The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108113,00.html

Sad - very sad

But, I think the case with the American citizens being held as enemy combatants is still a go. Does anyone know about this case?

One more nail in the coffin.

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Your two positions are falese. WMD have been found buried in a marsh. Granted these were older weapons, but the fact that they were there (hell - we probably gave them to him :laugh: ) and buried proves my point that SH was in violation of his agreement with the UN to account for and dispose of all WMD, which for about 11 years the UN unanimously agreed he had. Did he just forget about these 36 warheads that he buried to hide from detection? If anyone believes that, well I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale :laugh: So, WMD have been found and who knows how many more are buried in the desert or shipped off to Syria or some other place.

Give me a break. The mortars found were field tested. The tests err on the side of caution to protect the soldiers. What was actually in those has not been confirmed yet. We probably won't know what is in them until tomorrow. As I said, they were probably forgotten.
Your blind and strident defense of the neocons is causing you to lose your objectivity. I'm disappointed.:(

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
And I don't think we've forgotten about him. I think right now, attention in the MEDIA has been shifted to the war in Iraq. Who's to say that we've not been attempting to locate Osama Bin Laden and who's to say we don't have any leads on his whereabouts?

The man is on kidney dialysis. Where is he? In a fu*king cave? Our first and foremost priority should have been to find the man who killed 3000 of our citizens on September11, not to play "You tried to kill my daddy-now give me the oil."
That said, please do not take my post as a personal slam.:)

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie

That's the problem with this country. Do you honestly believe that leaders of OUR historical past didn't run the country the way Bush currently is? .

Some of them ran it just like Bush but not to the extent that he has. He's dangerous.

GardenStateGirlie

01-12-2004, 05:32 PM

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Sweetie, you and I may have differing opinions when it comes to certain issues but I would certainly never take anything from you as a personal slam. We can agree to disagree. Friends first :nod:

Whew. I thought next you might be saying that I scared you.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by dissention
.

Vote for whoever you want, most of you will vote Republican anyways.

:wavey:

I won't and I'll fight to the death for what i believe in. I'm feeling very Kucinich today.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Rob67

01-12-2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by dissention
We're running rampant, though.

The fact is that one country does not and should not have the power to act however they want and exert military strenght on any country it chooses. We were wrong to invade Iraq and we're still wrong today.

I disagree, the UN did absolutely nothing (as is usual) for years. I feel we were right in that the long term war on terror can only be won by the stabilization of the Middle East. Iraq is the "eye of the storm" so to speak. Since the end of that regime, I've even heard that Syria has begun talks with Israel (by way of Turkey). That would never have been allowed to happen by SH.

Time will tell...

Rob:cool:

Rob67

01-12-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, is no one but me willing to admit that this entire Iraq mess was caused by SH and his unwillingness for 11 years to comply with the unanimous world opinion via the UN? If not, I just do not see a valid contrary argument.

Also, I agree, I think the Iraqi intelligence should be made public.

Uh...I completely agree with everything you have said in regards to the war on terror and our motivations for going to Iraq.:wavey:

Rob:cool:

Rob67

01-12-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Well, I have to say that you can count me out of these kind of political discussions from now on. We've circled the same things for over a month, the extreme liberals only agree with the extreme liberals, the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (whether some of you care to admit it) only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, the moderate Republicans only agree with the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, and the ones who try to stay objective cannot do so, even if they claim they can.

It's gotten tedious and has degenerated into snarky remarks and vicious attacks on each others politics, none of which are appealing. I take responsibility for my hand in it, y'all should for yours. I won't single anyone out, you KNOW who you are.

Vote for whoever you want, most of you will vote Republican anyways.

:wavey:

What's a good political discussion without a little good ole' fashioned mud-slinging!!:laugh:

I try to call a spade a spade and leave emotion out of it. But I stand by my views and am willing to call BS if I disagree, but I will try to tell you why. I am not a dates and numbers guy. I try to look at the broader picture. And if I believe something, I will continue to believe it until someone presents a valid and good argument as to why I shouldn't. I can also admit when I am wrong!

Hate to see you go..it's been fun!

Rob:cool:

Rob67

01-12-2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Guess you missed this quote from a professor at the Army War College in the article I posted:

"Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means."

Nope, didn't miss it. Interesting article, although I disagree with his theories on the whole. He compared the military overextension of the Germans in both world wars to the precieved overextension with the war on terror. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But that's a far cry from comparing Bush to Hitler.

The way our military is spread out around the globe could probably stand a rethinking, though.

Good article...

Rob:cool:

Mad4stevie

01-12-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Whew. I thought next you might be saying that I scared you.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I guess this is directed at me . . . sort of. And yes - the comparison to Hitler does scare me. You can make any comparison that you want, but I don't see how someone who was a mass murderer of more than SIX MILLION PEOPLE can be in the same league as Bush. That is just too over-the-top. There are so many other people in history that are/were much more charismatic and much more dangerous.

What I do not understand is why it is ok for someone to be "extreme" left in their views, but it isn't ok for someone to feel just as passionate about their conservative views. I can appreciate anyone's passion for their own viewpoint, but I don't think it is fair to be slammed for having just as much conviction, only on a different end of the spectrum.

Also - why is it that people cannot accept and acknowledge weaknesses in their own viewpoints? For me, it adds so much more credibility when people can admit that their views are not beyond reproach.

GardenStateGirlie

01-12-2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Whew. I thought next you might be saying that I scared you.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"Scaring all the people...but you'll never scare me" ;) <---lame Bella Donna reference. I couldn't help myself. Nah, you're strong in your beliefs...you're not Jaws...or ET....or a small rabid woodland creature...then i'd be scared :laugh: <333

GardenStateGirlie

01-12-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
You can make any comparison that you want, but I don't see how someone who was a mass murderer of more than SIX MILLION PEOPLE can be in the same league as Bush. That is just too over-the-top. There are so many other people in history that are/were much more charismatic and much more dangerous.

:nod: :nod: :nod: Compare Saddam with Hitler if you MUST compare someone at all. Don't compare Bush. The notion that he and his administration are some sort of second-coming of the third reich does not settle well with me...it's ridiculous, IMO.

Mad4stevie

01-12-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by dissention
As for the bait: he doesn't need a lobotomy, he would have to fulfill the requirement of having a brain.

Now, even I think this is funny!:laugh:

Mad4stevie

01-12-2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
MUST[/i] compare someone at all.

:nod: :nod: Amen, sister!!:D

Please tell me that those of you who agree with this comparison of Bush and Hitler, can agree that Sadaam is more like Hitler than Bush is like Hitler (*pleads*).

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Give me a break. The mortars found were field tested. The tests err on the side of caution to protect the soldiers. What was actually in those has not been confirmed yet. We probably won't know what is in them until tomorrow. As I said, they were probably forgotten.
Your blind and strident defense of the neocons is causing you to lose your objectivity. I'm disappointed.:(

All accounts as of now point to these missles being used to carry chemical WMD. If that is proven false so be it. I am not married to the idea. I am just saying that they were buried in an obvious attempt to hide them gives credibility to the argument that SH was hiding WMD. I fail to see how this discovery proves otherwise. Again, it was SH burden to demonstrate he had destroyed these weapons. he did not do so. Instead, as it stands now, this discovery shows he hid them inspectors in violation of his agreement with the UN.

So, while my argument (I defend no one) is strident, I do not see how it can be called blind :cool:

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 07:59 PM

GardenStateGirlie

01-12-2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by dissention
As for the bait: he doesn't need a lobotomy, he would have to fulfill the requirement of having a brain.

I wasn't aware it was a requirement to have a brain in order to become President of the United States. I thought you just had to act as a figure head/marionette while others run the office. Isn't that the way it works??? :nod: ;)

strandinthewind

01-12-2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The man is on kidney dialysis. Where is he? In a fu*king cave? Our first and foremost priority should have been to find the man who killed 3000 of our citizens on September11, not to play "You tried to kill my daddy-now give me the oil."
That said, please do not take my post as a personal slam.:)

I agree - but we are still looking for him. That has not stopped from what I have read. I think we will find him , but who knows. Interestingly, how long is long enough before we can move on from using every available resource to look for him? Iask this not to be smart, but practicle. I mean at some point we have to admit defeat in this area, which I cannot believe we have to do, but that is the fact before us - we let him slip away, when there was everything we could do (lame LB ref. I know :laugh: ) . More reason not to re elect W.

Interestingly, I often wonder if the D's or even another R President could have done anything better in Afganistan? I ask this not to be smart, but just out of curiosity. I mean from my point of view, we did the best we could there.

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
:nod: :nod: :nod: Compare Saddam with Hitler if you MUST compare someone at all. Don't compare Bush. The notion that he and his administration are some sort of second-coming of the third reich does not settle well with me...it's ridiculous, IMO.

I would compare both Bush and Saddam with Hitler, for different reasons, of course.

Merf

01-12-2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
I wasn't aware it was a requirement to have a brain in order to become President of the United States. I thought you just had to act as a figure head/marionette while others run the office. Isn't that the way it works??? :nod: ;)

Well, Risster, your theory has definitely been proven by this administration! And that's all there is to say about that! :nod:

;)

dissention

01-12-2004, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I won't and I'll fight to the death for what i believe in. I'm feeling very Kucinich today.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Me too! He had me in hysterics on last nights debate with his pie chart. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I watched it all over again on C-SPAN just for that. :nod:

gldstwmn

01-12-2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, I often wonder if the D's or even another R President could have done anything better in Afganistan? I ask this not to be smart, but just out of curiosity. I mean from my point of view, we did the best we could there.

Well, this all goes back to how complicit was Bush & Co. in 9/11? For those of you who haven't read it, I highly reccomend reading the Ellen Mariani lawsuit. I've posted it before but I don't think it's here anymore. If you do a simple search, there's plenty of info out there. I am nonplussed that the opium poppy growth has doubled, so heroin trafficking has become the basis for their economy, among other things, like teenage prostitution.

dissention

01-12-2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Hate to see you go..it's been fun!

Doll, I ain't goin' nowhere. :laugh:

:wavey:

Rob67

01-12-2004, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Doll, I ain't goin' nowhere. :laugh:

:wavey:

Glad to hear it!

In all seriousness...I rarely discuss politics in "the real world". It is fun to vent at times and I enjoy a great heated discussion as long as it stays sane.

I hope that nobody gets offended, though. But, If you are gonna enter the political discussion arena then you better be ready to battle!

Besides...no matter how much we all disagree on politics...at least we all know that we have great taste in music!!!!

Rob:cool:

dissention

01-12-2004, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
All accounts as of now point to these missles being used to carry chemical WMD. If that is proven false so be it. I am not married to the idea. I am just saying that they were buried in an obvious attempt to hide them gives credibility to the argument that SH was hiding WMD. I fail to see how this discovery proves otherwise. Again, it was SH burden to demonstrate he had destroyed these weapons. he did not do so. Instead, as it stands now, this discovery shows he hid them inspectors in violation of his agreement with the UN.

It still in no way enforces what the administration told us. If his possession of those buried weapons, which we more than likely gave him to kill the Iranians with and were buried before the UN resolutions, was justification of this joke of a war, I heartily disagree. You haven't said a lot of things that are out there, but this is definitely one of them. :nod: People are too quick to dispose of Shrub's lies.

As for Osama, Albright was 100% correct when she said we'll get an October surprise. I wouldn't be surprised if the supposed WMDs showed up around that time, too.

And you want something to salivate over? I think the capture of Saddam was very fishy and perhaps may have been a bit staged, much like the Jessica Lynch rescue (that rescue was a joke!). ;)