Aguila Blanca
Member
There's a war going on? Nobody told me.longhorngunman said:
Please ... bring me up to speed. Against what foreign nation has the Congress of the United States enacted a declaration of war?
The "I" word is in the air - (Impeachment)
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
Please ... bring me up to speed. Against what foreign nation has the Congress of the United States enacted a declaration of war?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Hawkmoon said:
Actually the NSA is part of the Department of Defense. Its predecessor agency was the Armed Forces Security Agency which is why the current director is a military general. The NSA also relies on the Central Security Service (military enlisted and officers) for much of its manpower fro grunt work.
The civilians at NSA are mostly those with advanced degrees in computers and mathematics.
+1
22-rimfire your one of the very few that have mentioned some of the good things Bush has done. However not much detail. But that's ok.
One of my other posts I mentioned how people love to hate and this thread sure shows it.
We seem to have amnesia when it comes to good things about Bush?
Can anyone remember good things that Bush has done while in office?
I can. Here are a few for starters....
1. He favors man/woman only marriages and has the morals to publicly stand behind this. This is a big plus in my book.
2. He sent taxpayers a $300 tax rebate check and increased the child tax credit to $1000 per child. To help the economy. The child tax credit I do thank Clinton for starting.
3. He aggressively is going after terrorists for 9/11 as 22-rimfire mentioned. The man is not a coward and freedom has never been free.
In 2001, He inherited an over inflated stock market and an economy that was well on its way into recession. Then 9/11 came and that put the icing on the cake.
Some will say the economy lost 2+million jobs during his first term and place the blame solely on Bush. If it is all his fault then the 3+million jobs gained in the last 2 years is to his credit.
I know what most of you are going to say "the deficit" yes a constant problem through out government. As far as the federal deficit goes it's mostly the result of recession,9/11,katrina,rita and wilma oh yea the price of oil. But that's Bushs fault too I suppose.
Where I work we have a saying among the workers for lack of recognition, 1000 things right and 1 thing wrong and guess what they remember?
The economy is doing well now and people still hate Bush.
Can anyone else remember some good things Bush has accomplished?
RealGun
Member
One ah???? erases 10 attaboys.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Against what foreign nation has the Congress of the United States enacted a declaration of war?"
I guess what bothers me about that rhetorical question is the idea that "war" can only be between geographically delineated areas controlled by some form of government whereby we can use the label "nation".
When an organized, well-financed group has stated publicly and at length that we have been and will be targets of all manner of hostile actions, I tend to think in terms of war. That is, they're happy to kill us because of otherness; they're willing to try to set up financial campaigns against our currency, and they're working to suborn governments of nations to work against us. While that's reminiscent of the Axis of the WW II era, I do not see it as necessary that only a nation can create a warlike situation.
When somebody comes against me in that manner, I'm pretty much disinterested in worrying about dictionaries. His fundamental motivations are of interest only as they affect strategy and tactics. I want to remain upright and breathing, and I'm quite content that he no longer remains in that condition.
If this present worldwide situation indeed is Fourth Generation Warfare, sobeit. We have no choice but to deal with it as though it indeed were the Real Thing.
, Art
I guess what bothers me about that rhetorical question is the idea that "war" can only be between geographically delineated areas controlled by some form of government whereby we can use the label "nation".
When an organized, well-financed group has stated publicly and at length that we have been and will be targets of all manner of hostile actions, I tend to think in terms of war. That is, they're happy to kill us because of otherness; they're willing to try to set up financial campaigns against our currency, and they're working to suborn governments of nations to work against us. While that's reminiscent of the Axis of the WW II era, I do not see it as necessary that only a nation can create a warlike situation.
When somebody comes against me in that manner, I'm pretty much disinterested in worrying about dictionaries. His fundamental motivations are of interest only as they affect strategy and tactics. I want to remain upright and breathing, and I'm quite content that he no longer remains in that condition.
If this present worldwide situation indeed is Fourth Generation Warfare, sobeit. We have no choice but to deal with it as though it indeed were the Real Thing.
, ArtThe "I" word (long)
Great thread...but its fact check time for some....
Have any of y'all seen this? From CapitolHillBlue.com, the oldest internet news service....
----
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've [Doug Thompson] talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the ???? that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
----
Wow....of course, I can't confirm this quote and Mr. Thompson states that he would never 'burn' any of his sources, but if it IS true....
For now, put aside all personal beliefs or party affiliation. It doesn't matter if you are a red- or blue-stater, liberal or conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or even Druid (Reformed). It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq... or not. For centuries, The Constitution has stood as the defining document of our government, and the ultimate source to determine if something is legal or right.
From the POTUS on down, every federal official who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What really ticks me off about the neo-cons - that is, despite the outright incompetence, blatant cronyism, and deplorable hypocrisy - is that whenever any aspect of W's agenda is challenged, we get statements like "red-on-red" or "commisar", or even the stupid "they must hate freedom" comment, all while they wrap themselves in a flag. "If you don't support us you must be a terrorist" is one of the more moronic replies.
In 1935, Sinclair Lewis wrote a satirical, best-seller titled "It Can't Happen Here" about a populist President becoming dictator in order to "save" the country from welfare cheats, sex, crime, the liberal press, etc., all while wrapped up in a patriotic, red-white-and-blue outfit.
Lewis's book chronicles the fictional rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic, southern Senator who becomes President against the protests of FDR and some of America's saner citizens. Though always proclaiming the common man, Windrip is on the take of big business (i.e. Corpos in the book), is favored by religious extremists, and though he talks of freedom and prosperity for all, he eventually becomes the ultimate crony capitalist. Championed by the Hearst newspaper syndicate (the 1930's equivalent of FOX News), he nullifies both Congress and the Supreme Court, before stripping people of their civil liberties and installing an Orwellian dictatorship.
Well, it *could* happen here. It *is* happening here. "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present he truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public."– Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944
As if in opposition to the Founding Fathers of this nation, there is more than ample evidence that W&Co. is trying to set up a fascist state. And the damage that the Repugs are doing to this country will be long-lasting indeed. The American Heritage Dictionary defines this as "a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government, usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. Go to Cornell University's website for another definition: "a philosophy or system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."
My own Webster's Unabridged states that it is: "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalist policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Any of this sound vaguely familiar with regard to the current antics of those in charge in Washington? Going beyond these definitions, take a look at the research of Laurence W. Britt (former exec with Allied Chemical, Mobil and Xerox) published two years ago in Free Inquiry magazine. Britt analyzed seven fascist regimes, including Nazi Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Spain under Franco, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia, and found "fourteen common threads that link them to recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power." Count all those that currently apply:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism.
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. Controlled mass media..
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and government intertwined.
9. Corporate power is protected.
10. Labor power suppressed.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist here...how many did you count? Ten? A even dozen?
The most recent highway appropriation bill was so filled with ‘pork', despite Tom Delay's public assertions that nothing more could be cut, that it amounted to nothing more than a corporate feed trough. Oil companies are being given tax credits in spite of record revenues. One Bush environmental agenda, the "Clear Skies Plan" is an abject sellout to the energy companies, in that it calls for scrapping existing anti-pollution programs in favor of voluntary measures to reduce mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide releases. It does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the principle cause of global warming, and allows coal-fired power plants to avoid forced clean up costs. Of course Bush doesn't believe in global warming - or evolution - the recent record hurricane season notwithstanding.
Prior to the Clear Skies initiative, the EPA had proposed more stringent terms for reducing air pollution, which would have prevented 19,000 premature deaths and saved $154 billion in annual health care costs by 2020.
A year ago, as a part of the "Healthy Forests Program," the 30 year-old National Forest Management Act was re-written, making it easier to clear-cut old growth forests and drill and graze in formerly protected areas. Clear-cutting environmentally-sensitive habitats as a means to prevent forest fires is something that sounds a lot like the Vietnam-era slogan, "in order to save the village, we had to destroy it." Unbelievably, the new rules also allow "independent audits" to be conducted by the timber companies themselves, which is very much a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton used to be a lobbyist for the timber industry.
A current proposal will exempt forest management plans from public review. These plans are in essence the owner's manual or operational guidebook for each unit administered by the Forest Service. The National Environmental Policy Act is a law that gives concerned citizens rights to comment on environmental policies. The proposed exemptions would greatly reduce information available to the public, and it would make difficult or impossible for the public to provide comments, objections or alternatives to Forest Service proposals. It also would make it easier for Forest Service officials to ignore the impacts of logging and other development on an area's wildlife, watersheds, recreational uses (including hunting and fishing), and cultural resources. Our national assets are being given away, quite literally, for fractions of a penny on the dollar. Remember, Enron was Bush's largest contributor in 2000.
The Reinvest Foreign Earnings provision in last year's laughably-named American Jobs Creation Act, was nothing more than a corporate tax gimme to drug and other big corporate contributors to Bush's campaign. In essence, companies that move operations off-shore get to pay 5% tax, while those that remain in the good ol' US of A get to pay 35%. How is this creating jobs here?
Bush's tax policies have only benefitted the wealthiest 2% of our population. Gone is the budget surplus of $122 billion at the end of the Clinton administration, replaced with current annual deficit of $317 billion, primarily as a result of the Iraq war. Of course, the administration's spin is that this year's deficit is supposed to be 96 billion less than last year's record budget shortfall of 412.55 billion dollars. Whoopee. I certainly feel better. Guess I'll go out and charge something....
According to the conservative Brookings Institute: "The U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In the absence of significant policy changes, federal government deficits are expected to total around $5 trillion over the next decade. Such deficits will cause U.S. government debt, relative to GDP, to rise significantly. Thereafter, as the baby boomers increasingly reach retirement age and claim Social Security and Medicare benefits, government deficits and debt are likely to grow even more sharply. The scale of the nation's projected budgetary imbalances is now so large that the risk of severe adverse consequences must be taken very seriously, although it is impossible to predict when such consequences may occur."
Who is Bush & Co. kidding with regard to this immense deficit? Who will pay for it - besides you and me - or our kids? We got a $300 bribe, but only the wealthy and big corporations are the better for these tax breaks. No, these tax cuts have not created jobs, spurred growth or increased industrial investment. Was the administration stupid or lying when these were proposed? Of course, some cuts are proposed. Over a ten-year period, the GOP is proposing a cut of $9.7 billion in veterans' health care and other benefits, including reducing cash payments to veterans disabled by military service. (Iraqi war veterans, you're entirely welcome.) But with Dick Cheney in charge, we'll only see more of our tax dollars shoveled out to the super rich.
H. L. Mencken, the humorist, social critic and long-time editor of the Baltimore Sun, best summed it up over a half-century ago: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Or, if you prefer Groucho Marx: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." I don't know of a better way to describe Bush's policies both domestically and in the Middle-East.
Will Bush get impeached? I seriously doubt it, given the Republican majority in Congress - and the fact that Cheney is ample "insurance" against it. I could go on, but even I'm getting bored....and I need a drink. A double....
Cheers
Great thread...but its fact check time for some....
Have any of y'all seen this? From CapitolHillBlue.com, the oldest internet news service....
----
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've [Doug Thompson] talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the ???? that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
----
Wow....of course, I can't confirm this quote and Mr. Thompson states that he would never 'burn' any of his sources, but if it IS true....
For now, put aside all personal beliefs or party affiliation. It doesn't matter if you are a red- or blue-stater, liberal or conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or even Druid (Reformed). It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq... or not. For centuries, The Constitution has stood as the defining document of our government, and the ultimate source to determine if something is legal or right.
From the POTUS on down, every federal official who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What really ticks me off about the neo-cons - that is, despite the outright incompetence, blatant cronyism, and deplorable hypocrisy - is that whenever any aspect of W's agenda is challenged, we get statements like "red-on-red" or "commisar", or even the stupid "they must hate freedom" comment, all while they wrap themselves in a flag. "If you don't support us you must be a terrorist" is one of the more moronic replies.
In 1935, Sinclair Lewis wrote a satirical, best-seller titled "It Can't Happen Here" about a populist President becoming dictator in order to "save" the country from welfare cheats, sex, crime, the liberal press, etc., all while wrapped up in a patriotic, red-white-and-blue outfit.
Lewis's book chronicles the fictional rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic, southern Senator who becomes President against the protests of FDR and some of America's saner citizens. Though always proclaiming the common man, Windrip is on the take of big business (i.e. Corpos in the book), is favored by religious extremists, and though he talks of freedom and prosperity for all, he eventually becomes the ultimate crony capitalist. Championed by the Hearst newspaper syndicate (the 1930's equivalent of FOX News), he nullifies both Congress and the Supreme Court, before stripping people of their civil liberties and installing an Orwellian dictatorship.
Well, it *could* happen here. It *is* happening here. "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present he truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public."– Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944
As if in opposition to the Founding Fathers of this nation, there is more than ample evidence that W&Co. is trying to set up a fascist state. And the damage that the Repugs are doing to this country will be long-lasting indeed. The American Heritage Dictionary defines this as "a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government, usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. Go to Cornell University's website for another definition: "a philosophy or system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."
My own Webster's Unabridged states that it is: "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalist policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Any of this sound vaguely familiar with regard to the current antics of those in charge in Washington? Going beyond these definitions, take a look at the research of Laurence W. Britt (former exec with Allied Chemical, Mobil and Xerox) published two years ago in Free Inquiry magazine. Britt analyzed seven fascist regimes, including Nazi Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Spain under Franco, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia, and found "fourteen common threads that link them to recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power." Count all those that currently apply:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism.
2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. Controlled mass media..
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and government intertwined.
9. Corporate power is protected.
10. Labor power suppressed.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist here...how many did you count? Ten? A even dozen?
The most recent highway appropriation bill was so filled with ‘pork', despite Tom Delay's public assertions that nothing more could be cut, that it amounted to nothing more than a corporate feed trough. Oil companies are being given tax credits in spite of record revenues. One Bush environmental agenda, the "Clear Skies Plan" is an abject sellout to the energy companies, in that it calls for scrapping existing anti-pollution programs in favor of voluntary measures to reduce mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide releases. It does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the principle cause of global warming, and allows coal-fired power plants to avoid forced clean up costs. Of course Bush doesn't believe in global warming - or evolution - the recent record hurricane season notwithstanding.
Prior to the Clear Skies initiative, the EPA had proposed more stringent terms for reducing air pollution, which would have prevented 19,000 premature deaths and saved $154 billion in annual health care costs by 2020.
A year ago, as a part of the "Healthy Forests Program," the 30 year-old National Forest Management Act was re-written, making it easier to clear-cut old growth forests and drill and graze in formerly protected areas. Clear-cutting environmentally-sensitive habitats as a means to prevent forest fires is something that sounds a lot like the Vietnam-era slogan, "in order to save the village, we had to destroy it." Unbelievably, the new rules also allow "independent audits" to be conducted by the timber companies themselves, which is very much a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton used to be a lobbyist for the timber industry.
A current proposal will exempt forest management plans from public review. These plans are in essence the owner's manual or operational guidebook for each unit administered by the Forest Service. The National Environmental Policy Act is a law that gives concerned citizens rights to comment on environmental policies. The proposed exemptions would greatly reduce information available to the public, and it would make difficult or impossible for the public to provide comments, objections or alternatives to Forest Service proposals. It also would make it easier for Forest Service officials to ignore the impacts of logging and other development on an area's wildlife, watersheds, recreational uses (including hunting and fishing), and cultural resources. Our national assets are being given away, quite literally, for fractions of a penny on the dollar. Remember, Enron was Bush's largest contributor in 2000.
The Reinvest Foreign Earnings provision in last year's laughably-named American Jobs Creation Act, was nothing more than a corporate tax gimme to drug and other big corporate contributors to Bush's campaign. In essence, companies that move operations off-shore get to pay 5% tax, while those that remain in the good ol' US of A get to pay 35%. How is this creating jobs here?
Bush's tax policies have only benefitted the wealthiest 2% of our population. Gone is the budget surplus of $122 billion at the end of the Clinton administration, replaced with current annual deficit of $317 billion, primarily as a result of the Iraq war. Of course, the administration's spin is that this year's deficit is supposed to be 96 billion less than last year's record budget shortfall of 412.55 billion dollars. Whoopee. I certainly feel better. Guess I'll go out and charge something....
According to the conservative Brookings Institute: "The U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In the absence of significant policy changes, federal government deficits are expected to total around $5 trillion over the next decade. Such deficits will cause U.S. government debt, relative to GDP, to rise significantly. Thereafter, as the baby boomers increasingly reach retirement age and claim Social Security and Medicare benefits, government deficits and debt are likely to grow even more sharply. The scale of the nation's projected budgetary imbalances is now so large that the risk of severe adverse consequences must be taken very seriously, although it is impossible to predict when such consequences may occur."
Who is Bush & Co. kidding with regard to this immense deficit? Who will pay for it - besides you and me - or our kids? We got a $300 bribe, but only the wealthy and big corporations are the better for these tax breaks. No, these tax cuts have not created jobs, spurred growth or increased industrial investment. Was the administration stupid or lying when these were proposed? Of course, some cuts are proposed. Over a ten-year period, the GOP is proposing a cut of $9.7 billion in veterans' health care and other benefits, including reducing cash payments to veterans disabled by military service. (Iraqi war veterans, you're entirely welcome.)
But with Dick Cheney in charge, we'll only see more of our tax dollars shoveled out to the super rich. H. L. Mencken, the humorist, social critic and long-time editor of the Baltimore Sun, best summed it up over a half-century ago: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Or, if you prefer Groucho Marx: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." I don't know of a better way to describe Bush's policies both domestically and in the Middle-East.
Will Bush get impeached? I seriously doubt it, given the Republican majority in Congress - and the fact that Cheney is ample "insurance" against it. I could go on, but even I'm getting bored....and I need a drink. A double....
Cheers
NorthernExtreme
Member
I think it funny how many on this board obsess over their hatred of Bush. Lets try something new: how about we bash Bush then try to suggest a better way of doing it. For every time we complain about what he's done, let’s try to figure out why he did it. When we call for impeachment; lets back it up with relevant information and legal support for doing so and leave the left wing emotional, political drivel out of it.
Do I like the idea of secret wiretaps, NO. Do I see a need for them, Yes. If I had information that the terrorists were using a known phone number overseas, I would monitor any calls made to that number from the US also.
I think a few good questions would be; why did Bush find it necessary to do them secretly. If the ability to get a warrant was as easy as the Democrats say, why were they not obtained? If these wiretaps were so secret, how did we find out about them? Is the same person who leaked this information the same person for the wiretaps being secret. Is it possible that information obtained during the taps required the secrecy in the first place (possible high level involvement).
I think this whole issue is devoid of some basic logic. Everyone who is against Bush has jumped on the first conspiracy train to leave the Station. Before you go out and make accusations about Bush (Our President), I think you need to ask yourself a few questions like the ones listed above. We shouldn't get ourselves trapped in arguments about a persons motives or conspiracy theories without first giving the President the benefit of the doubt. What I'm saying is; we should look at all the facts before we make accusations about anybody (even a Republican President).
This whole issue isn't more than a few days old, and there are people here who seem to be so knowledgeable about all the Legal, and Constitutional issues involved in this case they feel confident in calling for his Impeachment. The very fact that there hasn’t been enough time to consider all the possibilities, or review every Legal avenue or possible reason suggests to me that many of you are just too Jaded in your opinion to see past it (or want to see past it). The Media has again (MSN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,...) have all shown their stripes by refusing to temper their assertions with relevant fact and review of possible reasons. Many of you here have shown your stripes in doing the same.
I am truly saddened to see how we (Americans) are willing to do everything in our power to hurt a sitting President (Democratic or Republican) during a time of War (especially in his/her effort to win that war). I am in no way suggesting we sit back and allow any president to wage war on our Constitution as some of you here have asserted he has (please ask yourself why he ordered this to be secret). But please don't try to tell me that far too many of you have not gone off the deep end on this one. If any of you are truely as aware of all the issues involved to a point of calling for Impeachment with a degree of absolute certainty I'll listen intently. But the simple fact that Congress itself doesn't know all the issues leads me to believe the whole Impeachment dribble is nothing more than politically motivated venting.
Again: If these warrants were as easy to obtain as the Democrats (and some Republicans) say it was, why were they not obtained.
And here is a good conspiracy question. If you were involved in communicating with the terrorists (for what ever reason) and found out your communications might have been intercepted because the guy you had on the inside was subverted (because the taps were kept secret) what would you do If? What Political party has anything to gain by working with the Terrorists in this country, and who is making the biggest commotion about this while trying to wrap them self in the Flag and discredit the very people who may know about it, or bring it to the public?
I know that all sounds off the deep end, but ponder that for a while .
Regards,
Do I like the idea of secret wiretaps, NO. Do I see a need for them, Yes. If I had information that the terrorists were using a known phone number overseas, I would monitor any calls made to that number from the US also.
I think a few good questions would be; why did Bush find it necessary to do them secretly. If the ability to get a warrant was as easy as the Democrats say, why were they not obtained? If these wiretaps were so secret, how did we find out about them? Is the same person who leaked this information the same person for the wiretaps being secret. Is it possible that information obtained during the taps required the secrecy in the first place (possible high level involvement).
I think this whole issue is devoid of some basic logic. Everyone who is against Bush has jumped on the first conspiracy train to leave the Station. Before you go out and make accusations about Bush (Our President), I think you need to ask yourself a few questions like the ones listed above. We shouldn't get ourselves trapped in arguments about a persons motives or conspiracy theories without first giving the President the benefit of the doubt. What I'm saying is; we should look at all the facts before we make accusations about anybody (even a Republican President).
This whole issue isn't more than a few days old, and there are people here who seem to be so knowledgeable about all the Legal, and Constitutional issues involved in this case they feel confident in calling for his Impeachment. The very fact that there hasn’t been enough time to consider all the possibilities, or review every Legal avenue or possible reason suggests to me that many of you are just too Jaded in your opinion to see past it (or want to see past it). The Media has again (MSN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,...) have all shown their stripes by refusing to temper their assertions with relevant fact and review of possible reasons. Many of you here have shown your stripes in doing the same.
I am truly saddened to see how we (Americans) are willing to do everything in our power to hurt a sitting President (Democratic or Republican) during a time of War (especially in his/her effort to win that war). I am in no way suggesting we sit back and allow any president to wage war on our Constitution as some of you here have asserted he has (please ask yourself why he ordered this to be secret). But please don't try to tell me that far too many of you have not gone off the deep end on this one. If any of you are truely as aware of all the issues involved to a point of calling for Impeachment with a degree of absolute certainty I'll listen intently. But the simple fact that Congress itself doesn't know all the issues leads me to believe the whole Impeachment dribble is nothing more than politically motivated venting.
Again: If these warrants were as easy to obtain as the Democrats (and some Republicans) say it was, why were they not obtained.
And here is a good conspiracy question. If you were involved in communicating with the terrorists (for what ever reason) and found out your communications might have been intercepted because the guy you had on the inside was subverted (because the taps were kept secret) what would you do If? What Political party has anything to gain by working with the Terrorists in this country, and who is making the biggest commotion about this while trying to wrap them self in the Flag and discredit the very people who may know about it, or bring it to the public?
I know that all sounds off the deep end, but ponder that for a while
.Regards,
RealGun
Member
72Rover said:
One.
NorthernExtreme
Member
Hawkmoon said:
The Terrorists are not a Nation, Please apply a little common sense. Intellectual honesty goes a long way.
The Drew
Member
NorthernExtreme said:
And WAR powers were never meant to be used essentially as law enforcement tools.
There is no war with terrorists, we are at war with Bathists in Iraq, and the taliban in Afganistan, fighting anyone else is completely out of scope of the "war". If we are now "keeping the peace" in those nations, we're not at war, we're essentially police officers, and anyway I look at it, NO justification for suspending laws.
NorthernExtreme
Member
The Drew said:
Drew, unfortunately there are no laws written to address this war we are in. The president has to use the tools at his disposal (none appropriate for this war). Your assertion of, "suspending laws" is only true if a law has been suspended. To this point we can only conclude #1 A law has been suspended, or #2 The Law was folowed and you (myself included) don't know how it was applied. Untill we know for sure (not how we feel) it's unfair to judge.
As far as who we are at war with, the President has done a poor job of informing the American people of the larger threat. I can assure you American (and other) forces are on the ground in far more countries than Iraq, and Afghanistan fighting other groups (terrorists) who are trying to become the next Taliban (murdering Americans).
Regards,
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
72Rover said:
Oldest internet news service? Is that like the most distinguished brothel in DC?
Having read the original, all I can say is that you should have included the author's name and a link to the original source; both so people can see some of the utter tripe this particular author has published with a straight face and because the organization that prints and publishes it deserves recognition for it.
An element of precise language is important, as it is essential to rational and logical continuity and stability of thought, communication, record, perception, and progress. This is why scientific and legal language to name two are traditionally latin or derived directly from latin for example.Art Eatman said:I guess what bothers me about that rhetorical question is the idea that "war" can only be between geographically delineated areas controlled by some form of government whereby we can use the label "nation".
When an organized, well-financed group has stated publicly and at length that we have been and will be targets of all manner of hostile actions, I tend to think in terms of war. That is, they're happy to kill us because of otherness; they're willing to try to set up financial campaigns against our currency, and they're working to suborn governments of nations to work against us. While that's reminiscent of the Axis of the WW II era, I do not see it as necessary that only a nation can create a warlike situation.
When somebody comes against me in that manner, I'm pretty much disinterested in worrying about dictionaries. His fundamental motivations are of interest only as they affect strategy and tactics. I want to remain upright and breathing, and I'm quite content that he no longer remains in that condition.
If this present worldwide situation indeed is Fourth Generation Warfare, sobeit. We have no choice but to deal with it as though it indeed were the Real Thing.
Perverting language to suit a political agenda is inherently fraudulent. While the term war has been brought into common usage when referring to many things, to wage a war there must be a clearly defined enemy and a rational, clearly defined and tangible objective. A perceivable end.
Terror, terrorism and terrorists are as old as civilization. They will exist as long as civilization exists. For our government - any government - to suggest that they can somehow be eradicated indicates that they are incredibly deluded or, in my opinion being charactaristically deceptive. Terrorists are an ever changing list of names, groups etc, which will continue as long as civilization continues.
Of course they have a history of similar deceptions supporting particular agendas. Such the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", the "war on disease" and "the war on crime". They are intellectually unsupportable, and history has adequately proven this so to those who might not have known any better.
And like drug production, sale, transfer and use, poverty, diseases and crime, terrorism and terrorists are not going to be eradicated, or any such "war" against reach some conclusive "win".
The current "war on terrorism" is no different in any of these regards, and is simply a manipulative part of yet another political agenda by those who claim to be waging it.
Historically this is nothing new.
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
RealGun
Member
The Drew said:
You ignore reports of "foreign fighters" who enter the country and join the fight. al Quaida is part of it.
Policing action is standard procedure after combat operations cease. That is often signalled by a hand off from Marines to the Army or from the Americans' lead to the allied forces. Ultimately the handoff is to the Iraqis. I expect it is a "watch your back" or "who do you trust" situation".
The Drew
Member
RealGun said:
I didn't ignore them, I just said that they're part of the peace keeping mission.
I am still baffled that so many of you are so convinced that "terrorism" is such a great threat to Americans. That is completely overblowing the situation. Islamic terrorism has been a mild threat to americans since the early seventies... Just because they pulled off their biggest attack in history, doesn't mean that suddenly the threat is any greater. Things have been done to change the way our airlines are secured. And short of a nuclear device, there is NO other way they could pull off such an attack again.
I've said before that using the deaths of 3000 to excuse the taking away of 300000000's civil rights just doesn't fly with me... There is no great threat. The Axis was a great threat, The USSR and her sister countries was a great threat. An increasingly desperate North Korea, and it's nuclear weapons are a threat. Terrorism is just not in that league... Very minimal.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
This argument has been made repeatedly, eloquently, and convincingly for page after page on numerous threats. I believe the same as Drew and many, many others, but there is an element on this list who obviously disagrees. My guess is that if they continue to disagree at this point they are not going to change their opinion. Either they don't buy this argument or they are ignoring all posts by those who hold differing opinions. Whichever the case, we're probably beating our heads against the wall by continuing to inject what we believe to be reason into this aspect of the discussion.
RealGun
Member
The Drew said:
I believe the goal is to remove the fear, restoring at least the illusion of security. You see this first in attempts to remove people's concerns about air travel. As soon as we get frequent occurences of IEDs at random locations, the fears will be hard to dispel. Osama wins. You can't fight this by being subtle.
The Drew
Member
RealGun said:
Obviously the goal of the Other side is to keep the sheeple afraid so that they give up their liberties willingly, so that the government can keep them safe.
There is NOTHING stopping some idiots right now from creating hundreds of IEDs and leaving them out on the roads... It won't happen, Why you ask? Because it would be a sure sign to the american people that the terrorists have lost their presumed power. They blew their proverbial load in 9/11, so nothing short of another spectacular attack will do. You've got to get inside the heads of these people, you've got to realize that small scale attacks will make them look in their eyes weaker.
They've set their own bar pretty high. Anything less will not further their cause.
BTW, Osama has won when he by his ordered actions gets Civil liberties curtailed... Oh yeah, I guess he did.
NorthernExtreme
Member
Lets see, I turn on the internet and see American citizens having their heads hacked off, I watched as thousands of Americans were incinerated and crushed to death on 9/11, I watch our best and bravest (soldiers) shot and blown up. I remember the USS Cole (19 American soldiers dead), the Embassy bombings in Africa (several hundred dead), the first attempt on the World Trade Towers, Cobol Tower in Saudi Arabia, Anthrax in the US, Bali bombings, bombings in Greece, bombings in England, and who knows what else I'll see over the next few weeks or years (or what I have left out).
Now I read with horror as some here assert I'm the one who's wrong because I won't accept someone’s version of "reason" by not blaming Bush. I'm being told that because some Nation hasn’t claimed responsibility for all the above, we have no reason to think there is a larger problem. That somehow since terrorism was and always will be is some justification for doing nothing. And that somehow if we are just willing to put our fate in the mercy of our enemies’ things would all be better (the same butchers who hack the heads off of people on the internet).
I guess I truly am as stupid or devoid or “reason” as some of you here assert I must be.
Now I read with horror as some here assert I'm the one who's wrong because I won't accept someone’s version of "reason" by not blaming Bush. I'm being told that because some Nation hasn’t claimed responsibility for all the above, we have no reason to think there is a larger problem. That somehow since terrorism was and always will be is some justification for doing nothing. And that somehow if we are just willing to put our fate in the mercy of our enemies’ things would all be better (the same butchers who hack the heads off of people on the internet).
I guess I truly am as stupid or devoid or “reason” as some of you here assert I must be.
Northern Extreme I for one agree with you 110%. Some of these people would change their tune if their family members were lost to terrorist attacks.NorthernExtreme said:Lets see, I turn on the internet and see American citizens having their heads hacked off, I watched as thousands of Americans were incinerated and crushed to death on 9/11, I watch our best and bravest (soldiers) shot and blown up. I remember the USS Cole (19 American soldiers dead), the Embassy bombings in Africa (several hundred dead), the first attempt on the World Trade Towers, Cobol Tower in Saudi Arabia, Anthrax in the US, Bali bombings, bombings in Greece, bombings in England, and who knows what else I'll see over the next few weeks or years (or what I have left out).
Now I read with horror as some here assert I'm the one who's wrong because I won't accept someone’s version of "reason" by not blaming Bush. I'm being told that because some Nation hasn’t claimed responsibility for all the above, we have no reason to think there is a larger problem. That somehow since terrorism was and always will be is some justification for doing nothing. And that somehow if we are just willing to put our fate in the mercy of our enemies’ things would all be better (the same butchers who hack the heads off of people on the internet).
I guess I truly am as stupid or devoid or “reason” as some of you here assert I must be.
I prefer not to wait till that happens even though it has.
Just because there will always be terrorists,crime,drugs ect. doesn't mean we should throw in the towel beacuse it costs too much.
Have a good one, and Happy New Year to everyone.
The Drew
Member
You're not stupid, you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. You see these things as a WAR, rather than a law enforcement problem. Terrorists are criminals, and they need to be brought to justice. However saying that they are a great threat to the american people is overblowing the issue.
What is more of a threat to the average american citizen? Terrorism, or violent crime? We should look at things in their proper context. Those guys that went abroad and got murdered, knew there were risks. They knew that they were going into hostile territory. American soldiers know the risks as well. The 3000 that worked and died in the WTC, SHOULD have known that the building was a target. As evidenced back in the 90's with the bombing.
The point is that using terrorism as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, is a lame one at best. Terrorism is a minor threat to americans here at home. It should be handled like any other law enforcement matter.
What is more of a threat to the average american citizen? Terrorism, or violent crime? We should look at things in their proper context. Those guys that went abroad and got murdered, knew there were risks. They knew that they were going into hostile territory. American soldiers know the risks as well. The 3000 that worked and died in the WTC, SHOULD have known that the building was a target. As evidenced back in the 90's with the bombing.
The point is that using terrorism as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, is a lame one at best. Terrorism is a minor threat to americans here at home. It should be handled like any other law enforcement matter.
RealGun
Member
NorthernExtreme said:
I don't know. Perhaps some are just angry, not exactly sure why, and need a target. They either eat their children, blame George Bush, or reason their way through it.
The Drew
Member
PCGS65 said:Northern Extreme I for one agree with you 110%. Some of these people would change their tune if their family members were lost to terrorist attacks.
I prefer not to wait till that happens even though it has.
Just because there will always be terrorists,crime,drugs ect. doesn't mean we should throw in the towel beacuse it costs too much.
Have a good one, and Happy New Year to everyone.
You talk like terrorism can be stopped in one statement yet in the next you say there will always be terrorism.
I don't think we should throw in the towel, but they should be handled just like any other criminal that kills americans. They should be caught and tried, then put to death. There is no war... If you think it's a war that can be won you have clearly been snowballed by the spinmeisters...
NorthernExtreme
Member
The Drew said:
Drew we tried to handle the terrorist issue as a Law Enforcement issue for over 20 years and look what that got us. The US has gone longer without an attack on our soil than we did under the Law Enforcement program. Please tell me you're not suggesting another failed policy be resurrected from the dead.I agree with you 100% about our Civil rights (I fought for them and had friends killed protecting them), but I for 1 do not see how the president ordering secret wire taps on international phone numbers known to have terrorists ties as a violation of my civil rights (ask yourself why they were kept secret I think there is a lot more to that than you think). By your twisted logic (ie the people who were in the WTC should have known) the people who call Terrorists should have known.
I still can't believe you feel the people in the WTC should have known!?!
That's a sad my friend. Very, Very Sad.- Status
