i hate George Bush!

[dontlookdown]

Has there been a more destructive arrogant President in the last 50 years?

[strandinthewind]

Has there been a more destructive arrogant President in the last 50 years?

I think I'll let Dissention answer this one :laugh:

But, let me say I am extremely fically conservative and W has made a mockery of that. I cannot believe he calls himself a conservative :distress:

[dissention]

To answer your question, hell no.

He has made a mockery of the office of the president. He sucks as a Republican, sucks even worse as a "compassionate conservative," and he sucks much more worse with everything else. He's polluted our air, killed our citizens, misappropriated war funds (which he should be impeached for), he wants to ban the rights of women, he wants to write hate and vile ideals into OUR constitution, the list goes on. He's evil, pure evil. Our country will be on the verge of collapse if he's re-elected.

As for your statement that you hate Dubya, get in the freakin' line.

[dissention]

I think I'll let Dissention answer this one :laugh:

I replied before I read that. :laugh:

[dissention]

Oh, and his tax cuts for the rich don't work either. And he let 9/11 happen, even with all the intelligence he needed to stop it. He sat in a goddamned classroom while our beautiful people died horrific deaths.

[dissention]

And, Jason, I'll beat ya to it:

"I cry foul." :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

And, Jason, I'll beat ya to it:

"I cry foul." :wavey:

You forgot to mention he blatantly and knowingly exxagerated the exigency of SH's nuclear capability to sell a war he knew was otherwise unsellable. AND - he equated SH to the Saudi nationals who caused the 9/11 terror.

Just thought ya needed a little help!

:cool:

BTW - he won FL fair and square :wavey:

[77Rumours77]

Hey you have to look at what he's done for this country! umm....wait NOTHING!
This guy more concerned with passing a constitutional amendment so gays cannot get married then AMERICANS dying in Iraq and N.K's nuclear bombs, I really think there is a problem!
He shows absolutely no respect for the middle class, its all rich this and rich that. I hope, waitI PRAY that this country doesn't make the same mistake again.

Thats just my 2 cents :o

[dissention]

You forgot to mention he blatantly and knowingly exxagerated the exigency of SH's nuclear capability to sell a war he knew was otherwise unsellable. AND - he equated SH to the Saudi nationals who caused the 9/11 terror.

Just thought ya needed a little help!

:cool:

BTW - he won FL fair and square :wavey:

I lumped that into the "killed our citizens" category. ;)

And if you think he won the election, you need to be strapped to a missile and sent over to Iraq. :nod:

[dissention]

From an outsiders perspective.......when you consider the definition of fascism (which I won't go into, it's rather long), it's a strikingly accurate description of the situation that Mr. Genital Region has embraced and expanded. Try telling Americans that and you get bombarded with excuses, but you tell the Germans of the '30s (assuming one could devise some for of time-travel craft) what they were being sucked into and they'd respond with some sort of logic derived from the propaganda they were being fed. The very idea of something resembling the Patriot Act is ludicrous and blatantly fascist, they just try to smooth it over with their propaganda. Whist we learn in our modern history classes about fascism and propaganda in Germany, it is becoming accepted that not too far in the future we'll be learning about the same thing in the US. Most Americans don't realise this, but neither did the Germans.

So yes, wave your flag all day and tell us that you're free and living in the home of the brave, but if you look at the rights stripped of you, and the disadvantage you're in by being an american resident, it might occur to you why many of us are having good ol' laugh and a coronary at your expense.
- obviously I didn't mean 'you' specifically, just as a general reference. I'm just so sick of hearing about the land of the free or whatever it is. It's very ironic actually.

Actually down here in Oz we're heading in your direction, but in reality we're still a fair way from it. Our current prime minister does intend to run us into the ground by the time he's out, which by our system of government, could be 20 years away, if he can hold out. What's this, our tertiary education system is now the 2nd worst in the western world (2nd only to america)?

Meh, I could go forever so I'll just choose this random point to end on.

Can I get an amen???

We must be related, doll. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Can I get an amen???

We must be related, doll. :lol:

Weren't you excommunicated? :laugh:

The word "Hitler" has entered the vernacular and has thus been marginalized by overuse. In other words, it is comical but wrong to compare a far less bad person to Hitler by calling them Hitler. Hitler was solely responsible for the slaughter of innocent Jews and homosexuals and for trying to take over the world to create one perfect Aryan race.

Conversely, W has not advocated or caused the execution of millions of innocent Jews and homosexuals. Also, unlike Hitler, W has also not advocated mass genocide and taking over the world to create one perfect race that I know of. Yes, there are Taliban and Al-Q members in a prison camp in Cuba, but these are far from innocent people. These people worked with or at least condoned the leadership that was directly responsible for the terror atacks on 9/11. Perhaps we should just let them go and see what happens. Also, yes W and about 17 other countries have killed thousands of innocent Iraqi's. But that was not done for the same reasons Hitler did it. It was done because for 11 or more years the ENTIRE WORLD via the U.N. believed SH had WMD and must be, therefore, contained. SH openly defied the world by refusing for 11 years to produce evidence that he had destroyed his WMD and his ability to make them. So, after 9/11 the US and several other countries determined the risk that SH might use these WMD was too great. So, the world via the UN gave SH one more chance to disarm or prove he had disarmed. Once again, SH defied the world. So, the US asked the UN to live up to its last resolution. France and Russia balked at this because they had been bribed and stood to lose a fortune. So, the US went at it alone. Even Kay admits that although there were no WMD the potential to make them was there and it is a good thing SH is gone so he cannot do that. So, while W is a jerk for lying and exaggerating the exigent threat to the U.S. and even if you flatly disagree with the war in Iraq, the facts state W and the other 17 or so countries reasons for going to war with Iraq were a far cry from Hitler's desire to create one perfect Aryan race.

The Patriot Act merely consolidated power that the Fed. Govt. already had via RICO and other Fed. Acts. So, it breaks no new significant ground. Now, if you want to argue the demise of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unwarranted searches and seizures, I will gladly agree with you that that principle is weakened, but not totally dead. But and again, the Patriot Act did not cause that. It has been happening under every administration (R AND D ) since about 1960.

Finally, please cite one recount of the the districts Gore stupidly chose to contest that suggests Gore won Florida. You cannot and you know it.

Mind you - I do not like W and think he should be impeached. But, he ain't no Hitler except in a ver very general way that could be applied to alot of other people like John Kerry for instance.

I guess I just think it is demeaning to the Jews and homosexuals killed in Germany by Hitler to equate W to Hitler. Again, I am not supporting W. I despise him. I am just saying his actions are not the same as Hitler.

And just when we were getting along so well :shrug: :wavey:

[DeeGeMe]

Lux, that was sheer poetry!

Y'all forgot to mention how Bush & Cheney have plotted to silence the press and their critics through all means possible. I beg each of you to get a copy of John Dean's book "Worse than Watergate". It will make cold chills run down your spine. I can only begin to imagine what we're in for if Bush & Co. are re-elected.

[DrummerDeanna]

What worries me are the ignorant fools who blindly follow Bush simply because he is a Republican. I was sitting in my entemology class the other day, it's in the Agriculture college...and this dumb ass lady behind me was, first off, saying we should ship ALL illegals back to Mexico...which I was like..."what about the ones who aren't from Mexico? Shall we ship them to Mexico anyway??" Well, then she said, "I'm voting for Bush because I love what he stands for..." to which I SOO badly wanted to turn around and say, "What? Hatred? Bigotry? Rights for rich white men? Racism?" Well, I was pleased to hear her friend say, "I voted for him in the last election but there's no way I will this time around..." That gave me hope...but I stopped sitting near these people because my blood pressure was rising with each class...


Anyway, I digress....at least in my area people don't know thing one about any issues or current events...it's very sad...they just follow blindly...and a lot of folks are pro-Bush...which scares the heck outta me...I really don't want him to get re-elected...

So..yep...add me to the list of people who hate Bush!

[Hawkeye]

Our country will be on the verge of collapse if he's re-elected.

You are being WAY too overdramatic.

[strandinthewind]

What worries me are the ignorant fools who blindly follow Bush simply because he is a Republican. I was sitting in my entemology class the other day, it's in the Agriculture college...and this dumb ass lady behind me was, first off, saying we should ship ALL illegals back to Mexico...which I was like..."what about the ones who aren't from Mexico? Shall we ship them to Mexico anyway??" Well, then she said, "I'm voting for Bush because I love what he stands for..." to which I SOO badly wanted to turn around and say, "What? Hatred? Bigotry? Rights for rich white men? Racism?" Well, I was pleased to hear her friend say, "I voted for him in the last election but there's no way I will this time around..." That gave me hope...but I stopped sitting near these people because my blood pressure was rising with each class...


Anyway, I digress....at least in my area people don't know thing one about any issues or current events...it's very sad...they just follow blindly...and a lot of folks are pro-Bush...which scares the heck outta me...I really don't want him to get re-elected...

So..yep...add me to the list of people who hate Bush!

I know - I know so many people who think that SH bombed us on 9/11

[Hawkeye]

From an outsiders perspective.......when you consider the definition of fascism (which I won't go into, it's rather long), it's a strikingly accurate description of the situation that Mr. Genital Region has embraced and expanded. Try telling Americans that and you get bombarded with excuses, but you tell the Germans of the '30s (assuming one could devise some for of time-travel craft) what they were being sucked into and they'd respond with some sort of logic derived from the propaganda they were being fed. The very idea of something resembling the Patriot Act is ludicrous and blatantly fascist, they just try to smooth it over with their propaganda. Whist we learn in our modern history classes about fascism and propaganda in Germany, it is becoming accepted that not too far in the future we'll be learning about the same thing in the US. Most Americans don't realise this, but neither did the Germans.

So yes, wave your flag all day and tell us that you're free and living in the home of the brave, but if you look at the rights stripped of you, and the disadvantage you're in by being an american resident, it might occur to you why many of us are having good ol' laugh and a coronary at your expense.
- obviously I didn't mean 'you' specifically, just as a general reference. I'm just so sick of hearing about the land of the free or whatever it is. It's very ironic actually.

Actually down here in Oz we're heading in your direction, but in reality we're still a fair way from it. Our current prime minister does intend to run us into the ground by the time he's out, which by our system of government, could be 20 years away, if he can hold out. What's this, our tertiary education system is now the 2nd worst in the western world (2nd only to america)?

Meh, I could go forever so I'll just choose this random point to end on.

you're kidding me right? You can't POSSIBLY compare the US right now to 1930's Germany. It's ridiculous. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave and the best country there is. And I admit I hate Bush becuase of his Stupid War that we have no reason to be fighting, but there have been Stupid Wars in our history before, how is this any different. And Lux since you think we're so facist why isn't David Letterman or Jay Leno or any of those comedians who blast the goverment SHOT. That's what happens in real tryanical goverments. So until I hear that David Letterman has been arressted and executed by the goverment I think you are just crazy.

[strandinthewind]

you're kidding me right? You can't POSSIBLY compare the US right now to 1930's Germany. It's ridiculous. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave and the best country there is. And I admit I hate Bush becuase of his Stupid War that we have no reason to be fighting, but there have been Stupid Wars in our history before, how is this any different. And Lux since you think we're so facist why isn't David Letterman or Jay Leno or any of those comedians who blast the goverment SHOT. That's what happens in real tryanical goverments. So until I hear that David Letterman has been arressted and executed by the goverment I think you are just crazy.

This is the apparent mindset of the far left. IMO it has no basis in rationale thought for the reasons you state and the reasons I stated above. BUT - I love you Dissention and you know it :laugh: :cool: I mean these things are just not even relevant to what is going on. They are the truth with stretchers IMO and giant red herrings. But, both sides are doing it. So . . .

[gldstwmn]

:cool:

BTW - he won FL fair and square :wavey:

57,000 (mostly black) voters purged.

[gldstwmn]

Weren't you excommunicated? :laugh:


I guess I just think it is demeaning to the Jews and homosexuals killed in Germany by Hitler to equate W to Hitler. Again, I am not supporting W. I despise him. I am just saying his actions are not the same as Hitler.



Tell that to the people of Fallujah. What we are seeing here on our media is very sanitized. We surrounded a town with barbed wire, wouldn't let anybody leave and then proceeded to bomb the daylights out of it. In this case, there is no singling out of an ethnic group or pepople of certain sexual preferences. Then they have the balls to put it on CNN as Shock and Awe II. THE MAJORITY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE CITIZENS NOT INSURGENTS. It's only because they went in there with no real plan in the first place that this is happening now. I also understand we're taking advice from the Israeli's on how to conduct urban warfare. Meahwhile, they've got Prince Bandar running around doing pr and the other day someone was talking about Fiesel. No one's heard from that guy since Carter was president. Y'all remember that? We had to go wait in line at the gas stations for gas.
So you make your comparisons and I'll make mine. But please don't tell me who I'm demeaning. That's your opinion. He reminds me of a Nazi. :)

[gldstwmn]

You are being WAY too overdramatic.

Oh my friend. Stop watching Newstainment. Start reading foreign accounts of what's going on. Look at the deficits. The republic as we have known it is on the verge of collapse. They're taking our rights away, little by little. Four more years of this **** and we're done. If we have a terrorist attack before the election, Bush could declare martial law. This could be the last election we ever have. These people want a dynasty. The want to make money for their industrial war complex. They're in bed with the Saudi's on it. Why do you think they were allowed to leave the country so quickly after 9/11? Why doesn't Bushco want 9/11 to be investigated? There is so much more to this I could go on and on. I used to think the same thing as you. Then the more I found out, the more I realized, these people are dangerous.

[Rob67]

This is the apparent mindset of the far left. IMO it has no basis in rationale thought for the reasons you state and the reasons I stated above. BUT - I love you Dissention and you know it :laugh: :cool: I mean these things are just not even relevant to what is going on. They are the truth with stretchers IMO and giant red herrings. But, both sides are doing it. So . . .


Ah....finally some reasoning, amongst a sea of paranoia...with no answers, to boot...

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Oh my friend. Stop watching Newstainment. Start reading foreign accounts of what's going on. Look at the deficits. The republic as we have known it is on the verge of collapse. They're taking our rights away, little by little. Four more years of this **** and we're done. If we have a terrorist attack before the election, Bush could declare Marhsall Law. This could be the last election we ever have. These people want a dynasty. The want to make money for their industrial war complex. They're in bed with the Saudi's on it. Why do you think they were allowed to leave the country so quickly after 9/11? Why doesn't Bushco want 9/11 to be investigated? There is so much more to this I could go on and on. I used to think the same thing as you. Then the more I found out, the more I realized, these people are dangerous.

:shocked:

Do you honestly feel this way??! Really?

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Tell that to the people of Fallujah. What we are seeing here on our media is very sanitized. We surrounded a town with barbed wire, wouldn't let anybody leave and then proceeded to bomb the daylights out of it. In this case, there is no singling out of an ethnic group or pepople of certain sexual preferences. Then they have the balls to put it on CNN as Shock and Awe II. THE MAJORITY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE CITIZENS NOT INSURGENTS. It's only because they went in there with no real plan in the first place that this is happening now. I also understand we're taking advice from the Israeli's on how to conduct urban warfare. Meahwhile, they've got Prince Bandar running around doing pr and the other day someone was talking about Fiesel. No one's heard from that guy since Carter was president. Y'all remember that? We had to go wait in line at the gas stations for gas.
So you make your comparisons and I'll make mine. But please don't tell me who I'm demeaning. That's your opinion. He reminds me of a Nazi. :)

I am not saying innocent Iraqis are not being killed or that that is not a horrible thing. All I am saying is the mindset of Hitler is not there. So, I think any comparison to Hitler is at best tenuous. Again, we are not taking over Iraq. We liberated it. Hitler would have taken it over and put all non Aryan people in ovens. We are trying to est. a democracy. There is a huge difference there. And, you know I totally agree with you that W and his cronies have botched this to no end and should have to pay the piper for it. All I am saying is their intent was in no way Hitleresq :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Whoops, forgot to mention that the whole argument supporting agression against Iraq is based entirely on false information. Small detail, I know. Say, didn't they tell us in 2001 that Iraq was not a conventional threat, that they had no grounds on which to base belief that Hussein had weapons.

Well they tried to bury that and your good selves that suddenly they assembled these weapons from resources that they couldn't possibly have had anyway (due to sanctoins). I think it might be unconstitutional for a leader to lie to his people about the reasoning for going to war. Doesn't anybody give a **** that they outright lied?

Paranoia? Hardly. More like informed logic. Content ignorance combined with a ridiculous fear of strangers is exactly what they want. Instead, fear the government that lies to its people.

Once again and please read carefully this time :laugh: , the UN for 11 years unanimously thought SH had WMD based on this false information; it passed resolution after resolution to try to get SH to comply. Yet, time after time, SH did not lift a finger to prove otherwise even though it was his duty to do so. Therefore, he is gone.

I am not in any way saying I agree with the way the US and her allies did this - I do not agree with it at all.

All I am saying is there was a reason behind it that the world agreed with for over 11 years about the WMD. HEll, we gave most of them to him. Yet, when it came time to do something about it, France and Russia take a bribe and bow out once again letting SH off of the hook.

I am also saying that this reason belies the credibility of your inital assertion that the US is acting like the Third Reich.

Any suggestion that I am saying otherwise is false.

Any suggestion that I am saying what is happening in Iraq is not horrible is false.

Any suggestion that I am saying innocent Iraqi's are not being killed is false.

Any suggestion that I am not saying oil had nothing to do with this is false.

Any suggestion that I am saying W did not lie about the exigency of the theat of Iraq to the continental US and her allies is false.

All and again ALL I am saying is there is no direct comparison to Hitler and his plans for aggression and world dominance to effectuate genocide to create an Aryan race. To throw in all of this other stuff that you did is not arguing against my sole point here which is, again, W is not Hitler - not by a long shot.

Got it now? :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Eck! People don't still believe that do they? If Iraq were liberated it would be set free from confinement and foreign control. Not exactly a description of the state of Iraq. Did we 'liberate' Afghanistan too? Get rid of the bad guys and pass the population along into the hands of the previous bad guys.

Do people not believe that their are alteriative motives to the laughable concept that Bush wants to help the people of Iraq? They seriously have no other intentions? Nothing to do with control in the Middle East at all? Yes, because obviously Bush is such a bleeding heart he likes to go and help out all troubled nations, liberating them from their mean, mean leaders and providing safe living conditions and rations of candy.

Do you really think we should have let the Taliban and Al-Q rule Afganistan? Just let them go on without any reprecussions for 9/11 and all of the other attacks. Didn't we give the Taliban a chance to turn over Bin Laden and they said - "Oh BL could never have done what you assert -- BL is a peaceful man" -- then the Taliban said they did not know where he was -- then the leader of the Taliban appears on t.v. with Bin Laden a few days later. How stupid did they think we were. So, please do not expect any credibility to the argument that we (and the rest of the world mind you) should not have attacked Afganistan - if that is indeed what you are arguing. Interestingly, the liberals in this country were screaming for the govt. to do somehting when the Taliban took over Afganistan. Then, when W does something, because he is W, the liberals here cannot admit that the Taliban, which was bankrolled by Bin Laden, needed to go.

Also, please demonstrate how W and America are not trying to est. a democracy in Iraq. Hopefully, their govt. will be est. on June 30. Granted they are not getting full power, but they are not ready for it are they. Moreover, history demonstrates that for the US to pull out now would be a horrible thing. Rather, it is a good thing for us to stay there and help them est. a democracy and keep the peace while doing so. So, yes, W and his cronies may have a hidden agenda, but so far it has not played out. In fact, quite the contrary has happened in that the US has givem not loaned, billions to the Iraqi people and gotten rid of a horrible person who defied committed genocide there and defied the world for over 11 years. How is that a bad thing notwithstanding the loss of life in the struggle which is horrible and unnecessary IMO?

[strandinthewind]

But what's that got to do with weapons inspections and resultant economic sanctions?

Again, you asserted W's regime was the same as the Third Reich. As I mentioned more than once, I was commenting on that alone. When I suggested that W was no Hitler, you went off about how Iraqi's are dying for a senseless and illegal war, etc. So, I pointed out that W at least had a reason the world supported for 11 or more years as opposed to Hitler who did not. That is all I am saying. I basically agree with you and others that the war in Iraq could perhaps have been avoided and that W lied to get us there.

[strandinthewind]

Democracy, in Iraq? Well I'm keen to see how that one goes. A very unrealistic prospect from a historical perspective.



Well, I hate to be blatantly politically incorrect, but perhaps the Taliban was thinking the exact same thing (except in reverse). They certainly weren't justified, nor supported by their people, but I suggest their reasoning was that you **** our people over for long enough, we strike back. American agression seems to go unnoticed, but if someone even steps on America's toe, let alone punches it in the face (like my metaphors?), America seems to be justified in it's aggresive response. Maybe it's because they own all the weapons.......? Ruling the world through fear of aggression.

Anyway, back to what we were talking about.....Afghanistan. Right, well America sure put that country straight! Yes, let's invade (and murder whilst doing so, rather hypocritically seeing that the reasoning for the invasion in the first place was that the Taliban were murders), put warlords in power, chuck some puppets in front of microphones and pretend we liberated them. 'You killed our people! Now we're going to kill some of yours (but pretend we're liberating them).' Doesn't make them much better than the terrorists.

Again, what else should have been done in Afganistan? I am all ears for an alternative solution. Should the US leave the Middle East altoghether? While that sounds good it is not a feasible option. Moreover, exactly how did America screw Afganistan over? How has America screwed Saudi Arabia over. I suggest America has not. But, these people see America as the aggressor who acted alone. I think that is wrong. I mean why not go after The Vatican. Surely the Roman Catholic Church is far guiltier than America is at trying to dominate the Middle East (at least Isreal). But, instead, they try to punish us for teaching them how to drill for and then buying their oil, which the rest of the world does as well and are not similarly blamed. Moreover, without the oil, the world would cease to function (sadly so I might add). So, while yes the West in general has been historically horrible to the Middle East, America certainly was not even created during much of that and she certainly has not acted alone since. I think it all boils down to religion and their religion cannot stand the fact that Jews are in Israel and protected by the West and that non-Muslims have any power in Saudi Arabia.

[Rob67]

Eck! People don't still believe that do they? If Iraq were liberated it would be set free from confinement and foreign control. Not exactly a description of the state of Iraq. Did we 'liberate' Afghanistan too? Get rid of the bad guys and pass the population along into the hands of the previous bad guys.

And your plans for a long term and stable Middle East would include???

And if we look into history (which many people convieniantly neglect to do) we find that it took about 7 years or so for us to turn full control over to the Japanese after WWII. In comparison, Just over a year in Iraq does not seem unrealistic. If we were interested in expansion...Japan could be the 51st state right now....(well...actually 49th).

And look how many years it took to rebuild Europe....Where did the Marshall plan come from again??? :)

Rob :cool:

[dissention]

Conversely, W has not advocated or caused the execution of millions of innocent Jews and homosexuals. Also, unlike Hitler, W has also not advocated mass genocide and taking over the world to create one perfect race that I know of.

Nope, he's advocated the genocide of the Iraqi people. Not to create a perfect race, but to create a colony for America in the Middle East.

[dissention]

You are being WAY too overdramatic.

Pick up a foreign newspaper (or even a Canadian one) and tell me I'm being overdramatic. You're not being dramatic enough, my friend. Four years under a police state is enough for me.

[dissention]

Whoops, forgot to mention that the whole argument supporting agression against Iraq is based entirely on false information. Small detail, I know. Say, didn't they tell us in 2001 that Iraq was not a conventional threat, that they had no grounds on which to base belief that Hussein had weapons.

Pick up Colin Powell's ****ty book and look up "The Powell Doctrine" in the index. He's a bigger waffler than the Republicans have made John Kerry out to be.

[dissention]

Again, we are not taking over Iraq. We liberated it. Hitler would have taken it over and put all non Aryan people in ovens. We are trying to est. a democracy. There is a huge difference there. And, you know I totally agree with you that W and his cronies have botched this to no end and should have to pay the piper for it. All I am saying is their intent was in no way Hitleresq :shrug:

If that helps you to sleep at night, more power to you. But you and I both know it's horse****. We have not liberated Iraq and it was never our intention to liberate Iraq. Our intention was to go in there, remove Saddam, get the oil, and make the money. There were no weapons, ChimpCo knew this. For every piece of intelligence that said there were weapons, there was another credible piece that said they didn't. Iraq was the most watched country in the worls, they couldn't scratch their ass without us knowing which cheek, let alone develop WMDs. Now, if you want to talk responsibility about Saddam being in power and thousands of Iraqi's being killed under his regime, go back to the first Bush and how he did NOTHING to stop Saddam. Our government is just as responsible; we could've gotten his weapons and kicked him out during the Gulf War if they wanted to badly enough. It's not a popular opinion, but it's true.

If liberation to you is poisoning the Iraqi people, killing their month old babies, killing the elderly, flattening their cars, leaving them without food and water and electricity, shutting down their newspapers in what is supposed to be a democracy; if that's liberation to you, I don't know what to think.

[dissention]

And your plans for a long term and stable Middle East would include???

And Bush's plans for it in the Middle East would include???

If Lux has a plan, she'd have one up on Bush, who doesn't have a plan. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Nope, he's advocated the genocide of the Iraqi people. Not to create a perfect race, but to create a colony for America in the Middle East.
PPUUHHLLEEZZZEEEE

Are we putting them in ovens as we speak? :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

And Bush's plans for it in the Middle East would include???

If Lux has a plan, she'd have one up on Bush, who doesn't have a plan. :rolleyes:

Now your making sense!!!! :D :) :nod:

[dissention]

PPUUHHLLEEZZZEEEE

Are we putting them in ovens as we speak? :rolleyes:

Nope. We're bombing their babies.

[strandinthewind]

If that helps you to sleep at night, more power to you. But you and I both know it's horse****. We have not liberated Iraq and it was never our intention to liberate Iraq. Our intention was to go in there, remove Saddam, get the oil, and make the money. There were no weapons, ChimpCo knew this. For every piece of intelligence that said there were weapons, there was another credible piece that said they didn't. Iraq was the most watched country in the worls, they couldn't scratch their ass without us knowing which cheek, let alone develop WMDs. Now, if you want to talk responsibility about Saddam being in power and thousands of Iraqi's being killed under his regime, go back to the first Bush and how he did NOTHING to stop Saddam. Our government is just as responsible; we could've gotten his weapons and kicked him out during the Gulf War if they wanted to badly enough. It's not a popular opinion, but it's true.

If liberation to you is poisoning the Iraqi people, killing their month old babies, killing the elderly, flattening their cars, leaving them without food and water and electricity, shutting down their newspapers in what is supposed to be a democracy; if that's liberation to you, I don't know what to think.

It is not that cut and dry and you know it :laugh: Please demonstrate to me how and why we gave them probably over $100 billion as of now with no hope of getting it back. Please explain to me why we are turning the control of the govt. over on June 30 and giving up any remaining control little by little thereafter. These plans do not mesh with a U.S. colonization of Iraq and the raping of Iraq for her oil. But, you will not concede that no matter what the facts say.

As for the WMD, please blame every country in the UN, every U.S. President, and John Kerry, who ALL thought that for over 11 years believed they were there. Were they all wrong? Apparently, yes. But that does not mean the intelligence was unreliable. Remember, intelligence is trying to figure out something that is unknown and being hidden. Moreover, why didn't SH just comply; he certainly was given the chance :shrug: Finally, even Kay admitted that although there were no WMD, SH had the potential and could quickly produce them - so it is a good thing he is gone considering his history.

You make it sound like every country in the world is in on this vast conspiracy to fake WMD in Iraq. That just does not make sense to me. But, we will argue this point until we are blue in the face because you will never admit I am right no matter how much the facts support me and vice versa (although and of course the facts do not entirely support your argument :D ) So, the band plays on and around and around we go.

At least we agree W has to go.

[DeeGeMe]

Pick up today's paper and read about the Cheney case being currently argued in front of the Supreme Court. He wants to keep secret exactly which oil companies he met with prior to 9/11. Why? We already know that Halliburton (which he still has a financial stake in) has made a fortune in no-bid, secret contracts (meaning that the public can't see the actual contracts) with the U.S. government "nation-building" in Iraq. And of course, his duck-hunting buddy, Scalia has refused to recuse himself from the Supreme Court and was one of the most ardent defenders of Cheney's position yesterday. That's a shock, huh? But I tell you what is shocking-the way that Cheney & Bush have closed off public access to records that were previously made public by other other administration that came before them--on matters both large and small, significant and insignificant. It's no shock that Bush & Cheney are appearing before the 9/11 commission today in private or that they have forbidden the presence of a transcriber--the members of the commission will be the only ones present and they must take their own notes on the answers provided by ShrubCo. These are just some examples of the degree of secrecy that this government operates under. Why? Secret government is not a democratic (in the truest sense of the word) government. It is a sign of a repressive government. The so-called "patriot" act is another symptom of the disease of the Hitler syndrome that has infested our country. Did you know that now the FBI can come into your house at anytime they wish, without your knowledge, and search your home, without a search warrant all on the grounds of "national security interests"? In four years, Bush & his minions have shredded the constitution of the U.S. and have done their best to destroy the very foundations that this country was founded upon. That doesn't worry you???? Because it sure scares the hell out of me.

Here's the really scary part--everyone knows that a President spends their first four-years in office running for re-election--that the real character of a president isn't revealed until his second term. So given what Bush has already done--given the vast conspiracy of secrecy that his presidency operates under, given the fact that he has used flat-out lies to convince the US public that SH was a threat and that we "had" to invade Iraq, given the numbers of troops who have died for a war we should never have been involved in to begin with, given the fact that he destroyed our relationship with countries who have traditionally been our allies, given the fact that he has destroyed our credibility and relationship with the UN--what the heck does he have planned for his second-term when he won't be playing "nice" with the public? And if all of that doesn't bother you or scare you--what would? Look at the tactics that this administration uses to silence their critics. Personal attacks, lies, innuendos, nothing based on fact. They just throw as much **** up against the wall as they possibly can and try to smear someone. Yeah, they might admit they were "wrong" months later--if they admit it at all, but by that time, the news cycle has moved on to another story and the real truth doesn't get aired and you have easily duped Americans believing their lies. Hell, why Bush even bothers to run election commercials at all is a mystery to me--he's got a whole network devoted to shilling for him (Faux), along with any number of right-wing radio folks willing to brainwash the American public. Sadly, the citizens of this country are far more interested in voting for the American Idol than they are for the American President. Maybe the old saying is right-maybe we do get the governemnt we deserve. But I keep hoping and praying that the citizens of this country wake up, open their eyes, and realize what has been taken away from them under the guise of "fighting terrorism" in this country before it's too late.

[strandinthewind]

Nope. We're bombing their babies.

But not in an attempt to wipe them out as a sector of mankind. I cannot believe you do not see the difference. AND - we are bombing their babies to acheive a goal that will hopefully and eventually bring peace to the region.

[strandinthewind]

Sighes - Bush is asserting executive priviledge, a long honored tradition in the gov. and an est. precedent to the separation of powers in the three branches of govt. All Pres. have done this. Yet, W gets slammed for it. Moreover, W is not shredding the Const. anymore than it has been shredded. I assume you are talking about The Patriot Act. Please tell me how The Patriot Act significantly broadens the investigatory powers the Feds. alreasy had under RICO and other Fed. statutes. I suggest you or anyone else cannot. Again, if people want to talk about the demise of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures, I will readily and sadly concede that. But, that has been going on for over 40 years and both R and D's have done it. So, to lay it all at W's feet is just historically inaccurate.

Again, I am not fan of W. But, the stuff people come up with that is historically and factually innacurrate just baffles me.

[dissention]

AND - we are bombing their babies to acheive a goal that will hopefully and eventually bring peace to the region.

I cannot believe that you can argue that the bombing of these babies justify the means. The means that won't ever happen because democracy in the Middle East is like Stevie with flaming red hair. That comment totally shocks me, man.

Bombing babies = peace

:shrug:

[dissention]

I assume you are talking about The Patriot Act. Please tell me how The Patriot Act significantly broadens the investigatory powers the Feds. alreasy had under RICO and other Fed. statutes. I suggest you or anyone else cannot.

The PATRIOT Act reaches further than you think:

http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10283

[strandinthewind]

I cannot believe that you can argue that the bombing of these babies justify the means. The means that won't ever happen because democracy in the Middle East is like Stevie with flaming red hair. That comment totally shocks me, man.

Bombing babies = peace

:shrug:

My point was that in war, which we are in, there will be casulaties. I think it is horrible that we are in a war. But, I do realize that people will die in it. So, I look at why they are dying. In this case if the ends work, then yes, the means are justified. I guess you would similarly argue that killing millions of German and Italian babies from 1941 to 1945 was not justified. After all there Bombing babies = peace :shrug:

[dissention]

My point was that in war, which we are in, there will be casulaties. I think it is horrible that we are in a war. But, I do realize that people will die in it. So, I look at why they are dying. In this case if the ends work, then yes, the means are justified. I guess you would similarly argue that killing millions of German and Italian babies from 1941 to 1945 was not justified. After all there Bombing babies = peace :shrug:

But what I find so shocking is that you actually believe that all of this heartaches will eventually bring democracy to Iraq. It'll never happen.

[strandinthewind]

The PATRIOT Act reaches further than you think:

http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10283

I am no fan of The Patriot Act and think it will not be renewed - but that remains to be seen. All I am saying is the things in this article that can be attributed to the PA could have been done under some other previously existing Federal Act.

[strandinthewind]

But what I find so shocking is that you actually believe that all of this heartaches will eventually bring democracy to Iraq. It'll never happen.

I did not say I believed it would work. I said it may work. No one but time can tell if it will work and granted the odds are against it. But and again, please name another viable solution that will have long term results. i have not heard of one yet.

[gldstwmn]

Whoops, forgot to mention that the whole argument supporting agression against Iraq is based entirely on false information. Small detail, I know. Say, didn't they tell us in 2001 that Iraq was not a conventional threat, that they had no grounds on which to base belief that Hussein had weapons.

Well they tried to bury that and your good selves that suddenly they assembled these weapons from resources that they couldn't possibly have had anyway (due to sanctoins). I think it might be unconstitutional for a leader to lie to his people about the reasoning for going to war. Doesn't anybody give a **** that they outright lied?


I do. That's one of the reasons why I'm voting for Kerry. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Again, we are not taking over Iraq. We liberated it. :

Hahahaha. :lol: :lol: :lol: We haven't liberated Iraq. They will never really be "liberated" from us now. That government they're going to install is a dog and pony show with NO LEGISLATURE.

[strandinthewind]

Hahahaha. :lol: :lol: :lol: We haven't liberated Iraq. They will never really be "liberated" from us now. That government they're going to install is a dog and pony show with NO LEGISLATURE.

Again,what was the alternative? Also, the facts to me suggest that with a little luck, over the next year or two control of Iraq will be in the hands of the Iraqi people. But, others see it differently and only time will tell. So, let's continue this in about a year and see what has happened, etc :cool:

Also, my point was that Hitler would have invaded it and killed anyone non-Aryan. We did not do that.

[gldstwmn]

In fact, quite the contrary has happened in that the US has givem not loaned, billions to the Iraqi people and gotten rid of a horrible person who defied committed genocide there and defied the world for over 11 years. How is that a bad thing notwithstanding the loss of life in the struggle which is horrible and unnecessary IMO?

You're forgetting that we provided the means for him to commit that genocide in the first place. :( The Kurds don't consider Saddam to be one of their own people. Poppy Bush stood back and did nothing while Saddam did this because Saddam was fighting another one of our pesky middle east enemies at the time: Iran.

[strandinthewind]

You're forgetting that we provided the means for him to commit that genocide in the first place. :( The Kurds don't consider Saddam to be one of their own people. Poppy Bush stood back and did nothing while Saddam did this because Saddam was fighting another one of our pesky middle east enemies at the time: Iran.

I said that earlier. AND - I think if H Bush had ignored the Saudi's in 12 years ago and taken SH out then, the world would have been a better place. So, all of this is his fault as well.

[gldstwmn]

Again, what else should have been done in Afganistan? I am all ears for an alternative solution.

You mean after we replanted all the opium poppies and helped all of those nice farmers harvest them? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dissention]

Also, the facts to me suggest that with a little luck, over the next year or two control of Iraq will be in the hands of the Iraqi people.

Yeah, let's see what happens when we let a bank robber run Iraq. :shrug:

[dissention]

You mean after we replanted all the opium poppies and helped all of those nice farmers harvest them? :lol: :lol: :lol:

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, let's see what happens when we let a bank robber run Iraq. :shrug:
Again, let's contimue this in a year. One of us will be right. Or, maybe a third alternative will happen. But, as of now, we are arguing in circles both convinced we are correct :cool:

[strandinthewind]

You mean after we replanted all the opium poppies and helped all of those nice farmers harvest them? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please. We never did that and you know it. Albeit, we are not stopping the opium trade.

Again, what should we have done in Afganistan. i am all ears!!!!

Perhaps you think we just let Al-Q flourish there with no ramifications for 9/11? Interestingly, Bill O. said we should eradicte the opiom crops and pay for the lost money with American dollars :shrug:

[dissention]

Again, let's contimue this in a year. One of us will be right. Or, maybe a third alternative will happen. But, as of now, we are arguing in circles both convinced we are correct :cool:

Yeah, let's see what happens in a year when Chalabi is siphoning the money of the Iraqi people into Swiss bank accounts.

[dissention]

Perhaps you think we just let Al-Q flourish there with no ramifications for 9/11? Interestingly, Bill O. said we should eradicte the opiom crops and pay for the lost money with American dollars :shrug:

Bill O. was the biggest pr*ck last night. He really has no idea what he's talking about.

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, let's see what happens in a year when Chalabi is siphoning the money of the Iraqi people into Swiss bank accounts.

Well, that is why someone has to be there to make sure that does not happen. Honestly, you are so dismal in your view of the world. I am not.

[strandinthewind]

Bill O. was the biggest pr*ck last night. He really has no idea what he's talking about.
I missed it burning off Gen Tsao's chicken at the gym :laugh: What did he say this time?

[gldstwmn]

I mean why not go after The Vatican. Surely the Roman Catholic Church is far guiltier than America is at trying to dominate the Middle East (at least Isreal).

:confused: Oh, Catholic guilt.

[dissention]

Well, that is why someone has to be there to make sure that does not happen. Honestly, you are so dismal in your view of the world. I am not.

That's the problem, you have too rosy a view of world affairs. :xoxo: You always think that everything is on the up and up. It's not. A little poking around will reveal to you the kinds of things they're doing in Iraq. Appointing that bank robber known as Chalabi as the head of it is at the top of their list.

[strandinthewind]

That's the problem, you have too rosy a view of world affairs. :xoxo: You always think that everything is on the up and up. It's not. A little poking around will reveal to you the kinds of things they're doing in Iraq. Appointing that bank robber known as Chalabi as the head of it is at the top of their list.
Perhaps, but by the same token, you come up with these crazy theories that are irrelevant or not supported by the facts - basically, we are both loons :laugh:

[dissention]

I missed it burning off Gen Tsao's chicken at the gym :laugh: What did he say this time?

Lemme get you the transcript. He wants to boycott Canada and he had the gall to lie and say that Canada wants to legalize heroin. He's delusional.

[strandinthewind]

Lemme get you the transcript. He wants to boycott Canada and he had the gall to lie and say that Canada wants to legalize heroin. He's delusional.

Well, he wants to boycott everyone - bless his heart!!!!!!

[dissention]

Perhaps, but by the same token, you come up with these crazy theories that are irrelevant or not supported by the facts - basically, we are both loons :laugh:

Name some of my crazy liberal theories that are irrelevant. Chalabi being a bank robber ain't one of them, he was tried in absentia and was found guilty. If he steps one foot in Jordan, they'll kill him.

[strandinthewind]

Name some of my crazy liberal theories that are irrelevant. Chalabi being a bank robber ain't one of them, he was tried in absentia and was found guilty. If he steps one foot in Jordan, they'll kill him.
Are we going here again :laugh:

The fact that W did not leave that school on 9/11. No one here to my knowledge has any information regarding why that happened. The crazy liberals just assume it was because W had his head on the clouds even though all of Wash. was being evacuated. That it could have been part of the plan, he was after all in a secure location, is just beyond them because they nitpick at every little thing without any knowledge of what waws going on. That would be a good one for starters!

[gldstwmn]

It is not that cut and dry and you know it :laugh: Please demonstrate to me how and why we gave them probably over $100 billion as of now with no hope of getting it back. Please explain to me why we are turning the control of the govt. over on June 30 and giving up any remaining control little by little thereafter.

Those are the exact questions you should be asking Bush. Although if you want the real answer, ask Cheney. He tellls Bush what to say anyway. I doubt Georgie could answer any of the questions unless they were given to him in advance.

[dissention]

Are we going here again :laugh:

The fact that W did not leave that school on 9/11. No one here to my knowledge has any information regarding why that happened. The crazy liberals just assume it was because W had his head on the clouds even though all of Wash. was being evacuated. That it could have been part of the plan, he was after all in a secure location, is just beyond them because they nitpick at every little thing without any knowledge of what waws going on. That would be a good one for starters!

He didn't have his head in the clouds, it was very much on the ground. He chose to stay there. He was a coward. By the time he was outta there, the Pentagon was already under attack. His own words contradict himself. He said he saw the first plane, then he said he saw the second plane. Then he said he heard the second plane, but no, it was first plane. He said that the first thing he thought when he was TOLD about it was "Boy, what a terrible pilot." Yeah, nice thing to think of when the WTC has just been hit by a commercial aircraft. His story is so full of holes that it could mistaken for Swiss cheese. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Those are the exact questions you should be asking Bush. Although if you want the real answer, ask Cheney. He tellls Bush what to say anyway. I doubt Georgie could answer any of the questions unless they were given to him in advance.

In today's papers and on topic:

.N. Envoy Seeks New Iraq Council by Close of May

April 28, 2004
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 - The special United Nations envoy
for Iraq, offering a speeded-up timetable for the selection
of a caretaker government in Baghdad, said Tuesday that the
new government should be chosen a full month before
sovereignty is transferred on June 30 to give it time to
define its authority.

Addressing the Security Council, the envoy, Lakhdar
Brahimi, said the month would be necessary for the
transitional leaders to reach "crystal-clear
understandings" of their relationship to the occupation authority they would replace and to the American military commanders who are to remain in charge of Iraqi security forces.

In his first extensive public comments since outlining his plans for an interim government earlier this month, Mr. Brahimi also said the occupants of the government's top posts should insulate themselves from partisan activity by agreeing not to be candidates in national elections next year.

Although he did not say so specifically, that seemed to
rule out a role in the caretaker government for prominent Iraqis now in the American-picked Iraqi Governing Council, including the heads of political parties who are expected to contest the June 2005 elections.

Last week, in an interview with ABC News, Mr. Brahimi
suggested that among those he would expect not to serve are Ahmed Chalabi, a former exile leader favored by some in the Pentagon to lead Iraq.

Some Bush administration officials say that they do not
reject the possibility of some political leaders, including
Mr. Chalabi, serving in a caretaker government, but that
they agree that it would be better for the new government
to consist of non-political technocrats.

On Tuesday, Mr. Brahimi emphasized the need to curb the
power of the transitional authority, saying, "It should refrain, to the maximum extent possible, from entering into long-term commitments that can and should await decision by an elected government."

Mr. Brahimi, who recently completed a mission to Iraq to
help shape an interim administration, acknowledged that the continuing mayhem in Iraq would complicate the effort to establish political stability. But he said the task was "doable" and would itself contribute to a lessening of the violence.

"A viable political process is no panacea," he said, "but
it is a powerful contributing factor to security."

Mr. Brahimi told members of the 15-nation panel that the
plan he was recommending was largely the one he had
outlined at a Baghdad news conference on April 14 at the
end of 11 days of consultations with Iraqis.

Under that arrangement, the caretaker government would be
led by a president, two vice presidents and a prime
minister and would be advised by a consultative body to be chosen in a national conference this summer that Mr. Brahimi estimated Tuesday could number up to 1,500 people.

He did not specify how the caretaker government would be chosen, other than to emphasize that it should be Iraqis themselves who make the choice. In the past, he has said that the selections would be made by members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraqi judges and himself.

"Though it will certainly not be easy, we do believe that
it shall be possible to identify by the end of May a group
of people respected and acceptable to Iraqis across the country, to form this caretaker government," he said.

The interim administration he described would have limited authority, much as Bush administration officials have been suggesting in Congressional testimony in recent days. Its main purpose would be to provide a civil administration and to prepare the nation for the 2005 elections, which will mark the moment, Mr. Brahimi said, when Iraq will first have a fully representative and empowered government.

The plan Mr. Brahimi has developed replaces an early Bush administration proposal by which a new Iraqi assembly would have been chosen through caucuses around the country. In Washington Tuesday, a State Department spokesman said the Bush administration had no problems with Mr. Brahimi's proposal.

"We're in synch with Brahimi," said the spokesman, who
asked not to be identified. "We're eager to get a
government up and running as soon as is feasible."

Mr. Brahimi appeared to go out of his way in his
presentation to cite areas of agreement with recent steps
taken by the American administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III. He noted approvingly that Mr. Bremer had agreed to permit the re-enrollment of Iraqi military officers with honorable records, to ease the "de-Baathification" program to allow some professionals who were party members to return to their jobs, and to post the names of detainees in police stations and courthouses.

In remarks that he said may have been overtaken by events
in Iraq that were being reported as he entered the Security Council chamber, Mr. Brahimi said that anything other than a peaceful resolution to standoffs in Falluja and Najaf would have grave consequences.

In issuing the warning, he acknowledged that the
American-run Coalition Provisional Authority was "well
aware" of that fact. "They know as well as - indeed, better than everyone else - that the consequences of such bloodshed could be dramatic and long-lasting," he said.

He added, however, "Reports today of attacks from and on a mosque are a source of shock and dismay."

In the closed Security Council meeting that followed Mr. Brahimi's public statement, ambassadors asked questions that a European diplomat characterized as "supportive" rather than "challenging." She said the questions focused on three areas: the post-transition responsibility for security, the preparation for elections, and whether the transfer of sovereignty would be a convincing one to Iraqis.

The Council had put off discussion of the resolution it
would be adopting for post-transition Iraq until hearing
from Mr. Brahimi, and a number of ambassadors said those negotiations should begin, the diplomat said.

Mr. Brahimi said he intended to return to Baghdad soon to continue his consultations, and he indicated that he believed the violence could not be allowed to hold Iraqis back from securing an independent future.

"So is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances?" he asked. "Will it be viable? Will it be credible?"

Supplying his own answer, he said, "There is no alternative
but to find a way of making the process viable and
credible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/international/middleeast/28NATI.html?ex=1084165035&ei=1&en=ba0f131ddc298b82

[strandinthewind]

He didn't have his head in the clouds, it was very much on the ground. He chose to stay there. He was a coward. By the time he was outta there, the Pentagon was already under attack. His own words contradict himself. He said he saw the first plane, then he said he saw the second plane. Then he said he heard the second plane, but no, it was first plane. He said that the first thing he thought when he was TOLD about it was "Boy, what a terrible pilot." Yeah, nice thing to think of when the WTC has just been hit by a commercial aircraft. His story is so full of holes that it could mistaken for Swiss cheese. :rolleyes:
Blah Blah Blah - you know for certain the SS did not make him stay there. You know for certain there was not a threat if they removed him from the building. You know for certain he could get safely to AF1. If you do, please enlighten me as to how you know these things for certain. I am all ears. Until then all you have is suppostion. AND - even if his story is incorrect what does that prove?

[gldstwmn]

Moreover, why didn't SH just comply; he certainly was given the chance :shrug: .

I'm glad you asked that. Given what we know now about how we were lied to and how this administration was going to war with Iraq anyway, how do we know that he didn't?

[strandinthewind]

I'm glad you asked that. Given what we know now about how we were lied to and how this administration was going to war with Iraq anyway, how do we know that he didn't?
Well, considering the Arab Press is not controlled by the US, I think we would have heard about it by now. I mean it is not like SH never appeared on television for 11 years. Don't you think he could have said, I am trying to comply, but the US won't let me. Certainly some foreign paper would have have that story newsworthy :shrug:

BTW, if you use that rationale, then the Clinton administration lied as well because it relied on essentially the same evidence and it's policy was regime change. Again, after 9/11, the rules changed. Yet, people still blame W. Interestingly, Kerry would have gone to war on the same information. So, I say we just accept that and move on.

[dissention]

AND - even if his story is incorrect what does that prove?

It proves he lied and if he's being dishonest about such a simple thing as staying in a classroom as his citizens perished, what else is he dishonest about?

[strandinthewind]

It proves he lied and if he's being dishonest about such a simple thing as staying in a classroom as his citizens perished, what else is he dishonest about?

But my point is you have no facts to support that. How do you know that it was not part of the plan for him to stay there? Plus, HELLO - he is a politician, which = a liar. Name me one that has not lied.

[dissention]

Again, after 9/11, the rules changed.

Nope. Before Shrub even took office, Cheney sent memos demanding all the information available on Iraq. How telling is that when it's coupled with Clarke's book and O'Neill's book? They were intent on going to Iraq, began drafting a war plan for Iraq before 9/11, then used 9/11 as a springboard to go to war with Iraq. They even went so far as to imply that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda. 48% of Americans still believe that Saddam funded al-Qaeda. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

But my point is you have no facts to support that. How do you know that it was not part of the plan for him to stay there? Plus, HELLO - he is a politician, which = a liar. Name me one that has not lied.

I'm talking about his story, Jason. Every time he tells it, it changes. Those are all the facts you need. And we should excuse his lies becaus he's a politician and they do it anyways? C'mon.

[gldstwmn]

Again,what was the alternative? Also, the facts to me suggest that with a little luck, over the next year or two control of Iraq will be in the hands of the Iraqi people. :cool:

.


I repeat: NO LEGISLATURE.

[strandinthewind]

Nope. Before Shrub even took office, Cheney sent memos demanding all the information available on Iraq. How telling is that when it's coupled with Clarke's book and O'Neill's book? They were intent on going to Iraq, began drafting a war plan for Iraq before 9/11, then used 9/11 as a springboard to go to war with Iraq. They even went so far as to imply that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda. 48% of Americans still believe that Saddam funded al-Qaeda. :rolleyes:

Again, the official US policy was regime change. So, of course they had a plan to remove him IN COMPLAINCE WITH THE EXISTING POLICY :laugh: After 9/11, the US could no longer afford to risk puting up with SH open defiance of the UN and France and Russia were bribed into blocking the US' actions. Please state how that is incorrect.

[dissention]

I repeat: NO LEGISLATURE.

It does no good, darling. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I'm talking about his story, Jason. Every time he tells it, it changes. Those are all the facts you need. And we should excuse his lies becaus he's a politician and they do it anyways? C'mon.

It does not change everytime. He has been pretty clear about what happened. My point about all politicians lying was that they do and we should not be surprised when they do it. Again, do you have any concrete proof that him staying in that classroom was not part of the plan to move him to another secure location. No, you do not. I rest my case :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Has there been a more destructive arrogant President in the last 50 years?

...I'm notta crook (Insert double handed "peace" signs")"-Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon

[strandinthewind]

It does no good, darling. :laugh:

That is because I am correct. The June 30 coucil is a transition body that will see to the elections that will hopefully take place next year. I just do not get how you all want this to fail. If it succeeds - won't that be a good thing?

[dissention]

Again, the official US policy was regime change. So, of course they had a plan to remove him IN COMPLAINCE WITH THE EXISTING POLICY :laugh: After 9/11, the US could no longer afford to risk puting up with SH open defiance of the UN and France and Russia were bribed into blocking the US' actions. Please state how that is incorrect.

:lol:

Yeah, we went to war because Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. :rolleyes: The policy was regime change, but it had practically been abandoned. This administration went in with the intent to go to war. There's no way around it. Don't you find it suspicious that Iraq was their highest priority before even entering office???

[gldstwmn]

Please. We never did that and you know it. Albeit, we are not stopping the opium trade.

Again, what should we have done in Afganistan. i am all ears!!!!



Well for starters, how about a rebuilding effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs? We're talking about a place that has no infrastructure. Al Qaeda may have been camping in Afghanistan but I think we all know where their money comes from by now-Saudi Arabia.

[dissention]

That is because I am correct. The June 30 coucil is a transition body that will see to the elections that will hopefully take place next year. I just do not get how you all want this to fail. If it succeeds - won't that be a good thing?

:lol: You're killing me.

No one wants it to fail. It's just common sense that tells us that democracy will not work in the Middle East. It simply won't. Wish all you want, but the rosiest of views won't disguise this mess. And any transitional body with Chalabi in it is a farce.

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, let's see what happens in a year when Chalabi is siphoning the money of the Iraqi people into Swiss bank accounts.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

[dissention]

Well for starters, how about a rebuilding effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs? We're talking about a place that has no infrastructure. Al Qaeda may have been camping in Afghanistan but I think we all know where their money comes from by now-Saudi Arabia.

The same people that are in bed with Bush?! :eek: Say it ain't so!

:rolleyes:

I just say screw it all. We got Libya to give us 50 tons of mustard gas, mission accomplished.

Oh wait, Bush lied about that. It was only 22 tons. Dammit, you can't win!

[strandinthewind]

:lol:

Yeah, we went to war because Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. :rolleyes: The policy was regime change, but it had practically been abandoned. This administration went in with the intent to go to war. There's no way around it. Don't you find it suspicious that Iraq was their highest priority before even entering office???

Clinton and Albright have stated on more than one occasion that the policy of regime change was in effect. I think that they were worried about SH because the Clinton Adminsitration had essentially stopped the pressure in that they allowed SH to oust the UN inspectors.

Again, I am not saying that w did not want to go to war with Iraq. He did. I am just saying that you make it sound like it was this vast conspiracy, when it was not. It was longstanding US policy.

[dissention]

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

:xoxo: And don't tell me that Bush won't get some of that money, too. Why else would they give Chalabi free reign? Heck, why not make Ollie North his right hand?

[gldstwmn]

Are we going here again :laugh:

The fact that W did not leave that school on 9/11. No one here to my knowledge has any information regarding why that happened. The crazy liberals just assume it was because W had his head on the clouds even though all of Wash. was being evacuated. That it could have been part of the plan, he was after all in a secure location, is just beyond them because they nitpick at every little thing without any knowledge of what waws going on. That would be a good one for starters!

The country was under attacke before he ever went into the school. In the 50's weren't most schools bomb shelters? Oooh, where's my tinfoil hat? Oh fearless leader my ass. He failed us. Failed.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: You're killing me.

No one wants it to fail. It's just common sense that tells us that democracy will not work in the Middle East. It simply won't. Wish all you want, but the rosiest of views won't disguise this mess. And any transitional body with Chalabi in it is a farce.

That is why I say let's talk about it a year from now because all we can do now is speculate. Interestingly, many people think the democracy will work. So, the "common sense" is not as common as you imply :cool:

[dissention]

Clinton and Albright have stated on more than one occasion that the policy of regime change was in effect.

That's why the regime change policy was out of date and contained information so old that it was only pertinent to the Gulf War. :lol:

I'm telling ya, read Woodward's new book. ;)

[dissention]

Interestingly, many people think the democracy will work.

Who? Republicans? Troops that are still being told that they went to war to liberate?

[strandinthewind]

Here is an interesting article on that day.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

I never knew there was a possible assination attempt - did you?

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, let's see what happens in a year when Chalabi is siphoning the money of the Iraqi people into Swiss bank accounts.

I'm sure some of it's coming our way. ;)

[dissention]

Here is an interesting article on that day.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

I never knew there was a possible assination attempt - did you?

Yeah, Newt said so last year, but I considered the source and chalked it up as right-wing bull****.

[dissention]

I'm sure some of it's coming our way. ;)

"Stealing with Chalabi
I ain't got no soul
People like us line our pockets with gold"

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, Newt said so last year, but I considered the source and chalked it up as right-wing bull****.
well, this article, which strongly supports your view of this, provides independant verification of the assination attempt.

[gldstwmn]

...I'm notta crook (Insert double handed "peace" signs")"-Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon


Arrogant? Yes. Egomaniacal? Absolutely. Destructive? Split decision. In retrospect, Nixon did as many good things as he did bad. Not to mention the man was extremely intelligent. The same cannot be said for W.

[dissention]

well, this article, which strongly supports your view of this, provides independant verification of the assination attempt.

I think they're grasping at straws, personally. If it went down as they said in that article, it was a pretty half-assed attempt.

[gldstwmn]

That is because I am correct. The June 30 coucil is a transition body that will see to the elections that will hopefully take place next year. I just do not get how you all want this to fail. If it succeeds - won't that be a good thing?

Of course. But I will predict right now that there will be no elections. It's a sham government.

[dissention]

Of course. But I will predict right now that there will be no elections. It's a sham government.

Nope, there'll be Chalabi. A thief. Hey, it might resemble our form of government after all...

[gldstwmn]

The same people that are in bed with Bush?! :eek: Say it ain't so!

:rolleyes:

I just say screw it all. We got Libya to give us 50 tons of mustard gas, mission accomplished.

Oh wait, Bush lied about that. It was only 22 tons. Dammit, you can't win!

Don't forget we found it on a turkey farm! One of the best lines from that press conference. :lol: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

On a lighter but related note - did you guys see that A Spector barely won the primary. The pundits are saying this could be bad for the R in Penn because Spector had to move to the right to counter his ultra right wing opponent- thus pissing off the centrist in that state. AND Penn is an apparent swing state.

[dissention]

Don't forget we found it on a turkey farm! One of the best lines from that press conference. :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: I forgot about that!

[dissention]

On a lighter but related note - did you guys see that A Spector barely won the primary. The pundits are saying this could be bad for the R in Penn because Spector had to move to the right to counter his ultra right wing opponent- thus pissing off the centrist in that state. AND Penn is an apparent swing state.

The guy he was running against was clinically insane. He looked like a mental patinet, just the look in his eye.

[strandinthewind]

The guy he was running against was clinically insane. He looked like a mental patinet, just the look in his eye.

I know - but he lost by less than one or two percentage points. That is scary. I mean I could see that in Texas or Georgia, but Penn is not that conservative of a state :shrug: That being said Le Spector is a bit of a loon himself :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Here is an interesting article on that day.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

I never knew there was a possible assination attempt - did you?


Puts tinfoil hat back on...Of course I did. There were also surface to air missles at the hotel Georgie was staying in. :shocked:

[gldstwmn]

On a lighter but related note - did you guys see that A Spector barely won the primary. The pundits are saying this could be bad for the R in Penn because Spector had to move to the right to counter his ultra right wing opponent- thus pissing off the centrist in that state. AND Penn is an apparent swing state.

:nod: :nod: :nod: Lots of people think we (D) could pick up that seat. Bush has visited Pennsylvania more than any other state in his term as president.

[chiliD]

Of course. But I will predict right now that there will be no elections. It's a sham government.


Hell, the USA has one of those right now! (Like the election in 2000 wasn't fixed? HA! Those who say it wasn't are fools)

[estranged4life]

Arrogant? Yes. Egomaniacal? Absolutely. Destructive? Split decision. In retrospect, Nixon did as many good things as he did bad. Not to mention the man was extremely intelligent. The same cannot be said for W.

I was being sarcastic :nod:

I truly do not like ANY politician (Older I get, the more I hate the whole of politics!)

"I used to trust the media to tell me the truth.
Now I see the payoffs everywhere I look,
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?"-"Revolution Calling" Queensryche

[dissention]

I truly do not like ANY politician (Older I get, the more I hate the whole of politics!)


Even Kucinich??? He's one of the most honorable politicians our country has ever seen. Same for Carol Moseley Braun. :)

[DeeGeMe]

Of course. But I will predict right now that there will be no elections. It's a sham government.

Screw the elections in Iraq--I'm worried that there won't be any elections in the US--not with Shrub & co. in charge! And considering what happened last time, and with the whole mess with the paper trail-less new electronic voting machines (the majority of which just happen to be manufactured by a huge Bush supporter)--does it really make any difference who we vote for anyway?

[estranged4life]

Even Kucinich??? He's one of the most honorable politicians our country has ever seen. Same for Carol Moseley Braun. :)


Kucinich & Braun too...The only political "folk" I ever cared for are on each of the $5, $10, $20, $50 & $100 bills because as the saying goes "Money talks & bulls--t walks" :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Screw the elections in Iraq--I'm worried that there won't be any elections in the US--not with Shrub & co. in charge! And considering what happened last time, and with the whole mess with the paper trail-less new electronic voting machines (the majority of which just happen to be manufactured by a huge Bush supporter)--does it really make any difference who we vote for anyway?

Did you read the article in this week's Time magazine on this issue? It really is kind of scary how easily these things are broken/hacked into.

[DeeGeMe]

Did you read the article in this week's Time magazine on this issue? It really is kind of scary how easily these things are broken/hacked into.

Yep. I've read several articles from various sources lately about how easily these machines can be manipulated or hacked. My guess is that Bush will win the election no matter what because it's going to be rigged by Diebold.

[dissention]

Did you read the article in this week's Time magazine on this issue? It really is kind of scary how easily these things are broken/hacked into.

Did you read the cover story on Terea Heinz in Newsweek this week?

Gawd, I love that woman. Let me count the ways. :xoxo:

[stefan]

you're kidding me right? We are the land of the free and the home of the brave and the best country there is.

That is probably one of the most ignorant and overbearing quotes one could make. Regardless where he comes from or where he lives.

[sparky]

Should the US leave the Middle East altoghether?
Abso-f***ing-lutely.
If we didn't need their oil, we would pay as much attention to them as we do Madagascar. There hasn't been peace in the region in my lifetime, or my parent's lifetimes. There won't be peace there, ever. I have said it before, and I'll say it again - we need to get off the oil tit, and out of that region. It will be the ruin of the planet, that cesspool of religious backbiting and bickering.

[stefan]

Btw I 'd like to point out how much the US government has damaged the image of the US in Europe or at least in Germany. That is a heritage which a different government will have to carry for a long time. But I still take bets that this will last another 4 years. People get what they deserve I guess... Very annoying thread and my vocabulary is not enough to express what I`d like to.

[dissention]

Abso-f***ing-lutely.
If we didn't need their oil, we would pay as much attention to them as we do Madagascar. There hasn't been peace in the region in my lifetime, or my parent's lifetimes. There won't be peace there, ever. I have said it before, and I'll say it again - we need to get off the oil tit, and out of that region. It will be the ruin of the planet, that cesspool of religious backbiting and bickering.

You and I are in total agreement. Surprise, surprise. :laugh:

[dissention]

Btw I 'd like to point out how much the US government has damaged the image of the US in Europe or at least in Germany.

Yup. All an American has to do is pick up a foreign newspaper and they'll see the sheer hate other countries have for us. And, unfortunately, a lot of the overseas sentiment is wholly justified. This whole unilateral tit that the US is sucking on at the moment is sickening to me, and I'm an American. The fact is that while this country has a lot going for it, much of it is sham in its current state. The people that live in it are mostly ignorant about world issues and are are among the most selfish citizens on planet Earth. This country needs to stop using 9/11 as an excuse to act like bastards and either grow or go.

[gldstwmn]

I was being sarcastic :nod:

I truly do not like ANY politician (Older I get, the more I hate the whole of politics!)



:lol: :lol: :lol: We definitely need a sarcasm emoticon around here.

[gldstwmn]

Screw the elections in Iraq--I'm worried that there won't be any elections in the US--not with Shrub & co. in charge! And considering what happened last time, and with the whole mess with the paper trail-less new electronic voting machines (the majority of which just happen to be manufactured by a huge Bush supporter)--does it really make any difference who we vote for anyway?

A little good news on the electronic voting front. Apparently California has decided it doesn't want to use the Diebold machines for the upcoming election. Hopefully it will prompt other states to do the same. On the other hand though, the Repub's know there is no way in hell they are going to win in CA, so they're probably not too upset about it.

[strandinthewind]

Abso-f***ing-lutely.
If we didn't need their oil, we would pay as much attention to them as we do Madagascar. There hasn't been peace in the region in my lifetime, or my parent's lifetimes. There won't be peace there, ever. I have said it before, and I'll say it again - we need to get off the oil tit, and out of that region. It will be the ruin of the planet, that cesspool of religious backbiting and bickering.

I totally agree. But and sadly, that will never happen until the last drop of oil is gone. The oil companies directly and indirectly own every U.S. poilitician and many others throughout the world. Moreover, the world cannot survive without the Arab oil and the U.S. refuses to drill for its own oil because it would rather ruin the environment of the rest of the world first. Even though the new hybrid vehicles will will still rely solely on oil for the initial fuel source. Similarly, most states refuse to use wind and solar power as an alt source to provide electricity. So, I figure around 2090 or so, all of the oil will be drained and the world will then seek alt. fuel sources. Unfortunately, I will be long dead by then :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Btw I 'd like to point out how much the US government has damaged the image of the US in Europe or at least in Germany. That is a heritage which a different government will have to carry for a long time. But I still take bets that this will last another 4 years. People get what they deserve I guess... Very annoying thread and my vocabulary is not enough to express what I`d like to.

What are people's opinion of Kerry in your part of the world?

[strandinthewind]

What are people's opinion of Kerry in your part of the world?

I was thinking that too. After all, Kerry supported the war and the whole WMD issue. He just does not agree that W went without the UN, even though he gave W the power to do so and W said he would go it alone. So, there is not that much of a difference on this issue from that perspective.

[gldstwmn]

Yup. All an American has to do is pick up a foreign newspaper and they'll see the sheer hate other countries have for us. And, unfortunately, a lot of the overseas sentiment is wholly justified. This whole unilateral tit that the US is sucking on at the moment is sickening to me, and I'm an American. The fact is that while this country has a lot going for it, much of it is sham in its current state. The people that live in it are mostly ignorant about world issues and are are among the most selfish citizens on planet Earth. This country needs to stop using 9/11 as an excuse to act like bastards and either grow or go.

Beautifully said. :thumbsup:

[dissention]

Sighes - Bush is asserting executive priviledge, a long honored tradition in the gov. and an est. precedent to the separation of powers in the three branches of govt. All Pres. have done this. Yet, W gets slammed for it. Moreover, W is not shredding the Const. anymore than it has been shredded. I assume you are talking about The Patriot Act. Please tell me how The Patriot Act significantly broadens the investigatory powers the Feds. alreasy had under RICO and other Fed. statutes. I suggest you or anyone else cannot. Again, if people want to talk about the demise of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures, I will readily and sadly concede that. But, that has been going on for over 40 years and both R and D's have done it. So, to lay it all at W's feet is just historically inaccurate.

Again, I am not fan of W. But, the stuff people come up with that is historically and factually innacurrate just baffles me.

When Clinton tried to invoke executive privilege over the whole Hillary/universal health care thing (you know, the thing they villified the poor woman for), he was denied. But it's okay for Cheney? Puhleeze.

And I find it abhorrable that the WH has argued that the names of the people with whom Cheney met with can't be disclosed because it's a national security issue. Bastards.

[dissention]

Beautifully said. :thumbsup:

Well, we are two peas in a pod.

And Jason's a squash. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

When Clinton tried to invoke executive privilege over the whole Hillary/universal health care thing (you know, the thing they villified the poor woman for), he was denied. But it's okay for Cheney? Puhleeze.

And I find it abhorrable that the WH has argued that the names of the people with whom Cheney met with can't be disclosed because it's a national security issue. Bastards.

I do not remember Clinton asserting it for that. But, he certainly asserted it and often for other things. Personally, I think the whole executive priviledge thing should be done away with as it is archaic. The Nixon fiasco weakened it. And I believe it was denied to Reagan and Bush I. So, it may be denied to Cheney. I note its assertion does not always draw national attention, but it is asserted all of the time.

Some interesting info.:

Executive Privilege

the claim by the president of the United States of a right to refuse to testify, to refuse his subordinates permission to testify, or to refuse to provide evidence when sought by a court or a committee of Congress. Executive privilege is a doctrine of the law of evidence, like the attorney-client or priest-penitent privileges. First asserted during the Washington administration, executive privilege is based on the idea that the president must preserve the confidentiality of executive branch discussions so that he may receive the most candid advice possible. Opponents of the privilege argue that it is a cloak for executive misconduct. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court recognized executive privilege but held that it is not absolute; courts can review each case to determine whether the assertion of privilege is justified or not.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/gahff/html/ff_063400_executivepri.htm

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Feb. 06, 2002

In a letter dated January 30, 2002, Comptroller General David Walker, the head of the non-partisan Government Accounting Office, announced that he would sue Vice President Cheney, in order to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group that Cheney chaired last year. The unprecedented lawsuit was made necessary, Walker's statement argued, by Cheney's refusal to cooperate voluntarily.

Walker's letter states that President Bush has not claimed an "executive privilege" in connection with the GAO's information requests. However, signs indicate that the Administration likely will assert such a privilege as the case proceeds. Certainly that is the tenor of public statements by the Vice President and the White House. The GAO is an arm of Congress and accordingly, the Administration contends, its efforts to uncover the inner workings of the Executive Branch violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Who's right?

Although claims of executive privilege have been made since the administration of George Washington, the law remains remarkably unclear, partly because the relevant actors have usually tried to avoid a direct confrontation if possible. Thus, who prevails in the current controversy may turn out to be less a matter of what the law is, than of who blinks first: Congress (acting through Comptroller General Walker), the Administration, or the courts.

What is Executive Privilege and Where Does it Come From?

The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

For example, in 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Accordingly, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.

Eleven years later, the issue of executive privilege arose in court. Counsel for Aaron Burr, on trial for treason, asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum--an order requiring the production of documents and other tangible items--against President Thomas Jefferson, who, it was thought, had in his possession a letter exonerating Burr.

After hearing several days of argument on the issue, Chief Justice John Marshall issued the order commanding Jefferson to produce the letter. Marshall observed that the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to compulsory process contains no exception for the President, nor could such an exception be found in the law of evidence. In response to the government's suggestion that disclosure of the letter would endanger public safety, Marshall concluded that, if true, this claim could furnish a reason for withholding it, but that the court, rather than the Executive Branch alone, was entitled to make the public safety determination after examining the letter.

Jefferson complied with Marshall's order. However, Jefferson continued to deny the authority of the court to issue it, insisting that his compliance was voluntary. And that pattern persists to the present. Thus, President Clinton negotiated the terms under which he appeared before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury, rather than simply answering a subpoena directing him to appear.

The Scope of Executive Privilege: The Nixon Case

Presidents often assert executive privilege even if the information or documents sought are not matters of national security. They argue that some degree of confidentiality is necessary for the Executive Branch to function effectively. Key advisers will hesitate to speak frankly if they must worry that what they say will eventually become a matter of public record.

The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon's Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.

The Court recognized "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." It noted that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."

Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court's decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned.

Can Vice President Cheney Invoke Executive Privilege?

The Comptroller General's plan to sue the Vice President raises a host of unresolved legal issues. As a threshold matter, there is a question whether the courts will permit a representative of Congress (here, the Comptroller General of the GAO) to invoke judicial process against the Executive. The courts often rely on the standing and political question doctrines to avoid adjudicating conflicts between the other branches.

Nor is it clear, even assuming the court chooses to hear the Comptroller General's case, that the Vice President can assert executive privilege. The Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President. So long as the President remains healthy, the Vice President has no constitutionally assigned executive function. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Vice President's role is legislative in nature: to preside over and break ties in the Senate.

Furthermore, the Comptroller General has not, to this point, requested information about what was said to or by Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group. Rather, the Comptroller General has thus far only asked for the names of participants in the Group's various meetings. It is not clear that executive privilege, even if it applies, extends beyond the content of discussions to cover the fact that they occurred at all. (By comparison, the attorney-client privilege generally covers the content of consultations with a lawyer, but not the fact that they occurred.)

A Precedent from the Clinton Years

Finally, no case to this point holds that executive privilege applies to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government, such as corporate officers of Enron and other companies.

The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.

Under FACA, if a person who is not an officer or employee of the government is a member of a government group, then the group's proceedings must be open to the public. The health-care-reform panel had kept its proceedings private, so if the First Lady was not a government officer or employee, it had broken the law. Fortunately for the Clinton Administration, however, the court held that the First Lady is indeed an officer or employee of the government, and FACA thus did not apply.

The court strained the statutory language in order to reach this conclusion - but why? The answer is that a contrary result--to be precise, a finding that the statute's requirement of public meetings applied to the health-care-reform panel--would have raised a difficult constitutional question. And, under a well-established principle of legal interpretation, courts construe statutes in order to avoid difficult constitutional questions. The D.C. Circuit applied that principle in this case.

According to the D.C. Circuit, the difficult constitutional question was this: Does executive privilege extend to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government? If so, then FACA unconstitutionally violates that privilege by requiring those conversations to be disclosed. Had the court ruled that the First Lady was neither a government officer nor a government employee, it would have had to decide the difficult constitutional question--for FACA then would have required disclosure of deliberations between the (non-government) First Lady and the executive branch government officials on the commission.

Why the Hillary Clinton Case Suggests Cheney's Privilege Claim May Prevail

The relevance of this complex case to Cheney's situation is straightforward: The D.C. Circuit thought that executive privilege might extend to conversations between executive officials and persons outside the government. And any appeal in the Comptroller General's case against Vice President Cheney would go to the D.C. Circuit (before possibly going to the U.S. Supreme Court).

Thus, a claim of privilege by the Vice President could succeed - particularly if GAO were to go beyond its current requests and seek not only the names of people with whom Cheney consulted, but also the content of deliberations. The D.C. Circuit's speculation as to the breadth of the executive privilege indicates that even if private industry representatives acted as members of the Energy Group, the Group's deliberations may still be privileged, and thus not subject to FACA disclosure.

Will we soon learn the answer to the question the D.C. Circuit left open and the other puzzles surrounding executive privilege? Probably not. If history is our guide, it seems more likely that at least one branch of the government will find a way to avoid deciding the question directly.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

[strandinthewind]

Well, we are two peas in a pod.

And Jason's a squash. :laugh:

Right now I feel like a butter bean :laugh:

[dissention]

I do not remember Clinton asserting it for that. But, he certainly asserted it and often for other things. Personally, I think the whole executive priviledge thing should be done away with as it is archaic. The Nixon fiasco weakened it. And I believe it was denied to Reagan and Bush I. So, it may be denied to Cheney. I note its assertion does not always draw national attention, but it is asserted all of the time.


He did invoke it, but it was denied by a low court. He didn't bother trying to take it to a higher one because it wasn't that big of a deal, but still. It's called principle.

[dissention]

Right now I feel like a butter bean :laugh:

:lol: Or...an opium plant.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: Or...an opium plant.
to be so lucky . . . :cool:

BTW, if memory serves me correctly Clinton asserted it on Hillary's behalf as mentioned in that article above, where she was covered by it. But, then he tried to assert it during Monicagate and it was, quite understandably, denied. I am sure it was asserted more than that. In practice, it routinely is asserted and the treat of its assertion stays many requests, etc. As mentioned in that article, the USSC has held the EP is not absolute and can be broken in the interests of justice like when Nixon lied and when Clinton lied.

[dissention]

to be so lucky . . . :cool:

BTW, if memory serves me correctly Clinton asserted it on Hillary's behalf as mentioned in that article above, where she was covered by it. But, then he tried to assert it during Monicagate and it was, quite understandably, denied. I am sure it was asserted more than that. In practice, it routinely is asserted and the treat of its assertion stays many requests, etc. As mentioned in that article, the USSC has held the EP is not absolute and can be broken in the interests of justice like when Nixon lied and when Clinton lied.

I remember that they wouldn't let him use it for Hillary and the health care BS. Lemme see if I can dig something up.

[strandinthewind]

I remember that they wouldn't let him use it for Hillary and the health care BS. Lemme see if I can dig something up.

That article above found he could assert it for HC because she was an employee of the govt. Again, EC applies only to the Pres. and his subordinates in the Exec. Branch.
_____________________________________________________
Also - on a diff. note - this is just in from CNN:

Poll: Iraqis conflicted about war, its impact
Survey done mostly before recent cycle of violence
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 4:16 PM EDT (2016 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll showed conflicted feelings among Iraqis over the war and its impact at the time of the survey.

Most interviews were done between March 22 and April 9 -- before the latest flare-up of violence that brought some of the deadliest fighting since the end of major combat nearly a year ago.

Iraqi interviewers conducted face-to-face surveys with 3,444 adults in Arabic and Kurdish in respondents' homes. The poll was the first since the war to cover urban and rural areas throughout Iraq, representing about 93 percent of the population. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.

Thirty-three percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm, while 46 percent said it had done more harm than good.

Forty-two percent said Iraq was better off because of the war, while 39 percent said it was worse off. Given the sampling error, those figures indicated a dead heat.

On a personal level, Iraqis appeared more optimistic, according to the poll. More than half of those surveyed -- 51 percent -- said they and their families were better off than they were before the invasion, while 25 percent said they were worse off.

Fifty-four percent said conditions for creating peace and stability had worsened in the three months before they were questioned for the poll. Twenty-five percent said conditions improved during that time before the upsurge in violence.

Those polled were virtually united in opposition to attacks against Iraqi police, the survey found. Ninety-two percent said those attacks could not be justified.

But the Iraqis surveyed were split on whether ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was justified. Fifty-two percent said it was not, while 47 percent said it could be justified.

Asked about when they wanted U.S. and British forces to leave, 57 percent chose immediately, as in the next few months, the poll said; 36 percent said troops should stay longer.

At the time the question was asked, 53 percent said they would feel less safe if the U.S.-led coalition left immediately. About half as many -- 28 percent -- said they would feel more safe. Sixty-nine percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.

The respondents were split in their opinions of L. Paul Bremer, the U.S civilian administrator in Iraq. Forty-two percent said they held a unfavorable opinion, while 31 percent rated him favorably. He proved more popular than President Bush, disliked by more than half the respondents.

Forty-four percent gave Bush a very unfavorable rating and 11 percent somewhat unfavorable; 24 percent said they held a favorable opinion of the U.S. president. But Bush proved more popular than Saddam in the survey, with eight of 10 respondents viewing the ousted Iraqi leader unfavorably at the time the poll was done.

Negative view of U.S. forces

U.S. soldiers man a checkpoint Wednesday in Baghdad.
The poll suggested more than half of Iraqis had a negative impression of U.S. forces in general before the current wave of violence.

Twenty-nine percent said troops had conducted themselves very badly, while another 29 percent said fairly badly; 24 percent chose fairly well, and 10 percent said troops had acted very well.

Among those who said the troops acted badly, 54 percent said their opinions were based on things they had heard. Thirty-nine percent said they decided based on things they had seen, while 7 percent said they were judging from personal experience.

Two-thirds -- 67 percent -- said troops were not trying at all to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed in exchanges of gunfire, while 18 percent said the Americans were trying only a little and 11 percent said they were trying a lot.

Sixty percent of those surveyed said U.S. soldiers sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqis during home searches; 29 percent said that the troops did not. Forty-six percent said the troops sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqi women during such operations, while 39 percent said the soldiers did not.

Asked whether U.S. troops showed disrespect for Islam during such operations, respondents were split -- 42 percent said often or a little, while 43 percent said not at all.

Those polled gave the troops low marks for reconstruction efforts. Asked about the restoration of basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water, 41 percent said the troops were trying only a little and 44 percent said they were not trying at all.

Seventy-one percent surveyed said they saw troops mostly as occupiers, while 19 percent said they viewed them as liberators. Asked how they viewed troops at the time of the invasion a year ago, the respondents were split, with 43 percent saying they saw the coalition forces as occupiers and another 43 percent saying they considered them liberators at the time.

But asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.

[dissention]

That article above found he could assert it for HC because she was an employee of the govt. Again, EC applies only to the Pres. and his subordinates in the Exec. Branch.

BUT - executive privilege doesn't apply to conversations between government employees and persons outside the government. That's why Cheney's **** should be released. Executive privilege can't be invoked.

If Cheney had top-secret meetings with, say, the people at Enron, it would not be executive privilege.

[strandinthewind]

BUT - executive privilege doesn't apply to conversations between government employees and persons outside the government. That's why Cheney's **** should be released. Executive privilege can't be invoked.

Yes it could. It applies to all dealing in the Exec. branch including dealing with outside parties. The theory is that it promotes open discussion. In other words, people will be more open if what they say is not going to be made public. It is like the atty/client or Psychologist/patient priviledges.

No- the issue there was that unlike Cheney, Hillary was not an official employee of the Fed. Govt., but the court found that she was. They are different issues. This is an interesting case. The COurt could go either way and if it finds that Cheney is covered, it would be in line with precedent. The courts usually break EC when criminal malfeasance a la Clinton and Monicagate and Nixon and Watergate sort of demand it or someone's life is a at stake a la the Burr issue. In Cheney's case, although it smacks of a backroom deal, no proof of that exists like in Water and Monica Gates that a crime was committed.

[dissention]

Yes it could. It applies to all dealing in the Exec. branch including dealing with outside parties. The theory is that it promotes open discussion. In other words, people will be more open if what they say is not going to be made public. It is like the atty/client or Psychologist/patient priviledges.

There's not a single case that allows it to apply to outside parties. Hillary's case was the closest, but that's it. Find me a case where it applied and I'll buy you a drink.

[DeeGeMe]

I'll second that. Exec. Privilege has historically been associated only with the President but Bush has tried and is trying to get it extended to include the VP--which is why this case is before the Supreme Court.

[strandinthewind]

There's not a single case that allows it to apply to outside parties. Hillary's case was the closest, but that's it. Find me a case where it applied and I'll buy you a drink.

Hillary's case is close to it. I think the Court will not extend the EC in this case. But you never know.

[strandinthewind]

Perhaps he was regretting his country's training of terrorist. 'Damn, we shouldn't have set up schools for them, particularly not in our own country.'

We set up schools for terrorists in America? I do not remember reading that. Nor did we set up or sponsor the Al-Q training camps. If you have information to support what you said, let's see it. :cool: Certainly we helped SH obtain power. But, he then ran amuck. So, we had to stop him.

[strandinthewind]

My God, I didn't see that post earlier. Having said this, you don't understand why others would want to shove a sharp stick up your arse?

This is what we assume the mentality is in America, but we also assume you don't go around verablising it. America is not the land of the free. What are you free from? For christ's sake, you can't even burn your own flag as a form of protest without going to prison. Sounds like repression to me. And what the hell does 'best country there is' mean? These kinds of statements do nothing but make the world cringe. It makes me more inclined to favour the terrorists!

The victims of the NY terrorists attacks didn't deserve that, but the country sure needed a wake up call. Instead of blaming crazy bearded men, perhaps people could take a look at what could have provoked them. And don't pretend they're jealous of your 'freedoms' and your way of life. Jesus, it goes far deeper than that.

No society is free to do what it wants when it wants. That would be anarchy. America is without a doubt has the most freedom and due process of any other country in the world. If you know of a country that has more freedom, please tell us which one it is. I submit once again, you cannot support what you sarcasticly say and conclude. I took comparative law in law school and can assure you there is not society that has protection from the law like Americans do.

But you are correct in that the policies of the world (not just America) for the last 2,000 years regarding the Middle East make them hate us. I say once again, the hatred is somewhat unfounded because without the help of the world and the need for their oil, most of the Middle East would still be in the dark ages. I mean they have all of this oil wealth and they are still living in many ways as if it is 1200 A.D. So, I think a little of the blame goes on them. Certainly not all of it goes on Amercia and the world's treatment of the Middle East.

[dissention]

We set up schools for terrorists in America? I do not remember reading that.

It's in Georgia and was set up in the forties. ;)

ETA: I posted before I read Lux's post, kudos to her for knowing that. Extra points. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, now the 'School of the Americas' in Georgia. It was set up in 1946 and trained dictators and state terrorists amoung others. There's so much detail to go into, look it for yourself. Just one statistic though, 40% of the ministers under the Guatemalan genocidal regimes studied there.

Here is the website for The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/

I think it is a stretch to say it trained terrorists to ne terrorists. I mean does it teach you how to hijack a plane - no. Does it teach you how to make a chemical weapon - no. So, you are wrong in the sense that although world leaders may have gone there, it did not teach them how to be a terrorist. In other words, there is no class called "How be be an evil dictator and terrorist."

Once again, your conclusion is unsupported by any direct evidence.

:rolleyes:

Interestingly, one of the Crown Orinces of Saudi Arabia went here for awhile. I went to a party at his house, which was HUGE.

[gldstwmn]

We set up schools for terrorists in America?

Another question we'll never get the answer to: Why did some of the terrorists train at our very own military bases?

[strandinthewind]

Another question we'll never get the answer to: Why did some of the terrorists train at our very own military bases?

Who knows. But, did we train them to be terrorists. Or, did we train then to be in an army, etc.

BTW - here is the FAQ section for that school. Please note it nowhere says that it trains terrorists


http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/about.asp?id=37

[Hawkeye]

These kinds of statements do nothing but make the world cringe. It makes me more inclined to favour the terrorists!

And what's that statement supposed to make the world do :shrug:

And BTW I consider Austrialia and England to be #'s 2 and 3 in my the best countries of the world list.

[dissention]

This is what we assume the mentality is in America, but we also assume you don't go around verablising it.

Instead of blaming crazy bearded men, perhaps people could take a look at what could have provoked them. And don't pretend they're jealous of your 'freedoms' and your way of life. Jesus, it goes far deeper than that.

Well, that was mighty ignorant of you not to assume that. :laugh: Americans are rabidly selfish schmucks who, in recent years, jump on the bandwagon of patriotism just because it's the 'cool' thing to do. Half of America doesn't know the true meaning of patriotism, but they act like they do by saying "We're the greatest!" and "Home of the free!" :rolleyes: Gimme a break. I find it rather nauseating. I don't care how many flags you have adorning your car, it's an empty gesture if you're ignorant about world politics. :nod:

And for Americans to look at what they could have done to provoke such hatred, that would mean that they would have to stop being selfish and all about themselves. Our citizens aren't like that, my friend. They're too busy watching The Bachelor.

[strandinthewind]

Well, that was mighty ignorant of you not to assume that. :laugh: Americans are rabidly selfish schmucks who, in recent years, jump on the bandwagon of patriotism just because it's the 'cool' thing to do. Half of America doesn't know the true meaning of patriotism, but they act like they do by saying "We're the greatest!" and "Home of the free!" :rolleyes: Gimme a break. I find it rather nauseating. I don't care how many flags you have adorning your car, it's an empty gesture if you're ignorant about world politics. :nod:

And for Americans to look at what they could have done to provoke such hatred, that would mean that they would have to stop being selfish and all about themselves. Our citizens aren't like that, my friend. They're too busy watching The Bachelor.

Yes, some, but not all, Americans are selfish. But, clearly these sects of the Middle East are selfish and ignorant as well. After all, without the West, where would the Middle East be in the modern world. They would not be as far along as they are. But, no one seems to want to admit that.

[Hawkeye]

Our citizens aren't like that, my friend. They're too busy watching The Bachelor.

Is that what you're watching as you type that post :lol:

[The Tower]

Sighes - Bush is asserting executive priviledge, a long honored tradition in the gov. and an est. precedent to the separation of powers in the three branches of govt. All Pres. have done this. Yet, W gets slammed for it.

Again, I am not fan of W. But, the stuff people come up with that is historically and factually innacurrate just baffles me.

CORRECTION- Bush has NOT claimed executive priviledge with regard to the case currently in front of the Supreme Court. See the transcripts from the hearing. Cheney is refusing to reveal who was involved in the creation of the energy task force and who may have influenced the task force once it was created. At no time has the administration claimed executive priviledge with regard to this case. The Sierra Club and another organization (I can't remember their name, dammit- by the way they are the same conservative group that sued Hillary Clinton to discover who was involved in her universal health care task force- and they won) filed suit against Cheney to reveal who was involved and so far the administration has only try to defend themselves- NOT claimed executive priviledge.

[dissention]

BTW - here is the FAQ section for that school. Please note it nowhere says that it trains terrorists


http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/about.asp?id=37

Did you expect them to?!?!?! :eek:

[Hawkeye]

Let me explain my bestcountry statement. I'm sure that seems quite dumb or whatever, but when has there ever been a war in America, I mean IN America. We have never ever been bothered with a war on our soil. It's the safest country to live for sure (minus 9/11 of course but that was such an isolated incident)

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]Here is the website for The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

http://www.benning.army.mil/whinsec/[QUOTE]
You can't go to their website and expect them to reveal the truth! Just like an Al Queda website would explain to your that they are in fact murderous villains.

Here, I was just reading an article about the camp. Let me sumarise......
Terrorism is "violent acts... intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government" according to the FBI. 'In 1996, the US government was forced to release seven of the school's training manuals.....they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.

What wholesome teachings, endorsed by Bush. Read history of who went there, then try to tell me that Bush didn't support terrorists.

PUHHLLEEZZEEE - so everyone that goes to college, a degree in chemical engineering, and then makes a chemical bomb can blame the university for teaching them chemical engineering. I mean come on :laugh:

[dissention]

Is that what you're watching as you type that post :lol:

Nope, I'm listening to Air America.

[strandinthewind]

Did you expect them to?!?!?! :eek:

Did you read it? I mean having this school here is a boon to us. Clearly it is better to teach people about democracy and human rights than it is to let them get it on their own in some poor, repressed third world country. But, slam away if you want :cool:

[dissention]

CORRECTION- Bush has NOT claimed executive priviledge with regard to the case currently in front of the Supreme Court. See the transcripts from the hearing. Cheney is refusing to reveal who was involved in the creation of the energy task force and who may have influenced the task force once it was created. At no time has the administration claimed executive priviledge with regard to this case. The Sierra Club and another organization (I can't remember their name, dammit- by the way they are the same conservative group that sued Hillary Clinton to discover who was involved in her universal health care task force- and they won) filed suit against Cheney to reveal who was involved and so far the administration has only try to defend themselves- NOT claimed executive priviledge.

AND - the VICE president cannot invoke executive privilege, only the president. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Chemical engineering degrees to not recommend you blow people to pieces.

A degree from this school does. Please show me any proof of that. Once again, I submit you cannot.

[dissention]

PUHHLLEEZZEEE - so everyone that goes to college, a degree in chemical engineering, and then makes a chemical bomb can blame the university for teaching them chemical engineering. I mean come on :laugh:

I believe she was referring to when that school was formed back in the forties, when it DID train dictators and terrorists. That doesn't happen anymore, but it did.

[strandinthewind]

CORRECTION- Bush has NOT claimed executive priviledge with regard to the case currently in front of the Supreme Court. See the transcripts from the hearing. Cheney is refusing to reveal who was involved in the creation of the energy task force and who may have influenced the task force once it was created. At no time has the administration claimed executive priviledge with regard to this case. The Sierra Club and another organization (I can't remember their name, dammit- by the way they are the same conservative group that sued Hillary Clinton to discover who was involved in her universal health care task force- and they won) filed suit against Cheney to reveal who was involved and so far the administration has only try to defend themselves- NOT claimed executive priviledge.

Then why was the issue of EC before the Court? I thought they were asserting it. That article above suggests they are. I could be wrong though.

[dissention]

Did you read it? I mean having this school here is a boon to us. Clearly it is better to teach people about democracy and human rights than it is to let them get it on their own in some poor, repressed third world country. But, slam away if you want :cool:

Jason, I'm not saying they currently do it, I'm saying they did back in the day.

[strandinthewind]

I believe she was referring to when that school was formed back in the forties, when it DID train dictators and terrorists. That doesn't happen anymore, but it did.

Well what the hell does the 40's have to do with anything these days. She referred to the U.S. training terrorists. I took that to mean they were currently doing it. I was like WTF :laugh: Mea Culpa :xoxo:

[dissention]

Well what the hell does the 40's have to do with anything these days. She referred to the U.S. training terrorists. I took that to mean they were currently doing it. I was like WTF :laugh: Mea Culpa :xoxo:

It's all part of the argument that America is usually the one that f*cks themselves. We did with Castro, we did with Saddam, we did with the 9/11 hijackers; the list goes on and on. We want it both ways all the time. :)

[Hawkeye]

Stevie - Lindsey, Country's gonna collapse - Country's not gonna collapse. It's basically the same no matter what disscussion on The Ledge :] We Just Disagree. Isn;t that a Beetles song :confused:

[strandinthewind]

It's all part of the argument that America is usually the one that f*cks themselves. We did with Castro, we did with Saddam, we did with the 9/11 hijackers; the list goes on and on. We want it both ways all the time. :)

Agreed. That is why we should change our policies regarding fossil fuels. But, the big three oil companies pretty much own the world and will until the last drop is extracted. Sad, very sad.

[dissention]

Agreed. That is why we should change our policies regarding fossil fuels. But, the big three oil companies pretty much own the world and will until the last drop is extracted. Sad, very sad.

Which is why I was crossing my fingers that the Iraqi's would burn the oil fields last year. :laugh:

Check this out, too:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_04_27_condoleezza_brieifing_iraq_republicans_only.asp

Condoleezza Rice Shows Contempt For Congressional Democrats and Their Constituents; Republicans Only Briefing on Iraq

by Eric Jaffa, April 27, 2004

Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, gave a briefing to members of Congress about the war in Iraq on April 22, 2004. This is proper. But she managed to turn the event into something obnoxous. She excluded House Democrats, thereby slighting almost half of Congress and the millions of people they represent.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN) discusses this in a letter to the editor published in the Minneaoplis Star Tribune on April 27, 2004:

Last week Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives were given a closed-door briefing by Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, about the Iraq war, the extension of duty for U.S. troops and the June 30 handover of Iraqi sovereignty. Democrats in Congress were not invited and not allowed to participate.
Together, Reps. Martin Sabo, James Oberstar, Collin Peterson and I represent almost 2.5 million Minnesotans, including U.S. troops, reservists and National Guardsmen and women serving in Iraq, as well as their families here at home. Our nation is at war, yet our Republican colleagues are privileged to national security briefings while Democrats are shut out. It appears the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress don't want to inform us about the situation in Iraq.

Our troops and their families have my support, but my constituents and I deserve to know if President Bush has a plan for a war that is costing hundreds of American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and $4.7 billion per month. Minnesotans should expect their members of Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, to be given equal, not separate and unequal, access to briefings on this vital national security issue.

Rep. Betty McCollum,

Washington, D.C.

[Hawkeye]

Safest, perhaps. Because it owns the most weapons. You have enough weapons to blow the rest of the world off the map.

See we agree on something. Security Baby. It pays.

[The Tower]

Then why was the issue of EC before the Court? I thought they were asserting it. That article above suggests they are. I could be wrong though.

Here ya go- read the whole thing.

NINA TOTENBERG reporting:

The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and the liberal environmental group the Sierra Club filed suit to find out just how much influence energy executives had. They sued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, known by the inelegant acronym FACA. Judicial Watch filed a similar suit in the Clinton years to find out information about first lady Hillary Clinton's health task force, and back then a federal appeals court ruled that the White House had to release information about outsiders who participated in the process.

It is precisely that information that Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club have been trying to get hold of from the Cheney energy task force for the last three years. The administration has resisted, claiming that since all the members of the task force are full-time government employees, the task force is not covered by the disclosure requirements of the Advisory Committee Act. But when the federal judge in charge of the case ordered a limited production of documents to see if that was true, the administration took an extraordinary appeal: first to the Circuit Court of Appeals and, when it lost there, to the Supreme Court.

What is extraordinary about the appeal is that it came midcase, and that is usually not allowed. Nor are complaints about the pretrial document production orders known as discovery orders. Today, the government's Supreme Court advocate, Solicitor General Ted Olson, told the high court that this case is different because the document production, the discovery order here, struck at the heart of the president's constitutional power to get confidential advice from whomever he wants. Thus, he said, the lower court order violated the constitutional separation of powers.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered if the president wasn't invading the judicial branch's power to craft how cases are handled, and Justices Souter and Ginsburg asked how they could resolve the issues in this case without a factual record and a lower-court judgment on the merits of the case. Olson contended that this case is much like the Nixon Watergate tapes case, where the Supreme Court accelerated consideration. But Justice Kennedy pointed out that President Nixon had claimed executive privilege over his tapes, whereas here the president has not claimed executive privilege.

Justice ANTHONY KENNEDY: In the Nixon case, the president exercised his privilege, and that was overruled.

Mr. TED OLSON (Solicitor General): The president is in the position of having to defy a court order, risk sanctions of some sort...

Justice KENNEDY: But you're not defying a court order if you exercise a privilege.

TOTENBERG: Olson responded that the court should take the president at his word when he says that every member of his energy task force is a government employee and, thus, not covered by the disclosure provisions of the advisory committee law. Otherwise, he said, everything the president does would be subject to a FACA lawsuit in a heartbeat. But Kennedy and other justices were struggling with why there should be a different set of pretrial discovery rules for the president and vice president.

Justice KENNEDY: How do you describe the general exception that you want us to have for discovery disputes in the district courts?

Mr. OLSON: When the...

Justice KENNEDY: When it involves the vice president it's different?

Mr. OLSON: Well, it certainly does when it involves the president or the vice president in core constitutional functions.

TOTENBERG: Why then, asked Justice Stephen Breyer, didn't the president invoke executive privilege? That would have prompted a clear appeal route without making any exceptions.

Mr. OLSON: Executive privilege may not have covered every scrap of paper. It would have required the president and the vice president to spend time with documents deciding whether or not to exert executive privilege.

TOTENBERG: Justice Kennedy responded wearily, `I hear in your argument echoes of every discovery complaint I've ever listened to.'

But if Olson had a tough ride, lawyer Alan Morrison, representing the Sierra Club, got a rodeo rough-up when he rose to make his argument. Justice John Paul Stevens was perhaps the most skeptical, clearly suggesting that in a case like this, the pretrial discovery process would produce as much information as a win at the end of the case.

Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS: What do you get if you win the lawsuit? That's the thing I really haven't been understanding here.

Mr. ALAN MORRISON (Attorney, Sierra Club): We get copies of all the papers that were exchanged in the entire advisory committee process. The adviso...

Justice STEVENS: Have you not asked for those in discovery?

Mr. MORRISON: We have asked for a discovery request which the government contends are very broad and could include some of those things. Our discovery plan...

Justice STEVENS: And are they right?

Mr. MORRISON: They could be interpreted as being right, but not in light of what the district court said.

TOTENBERG: The district court judge, in fact, ordered the White House to produce records of who participated in task force meetings, subgroup meetings and who saw and had input in the task force reports. Justice Breyer picked up on that, contending that government can't live in a cocoon in developing policy.

Justice STEPHEN BREYER: This is not a discovery statute; this is not a Freedom of Information Act statute. This is a blue-ribbon committee statute.

Mr. MORRISON: No, Your Honor, if you...

Justice BREYER: And if you turn it into the latter...

Mr. MORRISON: It is partially...

Justice BREYER: ...you'll stop every lower-level official in government when he's creating legislative policy from getting on the phone and calling up whoever he pleases. Now you understand that argument. I want your response.

Mr. MORRISON: All right. We concede that both this committee and the executive office of the president and anyone else can call anyone they want at any time without triggering FACA. Only if you have a formalized committee and if you bring people in to participate in the same manner as other committee members...

Justice ANTONIN SCALIA: That would require voting.

Mr. MORRISON: Not necessarily, Your Honor.

Justice SCALIA: I've always been puzzled by that in your briefs, `to participate in the same manner as other committee members.' It seems to me the essence of being a committee member is having a vote in the outcome.

TOTENBERG: That was Justice Antonin Scalia, whose refusal to disqualify himself from the Cheney case because of a duck-hunting trip he took with the vice president in January, has provoked considerable controversy. If anyone expected the ebullient Scalia to remain silent, however, they were wrong. Indeed, Scalia opined at some length on what he views as the mistaken notion that executive privilege claims should be resolved by the courts instead of the political process.

Justice SCALIA: That is not my view of executive privilege. I think executive privilege means whenever the president feels that he is threatened, he can simply refuse to comply with a court order. And after that, it's a struggle between two branches. And if you view executive privilege that way, forcing him to assert executive privilege is really pushing things to an extreme that should not very often occur in this republic.

TOTENBERG: Scalia's view of executive privilege may not be held by a majority of the court, but for the purposes of this case, his long track record on deferring to executive power all but assures his vote for Cheney. Today's argument suggested that he may well be in the majority on that. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

[strandinthewind]

Which is why I was crossing my fingers that the Iraqi's would burn the oil fields last year. :laugh:

And you call yourself an an environmentalist :D

I know, Minute Rice is screwing up. I just hope America gets it on Nov. Sadly, I know FAR to many people who think W hung the moon, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Actually I don't agree. I mean, I agree that they exist, but I don't agree that they should.

So, no nation should arm itself. That actually would be great if all nations could be trusted. But, they cannot. So, we have to arm ourselves.

[Sugar]

Safest, perhaps. Because it owns the most weapons. You have enough weapons to blow the rest of the world off the map.

We can't forget that we only have borders with two other countries; as long as neither the Mexicans or the Canadians get uppity that's just a lucky break we caught.

[dissention]

And you call yourself an an environmentalist :D

I know, Minute Rice is screwing up. I just hope America gets it on Nov. Sadly, I know FAR to many people who think W hung the moon, etc.

:laugh:

*scurries off to buy an Exxon*

And yeah, Shrub hung the moon, then he drilled into it to see if there was any treasure. ;)

[dissention]

And Israel has proven itself to be very trustworthy hasn't it?
:rolleyes:

Eek. Let's not talk about them or I'll be blown off the board. :laugh: Palestine gets a raw deal sometimes, IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Cheney, not W is asserting the EP. Hmmm, that makes it more interesting. In theory Cheney is not part of the Exec. Branch in that he is also part of the Legislative Branch. As that article above suggests, THE vp has no official exec. role unless the Pres. is no longer in office. But, in this case, like in Hillary's case, he was perfoming a function for the exec. branch and he is quasi - part of that branch. What an intersting legal argument. I cannot wait to see what the Court does in this. Thank you for correcting me :cool:

[Hawkeye]

We can't forget that we only have borders with two other countries; as long as neither the Mexicans or the Canadians get uppity that's just a lucky break we caught. .
.
I meant to say that earlier too. Great Point. Those two oceans are like our best friends. And whoich is probably why I put Austrailia at number 2. You guys are probably safe then us. Who's ever heard of any war involving Austrailia. And you guys got fleetwood MAc to come to your Country, how can you beat that.

[dissention]

Yes they get a bad deal! They are subjected to living conditions that are technical violations of human rights, as worded by the UN, yet we don't invade and overthrow Sharon.

:xoxo: If I were to walk down the street and say that, I'd be stoned. But I totally agree. My sympathy has always been with them, not the Israeli's.

[Hawkeye]

sorry I didn't know that.yeah WWII sucked. England actually got the **** bombed out of them then too. Meanwhile America (at least the 48) we're at home watching Bugs Bunny. Geesh I'm starting to get why people hate us now :lol:

[strandinthewind]

And Israel has proven itself to be very trustworthy hasn't it?
:rolleyes:

I am a little baffled at how you got Isreal out of my statement. But, so be it. No, they, along with all other nations cannot be trusted. History is full of examples of backstabbing, etc. So, if we learn from history, then we have to be armed. Again, I wish it was not that way, but it is.

[strandinthewind]

:xoxo: If I were to walk down the street and say that, I'd be stoned. But I totally agree. My sympathy has always been with them, not the Israeli's.

Lord Child - I and Goldie have said a few things on this board :laugh:

I think Isreal has the potential to be great. They just are scared to lose any control over the land they were initially given and the land they subsequently acquired. So, they refuse to let anyone do anything they do not like or that will threaten their rule. It is, of course, far more complicated than that, but that is part of it. And, no American political party wants to anger the American Jews by making Isreal tow the line. So, Isreal can do what is wants withing reason and the definition of reason is growing.

[strandinthewind]

I don't have the page open, but I think you said that trusworhty nations can have posess these weapons (as opposed to non-trustworthy countries). I was just pointing out that non-truthworthy countries who we know have these weaopns (as opposed to speculation) are not condemned.


I think if all nations disarm (a great but highly unlikely event) and can prove it, then sure, get rid of all of the weapons of war. But, that will never happen. So, we have to stay armed.

[strandinthewind]

If you're going for safety, England isn't necessarily your place. When my parents lived there (in the '70s) there were the occasional bombings (IRA).

Well, without being too literal, that is a part of the reason that many hate America. Politically, people need to know about what's going on. On a personal level, mention that someone's American and you usually get the eye roll combined with an understanding groan. It's not meant to be entirely insulting, it's just commonly accepted that the America is likely to be not only ignorant but arrogant. Americans seem to go on about the French. I think that generalisation stops at the American border and the word 'French' switches to 'American'.

That wasn't meant as an insult to you guys personally, it's just my description of what we, as outsiders, see.

People always say this and certainly there are people that do not like Americans. But, I travel all of the time and to Europe often. I am usually welcomed whereever I go and no one treats me poorly or like I am a dirt American. Maybe it is just me (ya know I am a loveable kind of guy :laugh: :woohoo: ) but I do not see it en masse. But, it certainly is there and more so now.

Interestingly and on a related issue, how is Tony Blair favoring in his PM position.

[strandinthewind]

From www.cnn.com - and a Republican from TEXAS no less.

Congressman omits 'under God' from Pledge of Allegiance
Spokesman says omission was mistake
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 5:16 PM EDT (2116 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad, omitted the words "under God" as he led the House in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week.

McDermott, of Seattle, was one of seven lawmakers who voted against a House resolution last year condemning a federal appeals court ruling that reciting the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional because of its reference to God.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the pledge."

"He and those like him stand more for the liberal left than they do for our friends and neighbors," Sessions said.

A spokesman for McDermott said Wednesday that McDermott, 67, made a mistake in his recitation of the pledge Tuesday on the House floor.

Spokesman Mike DeCesare said McDermott told him that as a child he had learned the pledge without the phrase "under God." The phrase was added to the pledge in 1954.

"Basically he caught himself up," DeCesare said, adding that McDermott was unsure whether to include the phrase "under God" while the 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

"Today he says, 'I should have said it,' because the pledge has been amended and in the future he will do that," DeCesare said. "Basically it was the wrong time to have a question in your thoughts."

McDermott, one of the most liberal members of the House, drew fire from Republicans last December, when he questioned the timing of the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. McDermott told a Seattle radio station that the U.S. military could have found Saddam long before if they had really wanted to do so.

In 2002, Republicans labeled McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for comments he made during a trip to Baghdad, saying that Bush "would mislead the American people" but that Saddam could be trusted.

[strandinthewind]

No, don't worry it's not on a personal level. When we meet someone we judge them for who they are, not their accent. The fact that my boyfriend (****, I must remember he's my EX-boyfriend. I house-sitting for him as we speak. I tend to forget that we broke up.) is American is testiment to that fact. When people first hear that he's American, they do respond (if not verbally, with their expression) with 'I see, one of those'. Most people are very welcoming, but as a whole that's how we see American people.

That is why I love the land down under!!!!!!!!!

[Rob67]

But what I find so shocking is that you actually believe that all of this heartaches will eventually bring democracy to Iraq. It'll never happen.

It did for Japan and Germany...as well as the rest of Europe in the following decades.

While Bush may not be the greatest President, he is doing what he clearly said he would. He said he would go after all terrorists and all regimes that support, economically or otherwise, terrorism in the world. And regarding the comment about Bush Sr. not doing anything about Suddam...you're right. He shouldn't have listened to the Liberals and UN and backed off...he should have went after him during the first Gulf War....

Regardless of the biased spin...the US has never been an imperialist country. Unless, of course, you count the expansionism in the 1800's of the continental US. Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

After the Civil War, the US spent millions reconstructing the south...and after both world wars, the US spent billions helping to rebuild Europe and Japan. None were annexed. We can't say the same about communist Russia.

my 2 cents...

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Those are the exact questions you should be asking Bush. Although if you want the real answer, ask Cheney. He tellls Bush what to say anyway. I doubt Georgie could answer any of the questions unless they were given to him in advance.

Was that an explanation or did I miss something??? :confused:

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

He didn't have his head in the clouds, it was very much on the ground. He chose to stay there. He was a coward. By the time he was outta there, the Pentagon was already under attack. His own words contradict himself. He said he saw the first plane, then he said he saw the second plane. Then he said he heard the second plane, but no, it was first plane. He said that the first thing he thought when he was TOLD about it was "Boy, what a terrible pilot." Yeah, nice thing to think of when the WTC has just been hit by a commercial aircraft. His story is so full of holes that it could mistaken for Swiss cheese. :rolleyes:

Wait a minute!! When did we start talking about Kerry!!?? :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Actually I thought the pledge of allegiance was made up, or not for real, or maybe just in movies or something. I wasn't aware that something so absurd was real, until my ex told me that he actually had to say it everyday.


The POA did not have "under God" in it until the 1950's when it was put in it by Congress as an effort to stop Communism, which was godless. In America no one can be forced to say the POA nor can children be expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag, etc. But, many claim that children will feel peer pressure and be forced into saying "under God" against their will and that is contrary to the statement in the First Amendment of the U.S. Const. that the govt. will make no law establishing a religion. The most recent case is pending in the U.S. Sup. Court where no one can predict the outcome of "under God" :cool:

[Rob67]

:lol: You're killing me.

No one wants it to fail. It's just common sense that tells us that democracy will not work in the Middle East. It simply won't. Wish all you want, but the rosiest of views won't disguise this mess. And any transitional body with Chalabi in it is a farce.


I dunno...Israel seems to be doing ok with it...I believe they have the highest standard of living in the Middle East as well as positive relations with most of the free world.

Pessimism that has no history to back it. What should US policy be to deal with the mIddle East then?

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Falser words have never been spoken. In a very Romanist sense of the word 'imperial', America, if not stopped, will be the new empire. Unless us middle countries get off our arse and steer towards China.

Just when we were getting along :laugh: ;) - America is not imperialistic in the sense that it has few if any territories and these territories do not mind American "rule," if you will. Great Britian and Rome (the two most recent great empires) on the other hand had vast portions of entire continents and in some instances, the entire continent. So, I do not think America is imperialistic. I mean even in Iran, we will have to hand it back to the Iraqui's in the near future or it will be an all out war in the entire country as opposed to just in a few cities. And, perhaps more importantly, our allies will drop out.

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, he said he wasn't required to say it, but that the teacher told him he should. He said by the end he just refused to say it.

It is just another example of the Christians and to some extent Jews trying to see validity in their own religions by making the state sponsor it. I think it is silly and wrong. But, something like 90 percent of Americans think it should be in the POA no matter how offensive it is to people who do not believe in God and the fact that it is a lie.

[Rob67]

The guy he was running against was clinically insane. He looked like a mental patinet, just the look in his eye.

Actually that guy is pretty intelligent. He was interviewed many times around here and he came across as articulate and straight forward. He didn't sound like a standard politician. Then there is dear old Arlen "SIngle bullet theory" Specter....ugh...

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Btw I 'd like to point out how much the US government has damaged the image of the US in Europe or at least in Germany. That is a heritage which a different government will have to carry for a long time. But I still take bets that this will last another 4 years. People get what they deserve I guess... Very annoying thread and my vocabulary is not enough to express what I`d like to.

Ah...how soon the past is forgotten...sad... :distress:

[Hawkeye]

one minute your making sense Lux, the next you're not. I agree about the Pledge, it should not be said very freaking morning, it looses it's meaning. I say say it at special sproting events and stuff, but not every morning like robots. And no one ever actually SAYS it, it's just part of the motions.

But Imperialist America, are you joking. We have NEVER had ANY intrest in talking over the world, like all other European countries USED to. England didn';t give up alot of it's colonies untila after WWII but America has had like 5 colonie in it's whole history. we could take over Canada in an instant. We choose not to.

[Rob67]

My God, I didn't see that post earlier. Having said this, you don't understand why others would want to shove a sharp stick up your arse?

This is what we assume the mentality is in America, but we also assume you don't go around verablising it. America is not the land of the free. What are you free from? For christ's sake, you can't even burn your own flag as a form of protest without going to prison. Sounds like repression to me. And what the hell does 'best country there is' mean? These kinds of statements do nothing but make the world cringe. It makes me more inclined to favour the terrorists!

The victims of the NY terrorists attacks didn't deserve that, but the country sure needed a wake up call. Instead of blaming crazy bearded men, perhaps people could take a look at what could have provoked them. And don't pretend they're jealous of your 'freedoms' and your way of life. Jesus, it goes far deeper than that.

You're right...it must be the billions of tax dollars in aid that goes to countries all over the world. Or, maybe it was all the blood of our soldiers spilled on foriegn shores helping to protect other nations through two world wars and other conflicts... ;)

But, that's just me...

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Let me explain my bestcountry statement. I'm sure that seems quite dumb or whatever, but when has there ever been a war in America, I mean IN America. We have never ever been bothered with a war on our soil. It's the safest country to live for sure (minus 9/11 of course but that was such an isolated incident)

Revolutionary, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish American War, Mexican war, French and Indian War, & various other conflicts pre-dating the formation of the 13 colonies. :)

But in modern times, which is what I assume you meant, you are correct.

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Safest, perhaps. Because it owns the most weapons. You have enough weapons to blow the rest of the world off the map. In every day life, no, it is not the safest. It is far, far from that.

Australia and England are the nest best countries? What about greater Britain, do we include them too? Our government supported the war in Iraq (with the majority of the population in both cases, against the involvement), is that why we're 'second best'?

Relax folks...being vocally proud of your country isn't a crime.

And by the way, we do have most of the nuclear weapons, but I would rather have all of those here rather then in the hands of North Korea or Iran. Agreed?

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Eek. Let's not talk about them or I'll be blown off the board. :laugh: Palestine gets a raw deal sometimes, IMO.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!! :laugh: :laugh: :lol: :lol:

Sorry...I just shot a diet sprite out of my nose! :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

.
.
I meant to say that earlier too. Great Point. Those two oceans are like our best friends. And whoich is probably why I put Austrailia at number 2. You guys are probably safe then us. Who's ever heard of any war involving Austrailia. And you guys got fleetwood MAc to come to your Country, how can you beat that.

Well...the two World Wars come to mind... :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I know. I was feeling this wave of contentment due to the fact that I wasn't being despised by people. That sensation never seems to last long. I can always be assured of pissing people off.

Anyway, to the imperialism thing. America doesn't actually have claim to territories in the sense that Britain and Rome did. America does have extreme financial influence. To a much lesser degree America is taking over Australia's interests. For example, the Free Trade agreement with Australia will screw me over. We are now subject to some American laws.

But I mean America is imperialistic in the sense that it goes to great lengths to ensure it's financial interests are a priority. The Shah? Pinochet? The removal of Noriega? America will remove leaders at will.

Touche' Touche' :)

[Rob67]

If you're going for safety, England isn't necessarily your place. When my parents lived there (in the '70s) there were the occasional bombings (IRA).

Well, without being too literal, that is a part of the reason that many hate America. Politically, people need to know about what's going on. On a personal level, mention that someone's American and you usually get the eye roll combined with an understanding groan. It's not meant to be entirely insulting, it's just commonly accepted that the America is likely to be not only ignorant but arrogant. Americans seem to go on about the French. I think that generalisation stops at the American border and the word 'French' switches to 'American'.

That wasn't meant as an insult to you guys personally, it's just my description of what we, as outsiders, see.

I thought it had more to do with envy...or so I've been told by friends in Europe....can't think of any other reason. Especially with all the support and alliances between most of these countries over the years...

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Woah. Are we agreeing? Shall we savour this?

Or are you being sarcastic?


Oh no, when I am wrong I'll readily admit it - usually with the fencing term of "touche'" - I think it adds a little flavor :woohoo:

[Rob67]

But Israel is the number enemy of its neighbours. That's not democracy working well in the middle east. You can't just slap a 'democracy' in the middle east and expect it to work.


Riiiiight...and the regimes and monarchy's in that region have done so much to promote economic growth and peace... :rolleyes:

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

You cannot expect praise for giving aid, when you helped put them in that position to begin with. Resources are creating an income for the larger companies, stripping the nation of wealth and causing them to resort to aid. If America actually gave **** about the wellbeing of others, it would reverse Third World Debt. It's one of the greatest crime. No, America is not solely responsible at all, but it is a large contributor.

As far as 'the blood of our soldiers spilled on foreign shores'.....America only steps in when it's in their interests. It certainly didn't jump at the chance to protect Britain. You think America cared about the people of Vietnam?

We just had ANZAC day (which commemorates the landing at Gallipoli). Our soldiers were killed defending other nations but if we also agressively enforce our interests upon other nations that doesn't hold up as an excuse for their hatred of us. In fact it doesn't even make sense.

Who's looking for praise? Just making a point.

I personally feel that we should reallocate most of our foriegn aid to more domestic issues. I would also love for the US to enact the Monroe Doctrine again. But it isn't possible in this modern age. We keep getting dragged back into something.

I know full well about Gallipoli and Australia's involvement in world conflict.

The crazy thing is that the same people who bitch about the US being the world police would bitch even more if we withdrew all support, aid and involvement. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Most of the hate towards America, and it isn't everyone, is rooted in envy. ANd it would be that way with any country that was the dominate world power.

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Well that's laughable. You couldn't make most of my friends even visit the US due to apathy (although this is unfounded because as we know, individual Americans are rarely as annoying as the nation as a whole), let alone want to live there. Know for a fact that we don't generalise America (as a whole) to be ignorant and arrogant because we've envious.

To clear the air...I did NOT make that assertion myself...it's what I have been told by various people I've met from various countries...

FYI.

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

Before I go any further and people think I hate Americans, this isn't the case.

I had the American government (and most of previous times too) and I simply state the generalised opinion of people in my society, towards Americans. When we know them, they're (usually) fine, and our television are most often splattered with them, but we also find the people as a whole to be groan-worthy. We're always taking the piss. I think they summed it up when one of our comedy shows stuck a vox-pop reporter on the streets somewhere in the US and asked people what they thought of the government's stance against a particular nation (I forget which, but it was one which posed no threat to the US at all), that being that they are preparing for an attack. We like to make fun of the American public's lack of world knowledge and their strange obsession with waving their flag and being 'patriotic' despite not knowing anything about these other countries that they claim to be better than.

I sometimes feel the same way watching our own news channels...they pick the biggest moron in the crowd to interview. BUT, most of the people in this country are not that way. There are many of us that are very well versed on world affairs. Just because I disagree with your world view and see things differently does not mean that I am any less knowledgeable.\

ANd we all know how I feel about assuming! :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[Rob67]

As far as 'the blood of our soldiers spilled on foreign shores'.....America only steps in when it's in their interests. It certainly didn't jump at the chance to protect Britain. You think America cared about the people of Vietnam?

Assumptions and opinions. Again, I'm confused...should we help in foriegn affairs or mind our own business??

And so what if we act in our best interest. How often do you act on things in life that isn't in your best interest?

In Vietnam, our political climate was one of stopping the spread of communism. Vietnam was a mistake...especially in hindsight. But they had their reasons at the time. It was a poorly conducted military campaign.

AND...the US was pretty much funding Britains war efforts prior to being forced into the war. And, yes, you're right, defeating the Nazi's were in our best interest, as well as the rest of the world's.

Rob :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

My close friend, David, is extremely well-travelled, and he assures me that the hatred directed towards the US is not born out of "envy," but rather the feeling that Americans have an attitude of superiority and entitlement.
You know... "Ugly Americans."

And I have to say that when I look around, I can see why other countries feel that way.

[estranged4life]

America has the most weapons, so yes, in that sense it is the safest. In the sense that it pisses off the most nations, no it is not the safest. I'd rather be in New Zealand.

I would like to be in Japan myself, mainly for their one weapn of choice that they continually slay the mighty U.S. with...Electronics!!!

[Rob67]

Exactly, although that doesn't mean we hate you all as individuals, how could I? Lindsey's a yank! Surely if we all succumbed to envy we'd be groaning and rolling our eyes at the Scandanavians instead. As far as politics goes though, hatred stems not from envy but from actions taken by the US against other regimes and therefore against other citizens of the world.

Actions that in most cases are necessary because the world, via the UN, refuses to act. I think every country has a right to protect their own security.

Besides...the reasons for any action or conflict by any country throughout history could be spun anyway you want...economics, greed, imperialism, religious persecution....and so on. Everyone has an opinion.

And, personally, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. As you said...we are worried about our own best interests. And we should do so even more, me thinks....

Rob :cool:

[dissention]

Wait a minute!! When did we start talking about Kerry!!?? :laugh:

Rob :cool:

Oh, you mean the next president of the United States?

[dissention]

I dunno...Israel seems to be doing ok with it...I believe they have the highest standard of living in the Middle East as well as positive relations with most of the free world.

:lol: :lol: :lol: It is? Last time I checked, there's constant violence and attacks towards Israel from their enemies. Their enemies being the rest of the Middle East, of course.

[dissention]

Actually that guy is pretty intelligent. He was interviewed many times around here and he came across as articulate and straight forward. He didn't sound like a standard politician. Then there is dear old Arlen "SIngle bullet theory" Specter....ugh...

Rob :cool:

I don't care how intelligent the guy comes across as, look up some of his platforms and thoughts on world issues. He's nucking futs.

[dissention]

But Imperialist America, are you joking. We have NEVER had ANY intrest in talking over the world, like all other European countries USED to. England didn';t give up alot of it's colonies untila after WWII but America has had like 5 colonie in it's whole history. we could take over Canada in an instant. We choose not to.

Oh, c'mon. You must be delusional. Imperialism is the reason we invaded Iraq, not for anyhting else. We're trying to set up a colony over there.

[dissention]

You're right...it must be the billions of tax dollars in aid that goes to countries all over the world. Or, maybe it was all the blood of our soldiers spilled on foriegn shores helping to protect other nations through two world wars and other conflicts... ;)

But, that's just me...

Rob :cool:

You must not really know what foreign coutnries get in aid. ChimpCo publicly states that they will give a large amount to a certain country to help them in a certain area, but as soon as the story drops from the front page, they drastically slash the allocated money in half. Take the AIDs relief for Africa, for example. Look up Shrub's track record in giving aid to other countries, it's atrocious. They've even refused to give money to certain coutnries because those countries have high abortion rates.

[gldstwmn]

Stevie - Lindsey, Country's gonna collapse - Country's not gonna collapse. It's basically the same no matter what disscussion on The Ledge :] We Just Disagree. Isn;t that a Beetles song :confused:

No it's Dave Mason-who was once a member of Fleetwood mac. :lol: :lol:

[gldstwmn]

And Israel has proven itself to be very trustworthy hasn't it?
:rolleyes:

Don't get me started.

[gldstwmn]

sorry I didn't know that.yeah WWII sucked. England actually got the **** bombed out of them then too. Meanwhile America (at least the 48) we're at home watching Bugs Bunny. Geesh I'm starting to get why people hate us now :lol:

Flamebait. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

:xoxo: If I were to walk down the street and say that, I'd be stoned. But I totally agree. My sympathy has always been with them, not the Israeli's.

Once again, we agree. :wavey:

[DeeGeMe]

Once again, we agree. :wavey:

Me too. I also have some rather pro-IRA sentiments as well. Review the history of both areas, as I have done and you come away with a different opinion of who the real terrorists actually are in both Israel & in Northern Ireland. Remember: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[dissention]

Anyone see Lou Dobbs last night? ChimpCo is objecting to the idea that drugs be imported from Canada because it would result in the loss of American jobs. How ridiculous and hypocritical.

[dissention]

Once again, we agree. :wavey:

:lol: When don't we, doll? :lol:

[dissention]

Me too. I also have some rather pro-IRA sentiments as well. Review the history of both areas, as I have done and you come away with a different opinion of who the real terrorists actually are in both Israel & in Northern Ireland. Remember: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

You'll never get me to admit that I have some of the same sentiments.

;)

[gldstwmn]

Lord Child - I and Goldie have said a few things on this board :laugh:

I think Isreal has the potential to be great. They just are scared to lose any control over the land they were initially given and the land they subsequently acquired. So, they refuse to let anyone do anything they do not like or that will threaten their rule. It is, of course, far more complicated than that, but that is part of it. And, no American political party wants to anger the American Jews by making Isreal tow the line. So, Isreal can do what is wants withing reason and the definition of reason is growing.


I agreee with you 100%. The best thinkg they can do right now is to get rid of Sharon. His statement about wanting to kill Arafat is certain to have it's repercussions. It seems no small accident to me that the next day after he and Georgie had their little tryst that the leader of Hamas was killed.

[DeeGeMe]

I agreee with you 100%. The best thinkg they can do right now is to get rid of Sharon. His statement about wanting to kill Arafat is certain to have it's repercussions. It seems no small accident to me that the next day after he and Georgie had their little tryst that the leader of Hamas was killed.

Yes-the timing was certainly curious on that, wasn't it? I'm not trying to say that I condone terrorism, because, clearly, I do not, but I can certainly understand what might push them to take the paths they sometimes take.

[gldstwmn]

I would like to be in Japan myself, mainly for their one weapn of choice that they continually slay the mighty U.S. with...Electronics!!!


One word: Earthquakes. :eek:

[gldstwmn]

Anyone see Lou Dobbs last night? ChimpCo is objecting to the idea that drugs be imported from Canada because it would result in the loss of American jobs. How ridiculous and hypocritical.

I missed Lou. Did he call Georgie on that pos Medicare bill he passed?

[dissention]

I missed Lou. Did he call Georgie on that pos Medicare bill he passed?

I can't remember, but he held a conversation with one of his reporters on the importing that was completely sarcastic about the whole thing. He found it ridiculous. Lemme see if I can get a transcript of that portion.

[Hawkeye]

Oh, c'mon. You must be delusional. Imperialism is the reason we invaded Iraq, not for anyhting else. We're trying to set up a colony over there.

And exactly where is the line of people who want to leave the US and live in Iraq. Colony in Iraq don't make me :laugh:

[dissention]

And exactly where is the line of people who want to leave the US and live in Iraq. Colony in Iraq don't make me :laugh:

That's the ever freakin' point: Iraq backfired. Hello?!

[Hawkeye]

Flamebait.

huh :confused: :confused:

[strandinthewind]

That's the ever freakin' point: Iraq backfired. Hello?!


FOUL :wavey: :wavey:

You liberals have been screaming colonization was W's ultimate goal even though no facts supported that conclusion. Now, when it turns out we are not going to colonize - we get "Iraq backfired" Come on just admit you were wrong - Lord knows I fess up when I am :shrug: ;)

[Hawkeye]

Even if this werr for oil I really wpouldn't mind because thats a good a s reasonas any, really gas prices will be the thing that causes a country to collapse. So if thi swar would'v elowered them that'd have been fine in my book. But they haven't they've gone up :shrug:

[Rob67]

I agreee with you 100%. The best thinkg they can do right now is to get rid of Sharon. His statement about wanting to kill Arafat is certain to have it's repercussions. It seems no small accident to me that the next day after he and Georgie had their little tryst that the leader of Hamas was killed.

And.????

Ok....refresher course, folks. Bad guys vs. good guys, 101.

Bad guys send their children onto crowded buses strapped with explosives and kill, not only themselves, but innocent women, children and men who have no military or political say. They are blindly following their leaders insane pleas with false promises of virgins, allah, and what not, much like the Japanese Kamikazi pilots of WWII. This is not a positive way to send a message to the rest of the world to be sympathetic to your cause.

Good guys, in retaliation, target top military and intelligence targets in hopes of cutting off the "heads" of the terrorist networks and stop the senseless attacks.

Any questions? :laugh:

Rob :cool:

[Vianna]

Let's not forget the non-existent WMD's :laugh:

Bush? Out the door in 2004!

[dissention]

Even if this werr for oil I really wpouldn't mind because thats a good a s reasonas any, really gas prices will be the thing that causes a country to collapse. So if thi swar would'v elowered them that'd have been fine in my book. But they haven't they've gone up :shrug:

What a cold and heartless statement. You should be ashamed. You advocate going into another country, starting a war, getting hundreds of our men and women murdered, getting thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered along with their babies, just so you can save 20 cents a gallon when you fill up your gas guzzler? How cold.

[dissention]

And how come no one has commented on the torturing of the Iraqi prisoners in Iraq? Coincidentally, it's happening in the same exact hospital/prison that Saddam supposedly had his rape and torture rooms. And we're in there picking up where he left off and tying electrical wires around the genitals of the prisoners and shocking them. Oh, and smiling as pictures are taken.

[dissention]

FOUL :wavey: :wavey:

You liberals have been screaming colonization was W's ultimate goal even though no facts supported that conclusion. Now, when it turns out we are not going to colonize - we get "Iraq backfired" Come on just admit you were wrong - Lord knows I fess up when I am :shrug: ;)

Yeah, and you moderates always try to balance out the playing field by saying that, even though there are no facts that support we went in there to liberate. :wavey: Just because it comes out of the lips of Dubya, it doesn't mean it's fact. I think that's a fact right there.

Iraq did backfire. They didn't have a plan because they thought it would go as smooth as buttah. Which it did for the first month and then Shrub said "Mission accomplished." Mission accomplished my ass. They weren't expecting any of this stuff, they were unprepared. They thought they would go int here, say they're liberating these people, and be welcomed with open arms. And be given carte blanch with the oil fileds. They went in there with the intent that Iraq would be a sister of the US, there's no doubt about it. They wanted control of the oil, what better way than to go in there, spend billions of dollars, and then demand oil in return for their "services"?

And the colonization argument is given further credence when you look at who they want to run the country. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Even if this werr for oil I really wpouldn't mind because thats a good a s reasonas any, really gas prices will be the thing that causes a country to collapse. So if thi swar would'v elowered them that'd have been fine in my book. But they haven't they've gone up :shrug:


They're manipulating the market on purpose.

[gldstwmn]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040429-101232-6958r.htm

Baghdad, , Apr. 29 (UPI) -- Six U.S. soldiers in Iraq are facing court martial for abusing and torturing Iraqi prisoners at a prison near Baghdad, CBS reports.

The network said it had obtained dozens of photographs taken by soldiers of other soldiers inflicting pain or humiliation on the Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison, which was known as a torture chamber under former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In some of the photos, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other. And in most of the pictures, the U.S. soldiers are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up.

Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners, and said it had launched an investigation.

"Frankly, I think all of us are disappointed by the actions of the few," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations in Iraq.

The Army investigation confirmed soldiers at Abu Ghraib had not been trained in Geneva Convention rules. And most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1207162,00.html

Michael Hann examines the air of secrecy and silence surrounding the US media's treatment of George Bush's 'war on terror'

Friday April 30, 2004

American contractors and soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners in a prison outside Baghdad? A huge story, by anyone's standards, surely, especially when pictures of the abuse were broadcast on the US TV network CBS.
So it was no surprise that newspapers around the world made huge, horrified play of the events at the Abu Ghraib prison. It was more of a surprise, however, that the story did not receive the same level of coverage in the US papers.

The Baltimore Sun, however, was damning in its verdict. "Television footage of the mistreatment of Iraqi war prisoners by their American captors was shockingly disturbing and hauntingly reminiscent of the horror stories from the regime of Saddam Hussein," it said. Punishment of those responsible, it added, would not on its own be sufficient response. "The Pentagon must be held accountable if the military failed to provide the training, staffing, supervision and leadership required to ensure that prisoners of war are treated humanely."

Perhaps the difference between the US coverage and that elsewhere should have been expected. CBS admitted it had come under severe pressure from the Pentagon not to broadcast the images, and the issue of what is and what is not fit for US public consumption has been an ongoing theme, applicable to events both domestic and foreign.

Tonight, for example, the ABC network's Nightline programme is to feature host Ted Koppel reading the names of all members of the American military killed in Iraq, while pictures of them appear on screen. But, as the New York Daily News reported, one local broadcasting group that controls eight ABC-affiliated stations has "angrily pulled" the show, claiming the naming of the dead "is a blatant anti-war ploy".

The White House reacted angrily last week to the publication of the flag-draped coffins of US soldiers who have died in Iraq. But Daniel Schorr, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, wondered why. "Considering that no individual identification is visible in the pictures, it is hard to understand the justification for clamping the secrecy lid on the solemn procession of flag-draped coffins being carried off the cargo planes," he wrote. "I cannot avoid the suspicion that President George Bush - who has yet to attend to a funeral service for any of the honoured dead that he has sent to war - has no interest in calling attention to the mounting number of casualties in a battle that was far from over last May 1, when the president declared 'major combat operations' in Iraq had ended."

The appearance yesterday of Mr Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney before the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks provided another example of the debate. "There was no press coverage allowed, no recording, no transcript to be made available later, no testimony given under oath - and no good reason for any of it," said the Boston Globe.

"Mr Bush, who pulled the nation together in 2001, might have done so again yesterday by displaying a willingness to be open - at least in transcript form - about what may have gone wrong on his watch ... [And] going public before the commission with that attitude might have won Mr Bush international respect."

As Alessandra Stanley put it in the New York Times: "On a day when viewers could watch American marines battling rebels in Falluja and see Jayson Williams squirm in his courtroom seat while awaiting a verdict on manslaughter charges, the blackout at the White House was striking; throughout the day, the torrent of words used on cable news shows to describe the meeting ('exceptionally rare', 'extraordinary', 'historic') clashed almost comically with the meagre visual images ... The nonvisual event was so anathema to television that at one point, the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan said it seemed as if 'the event took place in the 18th century'."

The whole aim of the event had been to make Mr Bush look "solemn and presidential, capturing the news for a full day of headlines that can't help but further tie down his campaign stance as the wartime president", scoffed James Ridgeway on the Village Voice website. He argued that the event had "little to do with informing the public". It was "just a nice friendly get-together".

A contrast to the secrecy and silence that seem to be characterising this stage of Mr Bush's "war on terror" came from the supreme court on Wednesday. The justices heard the cases of two US citizens jailed after the 9/11 attacks, on the grounds of being enemy combatants. Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, suspected of fighting for the Taliban, and Jose Padilla was arrested at Chicago airport on suspicion of planning to detonate a radioactive bomb.

The supreme court allowed the hearing to be broadcast live, on the grounds of exceptional national interest, a decision welcomed by the Los Angeles Times.

"For too long ... justices have been skittish about letting Americans listen in on their proceedings while the justices are still deliberating," said the paper. "But the compelling broadcasts of Wednesday's hearing in the enemy combatant cases, which turned into a dramatic civics lesson, demonstrate why the public should be able to hear all cases that quickly." The recordings, said the Times, showed the justices posing "appropriately sceptical questions" about Mr Bush's insistence in his right to order detentions, and would "encourage Americans to wrestle with these questions along with the justices".

[gldstwmn]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040430/ts_nm/iraq_dc

45 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Fadel Badran and Michael Georgy

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Marines handed control in Falluja to a former general in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Republican Guard on Friday but new violence showed that a month of fighting in the besieged Sunni Muslim city was not over.

In a reversal of Washington's previous policy of excluding senior members of Saddam's Baathist regime from power, Jasim Mohamed Saleh said his new force would help police bring order and relieve a month-long siege that has cost hundreds of lives.

"We have now begun forming a new emergency military force," he told Reuters, saying people in Falluja "rejected" U.S. troops.

But Marine commanders insisted that their men, who pulled back from many positions during the day but fought guerrillas in others, would keep overall responsibility in the city and continue operations against suspected foreign Islamic militants.

They described Saleh's force of 1,000 or so former soldiers as an Iraqi battalion under U.S. control.

But Saleh, cheered by crowds waving the Saddam-era Iraqi flag as he drove through his home town in his old uniform, said local people wanted Falluja to be run by Iraqi forces only.

U.S. officials have struggled to stamp out open insurrection in Falluja while avoiding more bloodshed that has cost more American lives in April than any other month in Iraq (news - web sites) and turned many Iraqis against them. They have begun to recruit some former Baath party members to help restore order and basic services.

U.S. OFFICIALS CAUTIOUS

President Bush (news - web sites), watching sliding poll numbers ahead of November's presidential election, gave commanders a free hand in Falluja this week and the Pentagon (news - web sites) sent more tanks.

But the improvised peace deal appeared to have averted an all-out assault on the city of 300,000 -- for the time being.

"We should be very careful in thinking that this effort to build this Iraqi capacity will necessarily calm down the situation in Falluja tonight or over the next several days," said General John Abizaid, the U.S. Middle East commander.

Minutes later, explosions shook the eastern outskirts and a senior military spokesman said two Marines were killed by a car bomb near their base outside Falluja on Friday.

Marine commanders issued a statement saying: "The coalition objectives remain unchanged -- to eliminate armed groups, collect and positively control all heavy weapons and turn over foreign fighters and disarm anti-Iraqi insurgents."

The siege, mounted after four American security guards were murdered a month ago, has killed 600 people, according to local doctors, and has become a source of grievance for many Iraqis, especially the once-dominant Sunni minority in Saddam's heartlands of the "Sunni triangle" west and north of Baghdad.

Winning over Iraqi opinion is important for Washington as it prepares to hand over formal sovereignty to an interim government in Baghdad on June 30 while leaving more than 100,000 U.S. troops in a country where many are clearly still hostile.

Washington suffered a public relations blow in that regard on Friday when Arab television channels broadcast pictures, first aired in the United States, seeming to show U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners in Saddam's notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Since Bush declared an end to "major combat operations" a year ago on Saturday, 428 U.S. service personnel have been killed in action in Iraq, 127 of them in April alone. Fewer than 100 died in the three weeks it took to topple Saddam.

EX-GUERRILLAS "WELCOME" It was unclear what influence the new Iraqi force in Falluja has over the estimated 2,000 or so guerrillas, some of whom U.S. officials say are diehard Saddam supporters. Some 200 foreign Islamic militants have also been active, U.S. officials say.

One Marine officer said that if those Iraqis who had been fighting in Falluja joined Saleh's force that would not be a problem for the U.S. troops: "It's not a bad thing because they're not on the wrong side," he told Reuters.

Some in the ranks were not happy to be leaving the battlefield and said they were ready to fight again if needed.

"It's a mistake. People have lost lives in Falluja and now they die for nothing. But we have to give the Iraqis the chance to prove they can do it by themselves and we can still go back if it doesn't work," said Corporal Clint Burfort from Iowa.

A relative of Saleh said he had been chief-of-staff of a brigade of the elite Republican Guard before transferring to a regular infantry division. Senior officers were expected to be members of Saddam's Baath party. The U.S. occupying authority disbanded the 375,000-strong armed forces after last year's war.

People who had fled homes in Falluja lined up at military checkpoints to return but troops let few pass into the town.

Iraqis who suffered oppression by Saddam's armed forces had mixed feelings about the move in Falluja.

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurd on the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, said it was worthwhile to end fighting. But he added: "It's not a good precedent...As usual, the Americans, without consulting anyone at all, have gone ahead with a policy to replace an earlier, failed policy...I'm not crazy about coming back to make a deal with someone from the Republican Guard."

Around the southern holy city of Najaf, U.S. forces are tightening a squeeze on the Mehdi Army militia loyal to rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has taken refuge among shrines sacred to Iraq's long oppressed

[dissention]

Got articles? :laugh:

[dissention]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040429-101232-6958r.htm

Baghdad, , Apr. 29 (UPI) -- Six U.S. soldiers in Iraq are facing court martial for abusing and torturing Iraqi prisoners at a prison near Baghdad, CBS reports.


They should be thrown in jail ASAP.

However, the US has to stop continuing their tours of duty. These people are going crazy and this shouldn't be done to them. It should be six to eight months tops.

[dissention]

Did you hear what Shrub said today?!?!

"People whose skins are a different color than white CAN self-govern."

Unbelievable.

And Clinton's book is #1 all across internet booksellers six weeks before it's release. :shocked: Boy, I sure do miss him.

[gldstwmn]

Got articles? :laugh:


:lol: :lol: :lol: I so want the picture in your sig line. I love Randi.

[gldstwmn]

Did you hear what Shrub said today?!?!

"People whose skins are a different color than white CAN self-govern."

Unbelievable.

And Clinton's book is #1 all across internet booksellers six weeks before it's release. :shocked: Boy, I sure do miss him.

He referred to the "brown people" in his press conference. :distress:

I miss the Big Dog too.

My daughter was in her history class the other day (she goes to a private, parochial school, very conservative type place) and the teacher asked the kids if they knew how the 2000 election was won. My kid immediately pipes up "Yeah, they stole it."

[DeeGeMe]

The IRA should be condemned for their tactics on one hand, but on the other hand, the British gave them no other option. When the British army fired upon the civilians in Derry in'72, they themselves gave the IRA there biggest weapon. It was the Brits who wiped out the civil rights movement due to what occured that day. Basically they handed many of those previously inclined to peacefully protest for their rights, over to the IRA. What makes me sick is that the British officers were decorated by the Queen.

And this is a fine example of why I said what I said earlier about the IRA. I don't condone their tactics either, but given the long history of how the Irish have been opressed by the English, I certainly understand how the IRA came into existence and how they felt they had no other choice but to resort to radical measures to get their message across.