# NSA and Bush??



## thcri RIP

After yesterday's thread of the three in the boat at first I was sorry I placed it. But when you think about it a lot was learned. Maybe it got off on the wrong foot but I think we all learned something. At least I did. So today President Bush and the NSA has been going through my head and my question is was Bush right in allowing the NSA to monitor approx 500 people?

Now keep this discussion to the policy/decision and lets not hit on any party or person of any policy and don't bring up the lies of any party. Keep it on the question.


edit:  In fact in stead of it being Bush, put the President of your choice in Bush's place.  Was the decision right or wrong and if wrong did the President lie?


murph


----------



## Melensdad

Murph, I'm one who really thinks we have way too much government in our lives, I'm not a big fan of the Patriot act and I believe government given the wholesale opportunity to spy on its own citizens is morally wrong.  However all that said, I think that govenment should have the right "spy on" its citizens under some circumstances when there is a _reasonable_ _level_ of evidence and _probable cause_ to believe that the safety of the citizens (_not the stability of the government_) is in peril.

Further I beleive that there should be laws to hold individual decision makers at bay so that they cannot unduely enact the powers to spy on their own citizens without the above constraints.  

So while I don't know the actual laws envoked by the President, if there was enough evidence to suspect the folks who were spied upon, and a strong enough belief to honestly and rationally believe they were a risk to the citizens, then I would generally support it even if it was not within the specific framework of the existing legal system.

I will also add this is a very slippery slope area!!!!


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> Further I beleive that there should be laws to hold individual decision makers at bay so that they cannot unduely enact the powers to spy on their own citizens without the above constraints.


How would those laws be enforced?  Could they be enforced to ensure that the president, etc could not abuse them?
Bonehead


----------



## HarryG

No one is more against government meddling in or controlling our rights as citizens more than I. With that said in my opinion, September 11, 2001 changed all that. I live in the State of NY and remember that day like it was yesterday. Watching on TV those planes crash into the two towers, people jumping out of windows, the fires. Just plain horror. 
If there are several hundred people "of interest" being monitored then so be it if it helps prevent another day like 9-11-01.
Many have already forgotten that day but something similar could very well possibly happen again. Next time it may be even worse.
I would strongly support guidlenes that gives criteria as to whom they monitor but the main objective is preventing terrorism acts. 
My opine.
HarryG


edit by HarryG. spelling


----------



## Doc

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
*Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_
_US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer  (1706 - 1790)

_I had too look up the quote to be sure it was correct.  It expresses my feelings to a T.
​


----------



## BadAttitude

If I'm not mistaken, this 'surveillance' has been going on since 911. IMO...Poor judgement with making it publicly known. Seems counter productive.

I'll agree with Bob...
_"if there was enough evidence to suspect the folks who were spied upon, and a strong enough belief to honestly and rationally believe they were a risk to the citizens, then I would generally support it even if it was not within the specific framework of the existing legal system."_


----------



## Archdean

Doc said:
			
		

> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> 
> 
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_
> _US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)_
> 
> I had too look up the quote to be sure it was correct. It expresses my feelings to a T.
> 
> 
> 
> ​


However it is now some three centuries since that was said and muskets are not the same as WMD's!



I would suspect If he were alive today he might very well add "_except for the greater good_"

Dean


----------



## Doc

BadAttitude said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, this 'surveillance' has been going on since 911. IMO...Poor judgement with making it publicly known. Seems counter productive.
> 
> I'll agree with Bob...
> _"if there was enough evidence to suspect the folks who were spied upon, and a strong enough belief to honestly and rationally believe they were a risk to the citizens, then I would generally support it even if it was not within the specific framework of the existing legal system."_



Does that imply our federal courts can't be trusted.  Or that red tape slows down the process so much that they need a work around?  If either of those are the case, they have had ample time since 911 to fix it.  To bypass the system is not the right answer IMHO.


----------



## Av8r3400

Doc said:
			
		

> ... Does that imply our federal courts can't be trusted. ...


 
Yes, it does. Just look at some of the decisions of the 9th circuit in California.

As far as the survelance goes, what was monitered was international calls that were made to the United States from KNOWN terror affiliates abroad. I have no problem with this. 

This was not the NSA listening in on you talking to your wife on the phone at work. Which is exactly what the NYT is trying to spin this story into along with giving free advertisement to the "journalist's" book which is on this subject and will be in stores in the next couple weeks. 

As far as I'm concerned, this "journalist" is guilty of a treasonist breach of the espionage act and should be brought up on charges. Freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are great things and should be valued, but, this was irresponsible profiteering on the part of the "journalist" and should be looked at as such.


----------



## BadAttitude

Doc said:
			
		

> Does that imply our federal courts can't be trusted. Or that red tape slows down the process so much that they need a work around? If either of those are the case, they have had ample time since 911 to fix it. To bypass the system is not the right answer IMHO.


The Fed Gov as a whole can't be trusted. History proves that. I'd rather see a work around then nothing done at all.


----------



## Doc

But it's the fereral government doing the workaround.  So this means there are no rules.  Monitor anything anyone anytime they choose.  No one to answer to.  No wonder they want to keep it going.  I'm surprised so many here are for it.


----------



## BadAttitude

Doc said:
			
		

> So this means there are no rules. Monitor anything anyone anytime they choose. No one to answer to.


There are rules, but that's the whole problem Doc...the feds act like they are above the law and don't have to follow the very rules they impose. I do believe that there should be accountability, but in the interest of the publics safety...if spying is what it takes to rid this country of terrorists, so be it. There are so many tricks up the sleeves of these misfits, how do you even know who's who anymore? Your next door neighbor might even be one...I'm sure you've heard of 'traitor' 

That's why I would agree with the surveillance...beyond that, I wouldn't.


----------



## Michael

Av8r_2230 said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, this "journalist" is guilty of a treasonist breach of the espionage act and should be brought up on charges. Freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are great things and should be valued, but, this was irresponsible profiteering on the part of the "journalist" and should be looked at as such.


 
Why is this journalist guilty of treason, when the others had the news and sat on it for a year. When the law is violated it is violated. The law applies equal to everyone and no one is exempt. The president made a mistake in allowing wiretapping without following the law and getting a court order. It saddens me to see this as a retired miltary that I defended the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. 

I thought after all the problems that Nixon had that Presidents would at least make sure they followed the law to letter but sadly we have had 2 in recent times that don't.


----------



## v8dave

Doc said:
			
		

> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_
> _US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer  (1706 - 1790)
> 
> _I had too look up the quote to be sure it was correct.  It expresses my feelings to a T.
> ​



Doc, you are right on.  This is even more important after 9/11.  Have you ever seen any government give something back to the people after they have taken it away?


----------



## v8dave

Are you folks aware that the courts have allowed the government to stop implementation of some technologies into the phone network because it would make wire taps impossible?

I find it absolutely ludicrous that when new technology is inserted into the phone companies' networks that they have to install the ability to implement the equivalent of a wire tap into the network.  With some signaling systems this has stopped the implementation of some of the fancier schemes.

Somehow, it has gotten into the mindset of the government that conversations between two people, face to face, are private.  But that conversations enabled by third parties (the phone companies) are not private--ever!


----------



## Gwill

Michael said:
			
		

> Why is this journalist guilty of treason, when the others had the news and sat on it for a year. When the law is violated it is violated. The law applies equal to everyone and no one is exempt. The president made a mistake in allowing wiretapping without following the law and getting a court order. It saddens me to see this as a retired miltary that I defended the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
> 
> I thought after all the problems that Nixon had that Presidents would at least make sure they followed the law to letter but sadly we have had 2 in recent times that don't.


 
Why is it that some think it is a good idea for some unelected judge to decide whether a wire tap should be permitted, but our elected commander in chief can't?

The answer is readily apparent. The commander in chief isn't of their political party!

All this opposition only points to their political bias. Where were these guys when their guys were trampelling our Constitution?


----------



## Melensdad

Gwill said:
			
		

> Why is it that some think it is a good idea for some unelected judge to decide whether a wire tap should be permitted, but our elected commander in chief can't?
> 
> The answer is readily apparent. The commander in chief isn't of their political party!
> 
> All this opposition only points to their political bias. Where were these guys when their guys were trampelling our Constitution?



I'm a right wing nutcase with a libertarian streak running about a mile wide through me, but I oppose the President having this power.  It strikes me that we have a Constitution and system of government that has established a division of power and a series of checks and balances between the bodies of government.  To suggest that we eliminate those is to trample the constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers.  

JMHO


----------



## OkeeDon

Gwill said:
			
		

> Why is it that some think it is a good idea for some unelected judge to decide whether a wire tap should be permitted...


Who are you referring to when you say. "some"? There are people of all political persuasions and members of both political parties who support this. This FISA law that requires this was passed in 1994 by the Republican controlled Congress. Based on these facts, I have to assume that the "some" to whom you are referring are Republicans.





> ...but our elected commander in chief can't?


Being elected has nothing to do with it. Our government, under our Constitution, is a government of checks and balances. The Administrative and Legislative branches are elected, but the Judicial branch is appointed. That's what the Consitution calls for, so I assume if you don't like it, then you don't support a strict interpretation of the Constitution.





> The answer is readily apparent. The commander in chief isn't of their political party!


Now, I'm really confused. We established above that the people who passed this law were Republicans, and the last time I checked, the President was a member of the same political party. Has the President switched parties? He may have; he's flip-flopped on so many other issues.





> All this opposition only points to their political bias. Where were these guys when their guys were trampelling our Constitution?


Again, who are "these guys"? I don't see anyone trampelling the Constitution except the President, who is ignoring the laws established under that Constitution, and people who support the President in his illegal activities. I can make an exception for people who think they should support the President as he breaks the law, but are simply misinformed or misguided.


----------



## Draddogs

Wow youi guys sure know how to read something into all of this which I have seen no proof of wrong duing except from the mouths of those whom oppose this president whhether it be in here or in the political arena. 

Can anyone of you really believe that there has been time yo check on individual Americans. As I see it they have been interested in incoming and those spoken to here in ths country. The idea of wholesale spying on you and I is a falicy. If you have suddenly spoken with some heeb you may be up for the spy eye of NSA but I am sure you don't qualify for having a girlfriend on the side to bring that kind of interest.
Seems that we get all worked up about a whole lot of nothing from someones factless accusations(New York Times). It will be discussed behind closed doors and the finale results will never be known by you or I.


----------



## Melensdad

Actually Ernie, I think it is a matter of *principle* more than a matter of fact.  If we conduct ourselves in such a manner as to present no conflict of interest then there is never a need to have our actions brought to question.  The founding fathers set forth a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers.  They did this for a reason.  What I find most troubling is that folks who consider them selves to be 'true conservatives' are willing to select parts of our constitution and parts of our original laws and suggest that they can be ignored.  Then, those same conservatives scream foul when the liberals attempt to change laws, particularly thorugh judicial action.  That is an amazing double standard that I, as a conservative, simply cannot stomach.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> Actually Ernie, I think it is a matter of *principle* more than a matter of fact.  If we conduct ourselves in such a manner as to present no conflict of interest then there is never a need to have our actions brought to question.  The founding fathers set forth a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers.  They did this for a reason.  What I find most troubling is that folks who consider them selves to be 'true conservatives' are willing to select parts of our constitution and parts of our original laws and suggest that they can be ignored.  Then, those same conservatives scream foul when the liberals attempt to change laws, particularly thorugh judicial action.  That is an amazing double standard that I, as a conservative, simply cannot stomach.


I think that is the first time I have agreed with everything you have written in a post in the debate and discussion thread!  Thanks Bob.
Bonehead


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> I think that is the first time I have agreed with everything you have written in a post in the debate and discussion thread! Thanks Bob.
> Bonehead



Better change your tag line Bone!


----------



## Michael

Draddogs said:
			
		

> Wow youi guys sure know how to read something into all of this which I have seen no proof of wrong duing except from the mouths of those whom oppose this president whhether it be in here or in the political arena.
> 
> Can anyone of you really believe that there has been time yo check on individual Americans. As I see it they have been interested in incoming and those spoken to here in ths country. The idea of wholesale spying on you and I is a falicy. If you have suddenly spoken with some heeb you may be up for the spy eye of NSA but I am sure you don't qualify for having a girlfriend on the side to bring that kind of interest.
> Seems that we get all worked up about a whole lot of nothing from someones factless accusations(New York Times). It will be discussed behind closed doors and the finale results will never be known by you or I.


 

So Ernie,  My wife gets a call from her daughter in the Philippines and We have several times (she is a nurse and not a "terrorist" )  and they are talking when big brother is listening in.  

This IS a private discussion between mother and daughter, but something that is no longer a private discussion,  I find that very distrubing that my wife cannot have a chat on the phone without someone listening in.  To me that smacks of unwarranted invasion of privacy.  In particular listening in on a U.S. citizen as my wife happens to be without a warrant to do so.

The other thing is the fact that the President has verified the fact that he approved of the wiretapping and these are not "factless" accusations.


----------



## thcri RIP

I think this thread has gotten out of whack. Remember no party was to be brought into this. 

The questions was, Does the President of the United States, not was President Bush or Former President Clinton. From what I understand they both did it on some level or another. But I go back to the original question, Does the President of the United States have this right?? 

I think both Don and Bob and many others have summed it up pretty good. It does not make any difference Republican or Democrat they don't have that right. There is policy is place that should have been used and it was violated. Peoples privacy including mine and even yours was violated. So if I could, I would close this thread since it has gotten off the original question.

 


_boy am i glad i didn't bring Onstar into this?_


----------



## Archdean

Michael said:
			
		

> So Ernie, My wife gets a call from her daughter in the Philippines and We have several times (she is a nurse and not a "terrorist" ) and they are talking when big brother is listening in.
> 
> This IS a private discussion between mother and daughter, but something that is no longer a private discussion, I find that very distrubing that my wife cannot have a chat on the phone without someone listening in. To me that smacks of unwarranted invasion of privacy. In particular listening in on a U.S. citizen as my wife happens to be without a warrant to do so.
> 
> The other thing is the fact that the President has verified the fact that he approved of the wiretapping and these are not "factless" accusations.


 
Michael, Me thinks you are looking at the macro problem through a personnel micro-scope!!

Whether we like it or not, as this Society has exponentially gotten larger we all have been forced to give up freedoms for the sake of the whole!! I am old enough to remember when as an individual we could hoot and holler with complete immunity, now that is no longer possible and with an ever increasingly frequency even on private domains!!

Look at it this way, it is no different then going from a civilian status to a military one and we both made that transition! So will our nation!!


----------



## Av8r3400

Michael said:
			
		

> ...  My wife gets a call from her daughter in the Philippines ...


 
Is either your wife or daughter on a terrorist "watch list" or calling from a known terrorist location?  No?  Then there is not going to be any monitering.  As was said elsewhere all that needs to be done is to cite an example of abuse of this power and I will join in on the outrage.  Untill then this is a GOOD policy.  The world has changed drastically since this act was passed in '94, it's time to remember this.  Remember September 11, 2001.  Now, go google "ABLE DANGER" and see why Jamie Gerelic (sp?) should be brought up on sedition and treason charges, now worshipped as a 9-11 Commission Member.

Now, as to the comment on the "journalist" I made earlier, I stand firm on that.  This "person" was breifed by the whitehouse on this topic and DID NOT publish the article for over a year. The (horribly left wing and ANTI-AMERICAN - ProTerrorist!) NYTimes only decided to go public when this "person" needed publicity for their book.

Do you remember 9-11?  I do.  It's time we all should.


----------



## thcri RIP

Av8r_2230 said:
			
		

> Is either your wife or daughter on a terrorist "watch list" or calling from a known terrorist location? No? Then there is not going to be any monitering. As was said elsewhere all that needs to be done is to cite an example of abuse of this power and I will join in on the outrage. Untill then this is a GOOD policy. The world has changed drastically since this act was passed in '94, it's time to remember this. Remember September 11, 2001. Now, go google "ABLE DANGER" and see why Jamie Gerelic (sp?) should be brought up on sedition and treason charges, now worshipped as a 9-11 Commission Member.
> 
> Now, as to the comment on the "journalist" I made earlier, I stand firm on that. This "person" was breifed by the whitehouse on this topic and DID NOT publish the article for over a year. The (horribly left wing and ANTI-AMERICAN - ProTerrorist!) NYTimes only decided to go public when this "person" needed publicity for their book.
> 
> Do you remember 9-11?  I do.  It's time we all should.






Av8r,

Take er easy there!!  I agree we should monitor anyone that is suspect. However, I think the President did step out of his boundaries.  Remember we elected him, he works for us.  For him to go out and get the proper permission would have taken a whole 3 hours or so.  And yes, I remember 911 and I think the video of them planes flying into the World Trade Towers should be played on national TV at least twice a week to remind everyone of that day.  And we should not allow it to happen again even if it does mean monitoring phone calls.  Just take the proper steps.

murph

ps:  my trip to wisconsin looks like it will be happening in about 4 weeks.


----------



## Av8r3400

(*taking two deep breaths*)

Thanks Murph.  Okay, feeling better now.  Sorry for the outburst.


----------



## Melensdad

Archdean said:
			
		

> Whether we like it or not, as this Society has exponentially gotten larger we all have been forced to give up freedoms for the sake of the whole!! ...
> 
> Look at it this way, it is no different then going from a civilian status to a military one and we both made that transition! So will our nation!!



WOW what amazingly scarry thoughts.

To sumariaze, as we get more people we have to give up more rights.  So we have to give up our constitutional protections as the population rises.
Further you then state that our nation is going to be transitioning into a military-authoritarian state.  Hitler did that.  Stalin too.  Even Saddam Hussein did that.
I'd really prefer that we go back to our constitution, the one that PROTECTS our right and grants limited powers to the federal government while maintaining a system of checks and balances and reserves rights to the people and to the states.  Of course we've gone a long way away from that, but it certainly would be preferred to giving up a little bit of our rights  every time another baby is born and slowly transitioning into your vision of a military government.

I think your statements are further evidence that Presidents (I don't care which one) should not be allowed to authorize spying on American citizens *without following due process *and* having reasonable doubt.*


----------



## Archdean

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> WOW what amazingly scarry thoughts.
> 
> To sumariaze, as we get more people we have to give up more rights. So we have to give up our constitutional protections as the population rises.
> Further you then state that our nation is going to be transitioning into a military-authoritarian state. Hitler did that. Stalin too. Even Saddam Hussein did that.
> I'd really prefer that we go back to our constitution, the one that PROTECTS our right and grants limited powers to the federal government while maintaining a system of checks and balances and reserves rights to the people and to the states. Of course we've gone a long way away from that, but it certainly would be preferred to giving up a little bit of our rights every time another baby is born and slowly transitioning into your vision of a military government.
> 
> I think your statements are further evidence that Presidents (I don't care which one) should not be allowed to authorize spying on American citizens *without following due process *and* having reasonable doubt.*


 
Wow back!! are you not cognizant of a transition one must make from civilian freedoms to a military discipline? Micheal and I have endured a career that understood that and my statement was in the spirit of the same!!

I remand you to read our nations founder (George Washington's rules of civility found on page 74 - 78 "The Book of Virtues" A Treasury of Great Moral Stories [Simon & Schuster C1993]


----------



## Melensdad

Archdean said:
			
		

> Wow back!! are you not cognizant of a transition one must make from civilian freedoms to a military discipline?...
> 
> I remand you to read our nations founder (George Washington's rules of civility)



First off, we have a military that is NOT supposed to supplant the civilian leadership, therefore we have no reason to make a transition _from civilian freedoms to a military discipline!!!  _

Secondly, I've read Bill Bennets book and even purchased his Children's Book of Virtures for my daughter.  I would suspect that Mr. Bennett would be aghast at the twisting of the constitution you are doing to take freedoms away from citizens, further I think our first President would argue strongly that individual rights must be preserved.

You seem to be twisting the intent of the founders and giving up our Constitutional protections very easily.  Where do I turn in my guns?  When will you suggest I cannot practice my religion?  How soon before I will be harboring soldiers in a time of peace (or do you suggest we are now at war within our borders?)  I'm guessing that women won't be able to vote under your government either?


----------



## Archdean

Bob just before the lights went out I posted this in response to whatever you went off ruminating about!! And this was it!!

Please:  I am doing nothing of the sort Bob!! don't read words where there are none!! It's neither productive nor logical!!


----------



## Melensdad

Archdean said:
			
		

> don't read words where there are none!! It's neither productive nor logical!!


I am simply restating what you wrote.


			
				Archdea said:
			
		

> Whether we like it or not, as this Society has exponentially gotten larger we all have been forced to give up freedoms for the sake of the whole.  I am old enough to remember when as an individual we could hoot and holler with complete immunity, now that is no longer possible and with an ever increasingly frequency even on private domains!!


Those are your words.  You are saying we have to give up freedom. I simply asked when you will ask me to give up my gun or stop practicing my religion.  Because you said we have to accept, as a matter of fact, the giving up of freedom, and you even illustrated your loss of free speech (1st Amendment).  

So since I simply took your words and asked you a question about them, how am I being unproductive or illogical?  I suggest you are mixing true conservatism (Consititional Conservatism) with a draconian authoritarian type of state.  It strikes me that you are the one who is totally illogical in this discussion.  I would expect this type of talk from a liberal, who wants to socialize things because the inevitable stages of progress begin with the loss of property rights and lead to surfdom.  But you are starting from a position you claim to be on the right of the spectrum, but I suspect you are not actually on the right, but mistakenly are following some fascist beliefs that you intermingel with some form of conservative beliefs.  Just using your words and nothing more, I am supposed to cave into the ever increasing demands of the government simply because the society grows; logically then there will be no future freedom for future generations if the population expands.  The converse of this is that freedom will be gained if we reduce the population (didn't Hitler, Pol Pot, Baby Doc and Stalin do this, but while reducing populations they didn't increase anyone's freedom).

The fact of the matter is that our President, as put forth in the words of the founding fathers, should not have the authority to spy on the citizens who elected him, without following prior due process and reasonable suspiscion of guilt and reasonable doubt.  There is a separation of power to protect the citizen from abuse of power by any one branch of government.  Checks and balances.


----------



## Melensdad

Archdean said:
			
		

> as this Society has exponentially gotten larger we all have been forced to give up freedoms for the sake of the whole


hmmmm, seems I've heard something very similar

Karl Marx wrote: "_from each according to his ability to each according to his need"  _It is not a long stretch to go from what Marx said to what Dean said, and visa versa.  Both are referring to the individual giving up something for the theoretical good of the group.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> I would expect this type of talk from a liberal, who wants to socialize things because the inevitable stages of progress begin with the loss of property rights and lead to surfdom.


Dean-
Welcome to the left!  I have some extra "Jesse Jackson For President" bumper stickers and an extra copy of Hunter S. Thompson's book.  Should I send them over?  
Bonehead


----------



## Cityboy

Let’s put this wire-tapping issue into perspective and apply some logic to it.



The government at the local, state and federal level has always been able to search and seize without a warrant. This is known as “probable cause”. The definition of “probable cause” can vary widely. It would seem the average citizen should be far more concerned about this legal doctrine than the focus on wiretapping people with known terrorist links. 



The president of the United States does not have the time or a sufficient number of bureaucrats on the federal payroll to wiretap any significant number of American citizen’s phones at random. This wiretapping we are discussing, by absolute necessity must be strictly and narrowly focused on those most likely to have terrorist connections.



Remember, we were attacked on September 11, 2001. We all expect our president to do everything possible to protect us from and to prevent future terrorist attacks, including the possibility of a nuclear detonation on our own soil. The president is doing exactly what we demand him to do. 



No one here is more Conservative-Libertarian than me, however, once the logic test is applied, it is understandable and justifiable given the circumstances and the narrow focus of the wiretaps. When you stop and give the issue some logical thought, given today’s realities and the “probable cause” doctrine that we have lived under most of our lives, the issue is brought into a new light. Given this perspective, this president is doing the right thing.


----------



## Cityboy

Doc said:
			
		

> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_
> _US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)_
> 
> I had too look up the quote to be sure it was correct. It expresses my feelings to a T.
> 
> ​



Doc,



Is Franklin's quote really in context with the issue at hand? Franklin was referring to those who would remain loyal to the Crown rather than fight for their liberty from England. There were those who sought the security of Mother England rather than risk the possibility of death in combat fighting for American independence. 



We are at war with the Islamic Fascists of the world. I do not think the president or those who support him in the wiretapping issue are the same as the people Franklin referred to in his quote. Is this indeed seeking temporary safety, or is it doing what must be done to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign or domestic?


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> No one here is more Conservative-Libertarian than me...


...but apparently not very Constitutional except when it's convenient.

You know, I could accept all this rationalization if there was no other choice. BUT -- the FISA law exists, it wa passed by conservatives, it requires the approval of this sort of eavedropping, it's the law of the land, the Supreme Court has not declared it unconstitutional, and, according to all the reports I've read, it doesn't have very stringent requirements. Something like 19,000 approvals and 5 disapprovals? The important thing is that someone else knows what's going on, sort of like a second signature on a checking account. 

When an administration -- any administration, of any party -- decides they have to circumvent such a simple law, it should raise a red flag to everyone -- especially Libertarians -- that indicates the administration must have something they want to hide. And, that should frighten you.




			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> ...is it doing what must be done to defend the Constitution of the United States of America...


 If the Constitution is trampled in this defense, is there anything left to defend?


----------



## Melensdad

Cityboy said:
			
		

> We are at war with the Islamic Fascists of the world. I do not think the president or those who support him in the wiretapping issue are the same as the people Franklin referred to in his quote. Is this indeed seeking temporary safety, or is it doing what must be done to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign or domestic?



How can we to defend the Constituion while we trample the Constitution?  
I go back to my statement that it is more an issue of principle than anything else.  I have no problem with wiretapping American citizens.  I have no problem with domestic spying.  What I have a problem with is the LACK of checks and balances and due process.  I tend to believe that we should have placed the wiretaps on this very small group of people that were listened in on, however I see no reason why the process using a judge to issue a warrent needed to be circumvented.  That is the part that is simply wrong.


----------



## OkeeDon

Bob, great minds on the same track and all that sort of thing; we posted almost the same thing at pretty much the same time. One difference: you said, "...I see no reason why the process using a judge to issue a warrent needed to be circumvented..." Unfortunately, I do see a "reason", which is why I don't trust this (or any other) right-wing administration. I think that's the most basic difference between us -- my experience is that whenever we let conservatives have power, they trample it.

By the way, I never felt that way about Republicans prior to Nixon.  Unfortunately, there's still a strong Nixon contingent around, even is the current administration, and I don't think they've changed their stripes.


----------



## Melensdad

Well I don't see most of the current crop of Republicans, and certainly those who are in the Administration, as conservatives.  I think the current crop has drifted off couse and is clueless as to what a conservative really is.

As for my reason, I still don't understand why you would question it.  We have the judge there as a double check, without his approval I believe there should be no warrent, without a warrent, there should be no wiretap.  What is to disagree with?  Or did you misread (or did I previously misstate) my position?


----------



## OkeeDon

I probably didn't make myself clear. I don't disagree that they should have to go to a judge for a warrant; I disagree with your musing that there is "no reason" to circumvent the problem. If you want to set a precedent of spying on anyone without a warrant, then you have a reason to circumvent the judge. It's not a good reason, or a legal reason, but it is a reason -- a very nefarious reason.  I believe this adminstration is that nefarious.


----------



## Melensdad

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is that our President, as put forth in the words of the founding fathers, should not have the authority to spy on the citizens who elected him, without following prior due process and reasonable suspiscion of guilt and reasonable doubt. There is a separation of power to protect the citizen from abuse of power by any one branch of government. Checks and balances.
> 
> THEN LATER IN THE THREAD BUT IN A DIFFERENT POST:
> 
> I see no reason why the process using a judge to issue a warrent needed to be circumvented. That is the part that is simply wrong.



Don,
Then you misunderstood what I wrote!  And perhaps I did not write clearly.

I see no reason to circumvent the judge and the process of issuing a warrent.  I only want permission granted to do internal spying AFTER a warrent is issued AFTER probable cause is established within the confines of due process.


----------



## Cityboy

Neither of you addressed the "probable cause" doctrine which all of us have lived under all of our lives. 

What is the difference? Is there not probable cause in this case? Why are none of you who are opposed to this current wiretapping issue voicing your concern about the probable cause doctrine, which affects the civil liberties of all Americans? Care to discuss the constitutionality of that?

How can you be selective and state that the constitution is being trampled on one issue while ignoring the other?


----------



## Melensdad

Perhaps I glossed over it, but I have consistently stated that I believe we need to establish probable clause to attain a warrent.

However, I will never accept the points that Archdean laid out in his socialistic diatribe mandating I give up individual freedom to the group and allow for military government.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Archdean said:
			
		

> Wow back!! are you not cognizant of a transition one must make from civilian freedoms to a military discipline? Micheal and I have endured a career that understood that


Slightly off topic, sorry, but Dean can you please explain what you wrote there?  Specifically, what is this "transition" that we are making from civilian freedoms to military discipline?  Even during wartime, aren't us civilians supposed to enjoy the same freedoms as during peacetime?  Also, what does it mean that you "endured a career that understood that"?
Bonehead


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Neither of you addressed the "probable cause" doctrine which all of us have lived under all of our lives.
> 
> What is the difference? Is there not probable cause in this case? [snip]


I think it lies in the nature of how this eavesdropping was/is accomoplished. Several people have raised the point that the security agencies are not listening to ordinary ciitizens having ordinary conversations. That's only partially true. In order to listen to specific conversations between specific people, namely terrorists talking terrorist talk, they first have to determine which conversations involve those people and that kind of talk. 

Remember, if this technology is only used to listen to _known_ terrorists, that wouldn't help, much. First, it would be absolutely easy to get warrants to listen to known terrorists. Second of all, known terrorists already are aware that the chances are excellent that _someone_ will be listening to them. The only reason to listen secretly, and to be pissed when that listening is leaked, is because you want to discover _new_ people involved in  terrorist activities.  And, the only way to do that is exactly the way they do it -- by listening to _all_ conversations, not by humans, but by speech recognition programs, listening for specific words or phrases.

Now, that technology is use dby several nations, including the United States, to listen to _international_ calls, not (normally) domestic calls. The international nature of the call is what makes it more-or-less legal to listen in without a warrant. 

So. What does this mean? An earlier responder, on this or one of the other threads (I'm too laxy to go back and get the actual quote), mentioned his daughter calling from Manilla. The Phillipines are a hotbed of fundamentalist Islamic jihadists, so it stands to reason that calls from there are monitored -- _ALL_ calls. Then, if one of the key words is mentioned, even in an innocent context, the call is flagged and a human listens to it. They may hear you talking about your recent abortion or how many overdue library books or how you arranged to have your wife murdered or any of a trillion other things you could be talking about which you wouldn't want someone else to hear.

Now, I agree that this type of spying is necessary when we are involved in a struggle (I refuse to call it a "war" unless it has been declared as such) with terrorist agents. I agree that it is for the greater good.

What I _refuse_ to accept is that it can be done with no possibility of oversight. If this was a Democratic administration, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you would be even more paranoid about it than I am over a right-wing adminstration doing. Here's what you probably won't believe -- it it was a Democratic administration doing it, _I'd be just as upset!_  The same as Bob is upset about it, even though he's a Conservative.

The Supreme Court accepted that the President has the right to conduct surveillience on foreign agents, but established that he must do so through a system designed to prevent abuse of that surveillance. The Court, as part of it's review of this situation, stated that the inconvenience to the government is "justified in a free society to protect constitutional values."

Also, remember that the concept of "probable cause" is subject to review after the fact, and many cases have been overturned because there was not sufficient probably cause.  Law enforcement agents are well aware that their finding of probable cause will be closely scrutinized at a later date.  Because of the secret nature of the administration's eavesdropping, there is no knowledge of abuses and no possibility of scrutiny after the fact.  THAT's what is wrong with it.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Also, remember that the concept of "probable cause" is subject to review after the fact, and many cases have been overturned because there was not sufficient probably cause. Law enforcement agents are well aware that their finding of probable cause will be closely scrutinized at a later date. Because of the secret nature of the administration's eavesdropping, there is no knowledge of abuses and no possibility of scrutiny after the fact. THAT's what is wrong with it.


 
Would it be realistic to think that if an American citizen were falsely accused and charged that there would then be no review to ascertain probable cause? The president and the NSA are well aware that a single abuse of one American would not only be reviewed, but would also be fodder for their political enemies. Even if there is undeniable probable cause and proof presented that an individual arrested as a result of a wiretap was engaged in a terrorist action and caught in the act, would those opposed to the presidents actions for whatever reason, not engage in public review, legal review and political posturing in the news media? 



There are more checks and balances here than everyone may realize.



We must be careful in our zeal to defend our civil rights that we do not provide aid and comfort to our enemies and reveal secrets to them that would allow them to avoid detection and then enable them engage in another successful terrorist attack against us.


----------



## waybomb

I'm a pretty simple guy. If the NSA wants to read my mail and listen to my phone calls, they will be bored to death and may fall asleep, jeapordizing the security of the USA. So they won't do it, and if they did, they wouldn't do it long. 

Having said that, it warms my heart that my government is taking a fairly agressive stance in this terrorism matter. I say if we can go another 4 years without a terrorist attack on our homeland, then if evesdropping even has a minimal impact to that end, I'll buy an extra high end voice recorder for them, and support the effort anyway I can.

I will definately vote Republican across the board again. 

I'd rather be safe and evesdropped than having 100% of my civil liberties and afraid for my life every minute of the day. Can you imagine what it must be like living in an area where car bombs are as common as daylight? 

Thank you President Bush and the NSA.


----------



## Melensdad

waybomb said:
			
		

> I'm a pretty simple guy...
> 
> I will definately vote Republican across the board again.
> 
> I'd rather be safe and evesdropped than having 100% of my civil liberties and afraid for my life every minute of the day. Can you imagine what it must be like living in an area where car bombs are as common as daylight?



I'm also a pretty simple guy

I will definately vote Republican across the board again.

I'd rather be safe and HAVE DUE PROCESS AND A JUDGE SIGN A WARRENT so that if I am evesdropped then there is PROBABLE CAUSE along with CHECKS & BALANCES so that I retain 100% of my current civil liberties and still have the safety that the government has been able to provide.

I think we split a very fine line.  I am only asking for the checks and balances to be reinstated.  I do not believe that will jepordize any safety and it will simultaneaously protect our rights.


----------



## Archdean

"However, I will never accept the points that Archdean laid out in his socialistic diatribe mandating I give up individual freedom to the group and allow for military government."

Fact! I did not in anyway shape or form say that!! PERIOD!!

By insisting that what I said is some sort socialistic diatribe is akin to a lack of understanding of Human history and It's collective effects!

Whether you accept it or not you gave up some long held 'right' that you thought you had and took for granted yesterday just by signing on to show up for tomorrow!! 

Societies evolve and this one will be no exception!! Look around in your own neighborhood. Has any thing changed that encroached on your perception of freedoms in the last five years? But you say that's OK because the new ordinance (whatever) is for the better and I can live with the inconvenience of such and such because it will make it better for the common good!!

Let's quote it right next time and think about this on a level that rises above gut reaction!!


----------



## Melensdad

Dean, I quoted your words exactly, the fact that you don't realize what you wrote is more your problem than mine.


----------



## waybomb

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> I'm also a pretty simple guy
> 
> I will definitely vote Republican across the board again.
> 
> I'd rather be safe and HAVE DUE PROCESS AND A JUDGE SIGN A WARRANT so that if I am eavesdropped then there is PROBABLE CAUSE along with CHECKS & BALANCES so that I retain 100% of my current civil liberties and still have the safety that the government has been able to provide.
> 
> I think we split a very fine line. I am only asking for the checks and balances to be reinstated. I do not believe that will jeopardize any safety and it will simultaneously protect our rights.


 
Well, maybe I am looking at this all wrong, but I liken the current eavesdropping to the cold war spying on Russia. My personal feelings are that these terrorists, suspected or real, that have been spied on, are very much the same level of danger as the USSR presented in the cold war. Maybe more so. At least with Russia, we had a clear target with a clear plan to stop aggression, whether right or wrong, we had one. 

With terrorists, what threat can we provide to stop aggression? None that I have seen anyone propose, other than what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Right or wrong, we did it, and there have been no more attacks here. Having said that, are the two correlative? I don't know, but I sure feel safer today than 4 years ago. So spying, covertly, allows us to provide a higher level of prevention than involving some Judge, who may have political agendas not in concert with National Security. Yes, I am trusting quite a bit to my President and his security teams, and no doubt there are always political agendas in play, but I trust them more than judges. Especially when it comes to National Security. When it comes to common criminals, then yes, let due process run its course.

I guess it comes down to what it is you have to hide. If you are spied upon for criminal activities, the courts have vast history in dealing with it, frowning upon it, and otherwise barring any such evidence from trial discovery. But I believe fully that this spying of the 500 or more suspected terrorists / terrorist supporters was a military / national security affair. Thus a different level of required checks and balances. The balance is that if the spying is done willy-nilly, or data gathered is used for other than national security issues, the political aftermath could be very damaging to whatever political party's people authorized the activity. In this case, the Republicans. And maybe it is damaging them already - but not by me. I'm glad we did it, and hope we continue. It would be a deterrent of terrorist activity here.


----------



## Archdean

OK! whatever you think is fine with me! Perhaps another subject/another time/another place!!

Personally, I will defer to the greater good for this Nation facing the threats in the world which we now find our selves, rather than hang on to some Polly-Anna (SP) principal that no longer is appropriate!!

I wish not to have any more of our young men and women sacrificed in the hope that all humans on the planet are as ideologically correct and as understanding of protecting our liberties as some here have unyieldingly shown!!

Best of luck, hindsight will not be sufficient in softening the reality once visited!!

Dean


----------



## Melensdad

waybomb said:
			
		

> I liken the current eavesdropping to the cold war spying on Russia. . . these terrorists ... are very much the same level of danger as the USSR presented.
> 
> With terrorists, what threat can we provide to stop aggression? None that I have seen anyone propose, other than what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. . . So spying, covertly, allows us to provide a higher level of prevention than involving some Judge, who may have political agendas not in concert with National Security. Yes, I am trusting quite a bit to my President and his security teams, and no doubt there are always political agendas in play, but I trust them more than judges. . .
> 
> I guess it comes down to what it is you have to hide. . . . But I believe fully that this spying of the 500 or more suspected terrorists / terrorist supporters was a military / national security affair. Thus a different level of required checks and balances. The balance is that if the spying is done willy-nilly, or data gathered is used for other than national security issues, the political aftermath could be very damaging to whatever political party's people authorized the activity. In this case, the Republicans.



I totally agree with most everything you wrote, I highlighted some of it above.

Where you and I disagree is only on a couple small points.  *First,* I don't look at involving a judge as a security thread, they are a safeguard to insure the spys are not spying on you and me for some political reason.  *Second*, they are bound by secrecy and cannot release the information about federal warrents, those themselves are secret as well.  *Third*, while I don't distrust THIS administration, I don't now who will follow and I don't know IF the next administration can be trusted.  So I consider this an issue that is not limited to the current folks in office.  While I have nothing to hide, it the issue is one of principle and preservation of our constitution freedom.


----------



## Michael

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic, sorry, but Dean can you please explain what you wrote there? Specifically, what is this "transition" that we are making from civilian freedoms to military discipline? Even during wartime, aren't us civilians supposed to enjoy the same freedoms as during peacetime? Also, what does it mean that you "endured a career that understood that"?
> Bonehead


 

I think that Dean was stating, That because he and I "Endured" a military career, to this point I do not consider it "endured" but "Serving" and then after retirement I had to transtition back to civilian life.

Well that sort of misses the point as for the last 11 years of my military career I was a senior NCO in the Air Force Reserve and was for the most part(except during Desert Storm when I activated and was sent to Saudi) only a "weekend warrior" and so I had made the transition back to civilian life after I got out of active duty (after 12 years) If thats what you call it as the "transition" it was painless for me.  I retained the way I think on a variety of subjects and still do to this day.  I can question and actually think on my own two feet and never fear retribution. 

I find it difficult to say I "endured" something that I think enriched my life but others will think of it as a painful part of their life.  I am just happy to have the time I spent in the military and those memories alot good and some that stinked will remain a part of me for the rest of my life.

Most folks think just because you were in the military as a form of punishment, that it gives a person a special place, That doesn't buy you a cup of coffee unless you go back out into the real world and "Get a JOB"


----------



## OkeeDon

I never got to serve; doctors wouldn't pass me. At the time, it didn't upset me, because I was way ahead of McNamara in saying that the Vietnam war was a mistake.

Now, looking back with perspective, I missed a heck of an opportunity. I would have gone in as an officer after college and if I could have survived being fragged by a pothead in 'Nam, the "20 years and out" thing would have looked pretty good. I'd like to have that pension, now. Also, I think I would have benefitted from the discipline -- I've always been able to coast and still achieve more than many others; it's kinda scary to think where I might be now if I had developed better habits as a young man.

If I had gone through military service, I would hope that I would have come out of it as level headed as you, Michael.


----------



## Gwill

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I don't see anyone trampelling the Constitution except the President, who is ignoring the laws established under that Constitution, and people who support the President in his illegal activities. I can make an exception for people who think they should support the President as he breaks the law, but are simply misinformed or misguided.


 
I know you're too young to remember, but what would you have done when our President required ALL mail to our overseas service men to be censored?  Do you think that act was any more Constitutional?  That President was of your party, by the way.  His initials were FDR.

Those doing most of the yapping about this issue are the same ones who were blaming our President for not connecting the dots before 9-11 and are now in a snit because he is doing so successfully.

Heaven help us if your side ever gains power again!


----------



## Archdean

Forget it George!! 

A fun place to talk about anything is only apparently true if you can cut through the fog of self important arrogance and "I" will argue at all costs with an unenlightened vision!!

I willingly admit it matters not what one says nor how one says it!! Someone will tell you what you said and how you were wrong by saying it!!

What a fun mind expanding concept!!!


----------



## Melensdad

Archdean said:
			
		

> I willingly admit it matters not what one says nor how one says it!! Someone will tell you what you said and how you were wrong by saying it!!


Dean, perhaps you can slide your little inane attemps at insults past people on other forums, but on this one we see right through you.

What you don't seem to grasp is that what you wrote, yes Dean what you wrote, was very Socialistic and directly paralleled the father of Communist theory.  Nobody said it but you.  The fact is you can't seem to put a clear and simple sentence together and you probably just confuse yourself when you write your little verbal trists.




			
				Gwill said:
			
		

> Those doing most of the yapping about this issue are the same ones who were blaming our President for not connecting the dots before 9-11 and are now in a snit because he is doing so successfully.


George you are absolutely correct on that point.  You seem to have a pretty firm grasp on issues and I am puzzled by something.

Please answer me this one.  Why is it that so many Conservatives, those who normally defend individual rights, are the first & loudest ones to call to curtail it via the Patriot Act and Presidential Orders?  After all, Conservatives are 'states rightists' who believe in a weak central government and strong local control while the Patriot Act and Presidential Orders are both counter to the Republican Party platform and the core beliefs of Constitutionalists.


----------



## Archdean

"

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Archdean*
_I willingly admit it matters not what one says nor how one says it!! Someone will tell you what you said and how you were wrong by saying it!! 
_


Dean, perhaps you can slide your little inane attemps at insults past people on other forums, but on this one we see right through you.

What you don't seem to grasp is that what you wrote, yes Dean what you wrote, was very Socialistic and directly paralleled the father of Communist theory. Nobody said it but you. The fact is you can't seem to put a clear and simple sentence together and you probably just confuse yourself when you write your little verbal trists.




Quote:
Originally Posted by *Gwill*
_Those doing most of the yapping about this issue are the same ones who were blaming our President for not connecting the dots before 9-11 and are now in a snit because he is doing so successfully._


George you are absolutely correct on that point. You seem to have a pretty firm grasp on issues and I am puzzled by something.

Please answer me this one. Why is it that so many Conservatives, those who normally defend individual rights, are the first & loudest ones to call to curtail it via the Patriot Act and Presidential Orders? After all, Conservatives are 'states rightists' who believe in a weak central government and strong local control while the Patriot Act and Presidential Orders are both counter to the Republican Party platform and the core beliefs of Constitutionalists."

Bob , You have no intention of having a meaningful discussion and after your comments above, it should come as no surprise that niether do I!!

I have never personally insulted *YOU* and IMO you have just broken every rule you claim to honor!!

Have you no mirrors in your house?


----------



## Melensdad

Archdean said:
			
		

> Bob , You have no intention of having a meaningful discussion and after your comments above, it should come as no surprise that niether do I!!
> 
> I have never personally insulted *YOU* and IMO you have just broken every rule you claim to honor!!
> 
> Have you no mirrors in your house?



Dean, let me remind you what you actually wrote and what I actually said.  



			
				Archdean said:
			
		

> as this Society has exponentially gotten larger we all have been forced to give up freedoms for the sake of the whole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B_Skurka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmmm, seems I've heard something very similar
> 
> Karl Marx wrote: "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"  It is not a long stretch to go from what Marx said to what Dean said, and visa versa.  Both are referring to the individual giving up something for the theoretical good of the group.
Click to expand...



Now if I have insulted you, it was actually your own words doing the insulting.  And if you say I am twisting your words then please review your words again.  To argue that you have not taken a position that is socialistic, that embraces a strong central control (as in both Communistic and Fascist governments) and that opposes our Constitution and conservative thought is silly.  To futher state that I am not partaking in a meaningful conversation is also silly.  I am questioning the very core of your beliefs by showing that you inconsistent in your thoughts.


----------



## OkeeDon

Nice try, Bob, but give it up.  You're just wasting bandwidth.  They're just following their leader:


----------



## Melensdad

Don, as much as you and I have agreed in this thread, I still consider the right side of the aisle to be the more correct party.  I think it is drifting way too far to the left, and mixing too much non-governmental policy into its platform and its current leader, our President, is in no way a real conservative.  I'm not quite sure where he really sits politically, but as a Libertarian/Republican who is wary of a strong central power that goes unchecked and is not balanced by the other branches of our system, I can tell you that the ACLU more clearly grasps the dangers of Presidentail Orders than do the so-called conservatives who claim to oppose big government and centralized power.


----------



## Archdean

"I am questioning the very core of your beliefs by showing that you inconsistent in your thoughts."

You go ahead and question to your hearts content!! It was not me that devoted 39 responses attempting to convince yourself and your minions that I said what I did not say!!

You are too busy with your own thoughts to ever begin to understand anyone else's!!

Just move on Bob , For me there is no more there there!!

Best of luck to you!


----------



## OkeeDon

> I still consider the right side of the aisle to be the more correct party.


OK, but where _is_ the right side of the aisle?  (OK, I know it's on the right side; I'm talking philosophically)

You say, "It's drifiting way too far to the left", and I have to agree.  Many of the spending policies are to the left of the Clinton administration.  Central government control is greater than I recall under any administration.  Within the last couple of decades, the GOP was calling for the end of the Dept of Education; now it's larger and more controlling than ever.  We can both cite dozens of other examples.   As a moderate on the left side, I have some real problems with these policies.  Because of what I define as classic double-speak, this administration has convinced people that the loss of freedom and the pommeling of rights is necessary for our safety, yet they are doing a spectacularly poor job of actually providing for that safety.

Just today, I heard it announced that the administration will finally require states, cities and other local agencies to actually define how they intend to use their Homeland Security dollars before the grants will be awarded.  This was brought about because moderate Democrats and thoughtful Republicans in Congress finally pressured the administration to actually accomplish something other than hand-outs and local government welfare.  Before this, one of the applications for Homeland Security funds, sure to make us safer, was to buy air conditioned garbage trucks.

I don't have a problem with a legitimate conservative government, it's just that I've never seen one.   In every case they use their power to selectively create and enforce policies that support their special interest groups.  The problem is, that base is so disparate, the policies have to be contradictory.  

Democrats have also fallen prey to the same syndrome.  Instead of setting policies that favor robber baron coporate types or radical paranoids or fundamentalist religious types, as the GOP does, the Dems create policies that favor labor unions, non-working deadbeats and atheist fruitcakes.

That is, they did until the Clinton administration.  That bunch passed Nafta in the face of the unions; they reduced spending; they created jobs; they reduced the size of government; they supported law enforcement; and dozens of other policies that were more conservative than any GOP bunch has been in recent history.  Robert Rubin, who came from Goldman Sachs, was arguably the best Secty of Treasury since Alexander Hamilton.  I could write a book about other ways they were more conservative than the current folks.

Bob, the parties are flipping.  The leaders of the GOP are taking it down a precarious path that is aimed totally at placating their base.  Unfortunately, they're finding out it can't be done.  The base is made of of separate groups, each absoilutely selfish unto itself; none capable of cooperating for the good of the nation.  So, they're reverting to increased government control to try to force the issues.  In the meantime, the New Democrats (which are a completely different animal that Democrats of the Great Society) are becoming ever more conservative.  It's happened before in history; the parties actually reverse themselves.   It's happening again, right before our eyes.

I'm actually more conservative than most of the Bush Administration supporters,  It's the stupidity, blindness and general incompetence of that administration that I'm against.  They are sacrificing all the principles for which this nation stands for their petty gains.


----------



## OkeeDon

Archdean said:
			
		

> You are too busy with your own thoughts to ever begin to understand anyone else's!!


Dean, the problem is that Bob actually understands what you said better than you do, and he has wasted an enormous amount of bandwidth, in increasing frustration, trying to educate you. I'm glad he did; saved me the trouble. I agree with every word he has said to you. You should understand that when two people who are so philosphically divided as Bob and I are agree about what you said, it just might be you who is wrong.

I also wonder just who you think you are to tell Bob to "just move on..."


----------



## Archdean

"It's the stupidity, blindness and general incompetence of that administration that I'm against."

Just how high and lofty and all knowing is that perch you sit upon? Don!

You just said all one needs to ever know about what Don thinks about Don!!

Note: This is not a personal attack on my friend Don, He himself just did better than I could ever begin to imagine doing!!


----------



## Archdean

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Dean, the problem is that Bob actually understands what you said better than you do, and he has wasted an enormous amount of bandwidth, in increasing frustration, trying to educate you. I'm glad he did; saved me the trouble. I agree with every word he has said to you. You should understand that when two people who are so philosphically divided as Bob and I are agree about what you said, it just might be you who is wrong.
> 
> I also wonder just who you think you are to tell Bob to "just move on..."


 
Wonder away my friend, worship Bob if you like I see you and Bob for what you are!! Now If Bob in your eyes has a special status in the grand scale of life, fine with me!! 

What you just said is IMO, is what describes the pompous arrogant raw truth here!! In essence some members are above anyone else!! Get real and finially understand this!! We are men endowed with an equality and for you to think otherwise proves you a fool!!!

I suggest to my special friends that you both move on to a place where your self indulged superiority means something to someone!!  It sure doesn't mean anything to me!!

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you that!!

Dean


----------



## OregonAlex

someone here once said "we should always try to be civil to each other. We can all be friends"

to me it seems that this is no longer a healthy debate or civil or friendly. Especially when one side does not wish to recognize valid points from the other side.

so maybe just quit??   

-guy in sandals waving a white flag. 

I don't even care to respond to insults as a result of this comment.  Whatever...man.

Your Motivational Word of the Day is:

"HighBeam"


----------



## California

click link to see the cartoon....

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW12-21-05.jpg


----------



## California

Click link to see the rest of the cartoon.........

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW12-28-05.jpg


----------



## OregonAlex

California,

now you done it...   Just wait till they see that.. there is no hope of peace in tractor geek land now. 

ok.. who will be the first to open their big mouth about that comic strip?
place your bets.. place your bets...  around and round the wheel goes.. where it stop, no one knows.

Hey Doc,

Since you renamed the XXX-Photos section, in the same spirit how about we rename the Debate section to "Jerk People's Chain" Section.    or "Push Your Button" sections.   Or "Get Their Panties in a Knot" section.

no doubt I have had people pull mine up quite high in this forum.


----------



## bczoom

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> someone here once said "we should always try to be civil to each other. We can all be friends"
> 
> to me it seems that this is no longer a healthy debate or civil or friendly.
> 
> so maybe just quit??


Civility is a rule here.

Some of the posts in this thread have been very close to breaking that rule.

It's also ventured away from the subject title.  Can it come back to the subject or if all have said what they needed, let it be?



			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Especially when one side does not wish to recognize valid points from the other side.


In many political threads, that is the case.


----------



## Wannafish

"I suggest to my special friends that you both move on to a place where your self indulged superiority means something to someone!! It sure doesn't mean anything to me!!"

As much as I despise getting into this pissing contest, I feel the need to comment. 

ArchDean, you need to be made aware - and quickly I might add - that Don and Bob did exactly that. They moved on... and are here - and I for one am pleased to be able to be a part of a forum in which two people with such different political views can exchange words without insulting each other. 

If you don't like their opinions, by all means please feel free to disagree...but do not insult or attempt to inflame an otherwise peaceful conversation.

If you feel you cannot, or will not, abide by this piece of advice, as much as it pains me to say it, I feel it is you who must "move on".

RB


----------



## Wannafish

"It's also ventured away from the subject title. Can it come back to the subject or if all have said what they needed, let it be?"

Oh, alright...I said what I needed and will "let it be".


----------



## bczoom

Can someone please link to a site for me the laws that are being broken by the President and the NSA?  I'm not expecting the laws regulating the NSA are the same as those for standard wire taps or phone surveillance.

Although I haven't followed this as closely as many of you have, it's my impression that the President is/was allowed to authorize the NSA to perform these operations.

The one thing I do see is that the White house is obligated (under law) to brief the House Intelligence Committee of their authorizing the NSA to conduct this surveillance which apparently didn't happen.

Since this surveillance is occurring only on international calls, I personally don't see it as an invasion of my civil liberties.  Once you or any of your possessions have left the USA, they're open to a whole new set of rules and I don't believe you get the same liberties.  
If the liberties were the same, why is it that:
US Citizens still need to go through customs upon returning to the USA?
Your personal belongings that are with you are subject to search?
Any/all items coming into this country are subject to search.

No warrants are required for any of the aforementioned by the Customs Service or other departments.  
Does the Coast Guard need to get a warrant to search a boat/ship entering the US?  Heck, they don't need one anywhere.
Why can't the NSA do the same types of review of other things crossing our borders?

Especially after 9/11, it's inherently necessary to scrutinize what's crossing our borders.


----------



## Wannafish

"The one thing I do see is that the White house is obligated (under law) to brief the House Intelligence Committee of their authorizing the NSA to conduct this surveillance which apparently didn't happen."

Open to interpretation.  
I was told the House Intelligence Committee was informed in a special meeting with the President...though not in the forum of a regular Committee meeting; and members of the H.I.C. have stated openly in the media they were informed.  

If that is the case, it might explain why the White House isn't worried about "not informing the Committee".


----------



## Archdean

Wannafish!

I wholeheartedly concur with your statement above!! I had also asked a similar question privately to your board! in light of the above response I hearby voluntarily resign my member status and will refrain from any furthur participation in your Forum!!

I apoligise to all of you for bringing any discredit!!

The best of regards to all concerned!!

Dean


----------



## OhioTC18 RIP




----------



## BoneheadNW

Is there a smiley that shows a door being slammed on someone's ass?  
Bonehead


----------



## OregonAlex

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Is there a smiley that shows a door being slammed on someone's ass?
> Bonehead


its probably in the same place as the smily of the french guy waving a white flag wearing sandals.


----------



## HarryG

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> its probably in the same place as the smily of the french guy waving a white flag wearing sandals.



Frenchman (and others)waving a white flag? Hell, we have pics of them too!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BoneheadNW

Harry, I don't quite understand the caption.  What is this about "eager to learn German".  Also, can you explain why he is "knows how to surrender"?
Bonehead


----------



## bczoom

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Harry, I don't quite understand the caption.  What is this about "eager to learn German".  Also, can you explain why he is "knows how to surrender"?
> Bonehead


BH - You are joking... right?


----------



## OkeeDon

zoom, I agree with bh -- what on earth has Kerry ever done that suggests he wants to surrrender to anything? Back it up with facts, please.


----------



## thcri RIP

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> zoom, I agree with bh -- what on earth has Kerry ever done that suggests he wants to surrrender to anything? Back it up with facts, please.




Don,

We don't know what Kerry would have done because he has not been faced with that position.  However, if you look at history of him protesting war it does make one wonder what he would do.  It is just a cartoon and typicallly cartoons come out of what someone thinks or believes. 

murph


----------



## BoneheadNW

bczoom said:
			
		

> BH - You are joking... right?


No, I'm not joking.  It is an honest question.  Why would he be surrendering?  Why would he be eager to learn German?  The fact that Harry didn't answer me tells me that either he doesn't know the answer or he is hesitant to explain for fear that he will be compared to Kerry and come out on the short end.  What do you say, Harry, want to try again?
Bonehead


----------



## Junkman

Harry hasn't been back since he posted that, so that is a good reason why you didn't get a reply.  If you check his profile it will tell you the last time that he visited the site.... day and time... Junk........


----------



## OkeeDon

thcri said:
			
		

> However, if you look at history of him protesting war it does make one wonder what he would do.


Kerry fought in a war.  He fought as honorably as anyone else who fought in that war, and more so than most.  He went to that war from a sense of duty, the same thing that has led him to a life of public service, again, more than most people can say.

What he saw there changed his mind about that war, not all wars.  When he came home, he protested -- along with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other loyal Americans who realized it was the wrong war being fought in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.  Decades later, former secretary McNamara, one of the prime architects of that war, admitted it was a mistake.  Some of us knew that at the time.

It took guts to stand up to the government, and took guts to protest what turned out to be one of the worst chapters in this nation's history.  There is nothing in his history since then to suggest that he would not defend his nation, as would I, if we were legitimately attacked and the nation needed our defense.

And, I don't want to hear any claptrap about how 19 men, including 15 Saudis and no Iraqis, who committed an act of terrorism, had anything to do with our "need" to attack Iraq to defend ourselves.  That is just pure bushwa.

So, the notion of this man, who has served our country for nearly his entire life, even considering the notion of surrender is beyond funny -- the idea is disgusting.  The cartoonist is sick, and anyone who thinks it's funny needs a reality check.

The man is not perfect.  He wasn't my candidate (although he would have been better than Bush -- anyone would be), and I can find things about him to criticize.  But I find it repugnant that anyone could stoop so low as to make these kinds of accusations.

It's NOT just a cartoon, it's a symptom of what is worng with our country.


----------



## HarryG

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> No, I'm not joking.  It is an honest question.  Why would he be surrendering?  Why would he be eager to learn German?  The fact that Harry didn't answer me tells me that either he doesn't know the answer or he is hesitant to explain for fear that he will be compared to Kerry and come out on the short end.  What do you say, Harry, want to try again?
> Bonehead




I'm back. Long days at work. Ahhh you ask me why he would be eager to learn German? It was (the pic) meant to be a joke but I see now how sensitive some are here. Its all fine and well to dish crap out but when someone gives a little back in a humorous way we go into attack mode. This is fine if that what you desire. My answer to your question. Hasn't Kerry demonstrated by his prior war protestion and speeches that it would be possible he would concede to those considered ememies rather than fight? 
That is my view like it or lump it.


----------



## Melensdad

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Kerry fought in a war


Don, I'll agree with this point, it is fact.


			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> . He fought as honorably as anyone else who fought in that war


At best this is opinion, and it could easily be considered wrong.


			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> and more so than most.


Again, at best this is opinion, and many have sereved and been decorated for courage, leadership, and valor that show true honor.


			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> He went to that war from a sense of duty, the same thing that has led him to a life of public service, again, more than most people can say.


I have no idea of his motiviation, but again this sounds like a lot more opinion than fact.  As for the public career, many folks enter that for self engrandment.


----------



## BoneheadNW

HarryG said:
			
		

> That is my view like it or lump it.


I haven't heard that one in a while, I think it was in an episode of "Leave it to Beaver".  
But seriously, the thing that upsets me about the cartoon is that Kerry, whether you like the man or not, served our country in Viet Nam and is a decorated war veteran.  As Don points out:


			
				Okeedon said:
			
		

> So, the notion of this man, who has served our country for nearly his entire life, even considering the notion of surrender is beyond funny -- the idea is disgusting. The cartoonist is sick, and anyone who thinks it's funny needs a reality check.


As I looked back at what I wrote above, I realize that what disappoints me most is not what Harry posted, but the reaction from my friends here that the cartoon "is only a joke" and that "many have served and been decorated for courage, leadership, and valor that show true honor", implying that Kerry's service was not "honorable".  
*You* put *your* ass on the firing line in a war, any war, come home and express your opinions that the war was wrong.  I'll post a cartoon showing you surrendering to the ememy.  How would you react?
Bonehead


----------



## OkeeDon

Most people who have a choice in what they do, choose something for self-aggrandizement. There would be little reason to choose something that makes you worse than what you were. Aggrandizement comes in all shapes and forms; it could be fame, it could be fortune, it could be power.

Choosing public service, however, usually boils down to a couple of base motivations. One is willing to put up with all the barbs, needles, criticisms and cartoons in poor taste in order to serve, or in order to gain power. At least in the beginning, most people who choose to serve have admirable reasons. Very few, even the ones like the recent California representative who resigned because of more than $2 million in kickbacks, started off with such cynical motivation.

John Kerry comes from a culture in which young people are urged to public service. The same type of culture is typified by the Kennedys (most of who do their public service behind closed doors) and, yes, the Bush family. I don't question George Bush's motivation, even though his past history is more open to such questions, and, unless you have hard and fast evidence, I don't expect you to question John Kerry's motivations. Doing so is a typical Republican dirty trick -- throw out the accusation and then say, "Well, it could be possible..." I see it on Fox News all the time.

Regardless of your opinion of the level of courage shown by John Kerry in war, it is absolutely true that he showed more willingness to fight than either George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. You're too young to fully appreciate the Vietnam era -- you had to live through it -- but surely, you understand that by now, everyone regards it as a colossal mistake at some level, either in being there in the first place, or in the way it was fought after we were there. Those who supported the administration at the time were blind-faith sheep, much like the ones who support our attack on Iraq, now. Those who had the vision and courage to take on the government and protest the Vietnam war at the time are patriots and heros who had the integrity of our nation at heart.

Anyone who thinks that protesting the absolute boondoggle that became our Vietnam heritage is an indication that they would surrender in some future war simply does not understand the motivation. Few people protest a war that is necessary; the vast majority of the nation supported our efforts in WWII. However, anyone who does NOT protest a war that is NOT in our best interests is less of a patriot than those who DO protest.

John Kerry had a unique position in that his service in Vietnam entitled him to protest more than most; he earned the right to say the war was wrong. He didn't do so to become famous; in those days, one was taking more of a chance of being hounded by the FBI, put on a list by Nixon, or even being shot like at Kent State, all by incompetent politicians who were trying to cover up their own vast mistakes.

It took more courage and patiotism to protest than it did to march off like a lemming to that sinkhole of drugs and depravity that was Vietnam.


----------



## OkeeDon

I guess I need to add one more thought, in addition to the positive statement I made about George Bush's motivations, and that is I would be just as upset, and would think it was just as disgusting, if someone posted a cartoon about Bush that was also based on a lie.  I've seen plenty of cartoons about both Kerry and Bush that were funny.  As I said somewhere else, when humor is based on truth, it's a lot funnier.  The types of humor that are based on lies are equivalent to statements like, "Your Mother wears army shoes" (unless, of course, she does).  It's not funny, it's just mud-slinging.  It divides us, and it hurts the nation more than it helps.

A couple of people have hinted or suggested that because I'm critical of the Bush administration, it's the same thing as these scandalous cartoons.  Let me point out the difference.  The primary thing I have accused the Bush folks of is incompetence.  Read this morning's articles about how poorly the Medicare prescription policy is working and you'll see what I mean.  Not only is the program a disaster, they tried to set up the administration of it the same way they tried to attack Iraq -- on the cheap.  Pharmacists can't get the information they need; the phone lines are jammed; and states are having to quickly set up temporary stop-gaps to make sure people receive the benefit they're supposed to get (and for which they are paying premiums).

If anyone wants to take the time to read it all, I have hundreds of examples like the above.


----------



## ddrane2115

that indicates the administration must have something they want to hide. And, that should frighten you.>>>>>>

I did not have sex with that woman...............that should frighten you.


----------



## ddrane2115

How many realize that with all the talk of terrorists etc on THIS thread, the fed may have looked at it?  How many also realize that anyone with authority at the isp can look at where you have gone on the net and when.  

How do you think the fed busts illegal porn........it aint from watching out on the street corner.............it is from watching the net


----------



## ddrane2115

I decided to prove what I said.  I googled terrorist spying, tractorbynet..........and my own damn post came up...........about the baldfaced hornets I ran into 2 years ago..........


----------



## ddrane2115

Don, 

You get all mad and TYPE IN CAPS when somoene throws Hillary up for a joke, I dont appreciate your photo of PRESIDENT Bush with his eyes blindfolded.  In fact I see it as the dems trying to make him NOT SEE what they are up to.

If you are going to get all upset over Hillary, dont do the same thing to THE President and not expect something back.


----------



## OkeeDon

Sorry it bothered you, Danny, but when you look at some of the screwy things this president has done, the kindest thing you can say is that he has a blindfold.  Any other explanation would make him really look bad.


----------



## HarryG

Danny,
thats because there are two sets of rules here. One for those select few that like to dish it out and a second set of rules for those of us that are expected to take it and say nothing. Its the typical leftist attitude. 
I sure would like to meet in the middle but some people just want their own way. Thats why I will not even attempt to debate them as they only deny and sling insults and out and out are just plain rude. Its time some grew up. 
HarryG


----------



## Melensdad

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Sorry it bothered you, Danny, but when you look at some of the screwy things this president has done, the kindest thing you can say is that he has a blindfold.  Any other explanation would make him really look bad.



Much as I am not a fan of our current President and agree that he has made his share of errors, our prior President made a lot of stupid mistakes too, and he also disgraced the office of the President more than any President since Kennedy did.  Heck, Nixon didn't do as much damage to the prestige of the office as Clinton did.


----------



## ddrane2115

What bothers me is your anger when someone hits on clinton or his wife and you get all upset.  Me, I think they should have thrown him out of office on his butt with his wife when he got caught lying about Monica............he showed his true colors then.  His wife should have also thrown him out, but then she would not be acting like a senator in NY.

President Bush has had a rough time of it.  Our soil was attacked during his administration.  I am just glad he was in office then and not clinton.


----------



## OkeeDon

> I did not have sex with that woman


I guess I don't expect you to understand that a judge had already provided Clinton a written, legal definition of "sex", and that definition specifically did not include oral sex.  In fact, the original definition had included a paragraph that included oral sex, but that paragraph was specifically deleted by the judge,  This was the same judge that had already ruled against Clinton on several matters and was considered to be hostile to Clinton.

In other words, he had a specific legal definition that backed him up when he stated he did not have sex with that woman.  According to the definition that applied to him in this case, he did not have sex.

But, that's a complex explanation for a legal subject that requires some thought to understand.  The nation in general did not have the ability to understand such a fine point.  The simple folk said, "I know what sex is, and he did it."  According to their definition, they were right.  But, Clinton was involved in a legal defense of a legal matter, and he was absolutely correct.  He did not lie.

The real problem with Clinton, for which I have criticized him, was that he forgot that the general public could not handle a fine legal point.  It would have been much safer for him to assume, as I generally  do, that most of the people whom I address have a 6th grade mentality, and adjust my comments accordingly.  That's one of the reasons I occasionally use caps as emphasis , and sometimes allow a cuss word to enter, because that's the lingua franca of most of the people I encounter.

But, moral turpitude and lack of competence to govern are two completely different things.  That's the other thing I can't understand.  Clinton was a womanizer who was a superb leader and who understood what was happening better than almost any other president.  Bush claims a moral high road but is nearly catatonic when it comes to the outside world (he hasn't gotten the label "bubble boy" by accident).  The last time I checked, the president's job was to govern, not to play angel.  Obviously, I have a different position than you or many others on this forum, but given a choice, I'd rather have a leader who knows what's going on...


----------



## Melensdad

So what?  That was a disgrace never the less.  And what about all the other women?  Big deal that he didn't s_crew, have sex with, bump uglies, or whatever _you want to call it.  Perhaps the phrase with Monica would have been more accurate if the term "_yet_" was added to the end!

.


----------



## OkeeDon

> What bothers me is your anger when someone hits on clinton or his wife and you get all upset.


I have tried and tried and tried to explain the difference.  I've never gotten upset when anyone speaks the truth.  Hit on Clinton all you want about his personal stupidity and you won't get an argument from me.  Hit on him, or Kerry or Kennedy or Bush or anyone else with lies, slander and inaccuracy, and I'll defend them.  I've defended Bush against the same type of thing, on this forum.

What I am against is stupidity, whether it's Clinton's, Bush's or yours.


----------



## ddrane2115

If you think a bj is not sex, you are one very sad individual.  As for it not being, what a freakin joke.  it is, should be, and he should have been thrown out for it.  Some silly judge does not change my mind one bit.  

I want to say more, but must restrain, since I actually like being welcome on the board.

Clinton lied, period.


----------



## OkeeDon

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> So what?  That was a disgrace never the less.  And what about all the other women?  Big deal that he didn't s_crew, have sex with, bump uglies, or whatever _you want to call it.  Perhaps the phrase with Monica would have been more accurate if the term "_yet_" was added to the end!
> .


And, again, what the heck does that have to do with governing?  The man understands policy and the ramifications of it better than any other president in this century.


----------



## Melensdad

I think it goes to the underlying ability to trust someone.  

How can you trust a man like that, who is a blatant liar?  I can't.  Nor can I forgive him.

And if he understood policy so well then he would have shut down North Korea before it got to be this big of a problem.  What he really understood, and understood masterfully, was the power of the media.


----------



## OkeeDon

ddrane2115 said:
			
		

> If you think a bj is not sex, you are one very sad individual..


I don't recall ever saying what I thought about it.  I'm talking about facts, not opinions.  That's probably the problem, some people don't like to be confused by facts.

For the record, Clinton was stupid for ever getting involved with the girl in the first place.  Once he did, I doubt he did or said anything that anyone else on this forum would not have done or said.  He tried to cover it up for his wife and daughter, and anyone else in the same position would have done the same.  I can't fault him for that.

I can, and do, fault him for getting involved in the first place.  For a man who is so smart, he sure is stupid when it comes to women.  I, personally, have avoided that situation.  But, I can admit that if I had been in that situation, I would probably have tried to cover it up, also, and I'm willing to bet you would have, too.


----------



## ddrane2115

The real problem with Clinton, for which I have criticized him, was that he forgot that the general public could not handle a fine legal point. It would have been much safer for him to assume, as I generally do, that most of the people whom *I address have a 6th grade mentality*, and adjust my comments accordingly. That's one of the reasons I occasionally use caps as emphasis , and sometimes allow a cuss word to enter, because that's the lingua franca of most of the people I encounter.


Sir, I have a college education.  I also have one more important than that, called common sense, which I used in this case.  It tells me that clinton lied his butt off, to the American people, to his family and to the courts.  Some stupid judge does not change the fact that a bj is sex, one of MANY forms.  I guess other forms of sex, not including both sexes organs is OK too.  Just because he did not have vaginal penetration of Monica, does not mean it is not sex.  As for your interpretation of those you address, well I think most on here will be insulted.


----------



## ddrane2115

*He tried to cover it up for his wife and daughter, and anyone else in the same position would have done the same. I can't fault him for that.*


*He lied to cover his butt, period


*


----------



## ddrane2115

I'm talking about facts, not opinions>>>>>>

where are the facts about what is legal sex.  What did this judge use, his own interpretation.......there goes the fact issue..........

you are talking about defending the man because you think he was so right, when in fact he did lie, all America knows it, his wife knows it, his kid knows it.  what is the shame, he would punish Chelsea if SHE did this act out of desire or for the reason he allowed it to be done to him.

you dont want me to go further with this.


----------



## OkeeDon

Clinton and Korea has been mentioned a couple of times.  I decided to do some checking.  In 1994, the Clinton administration entered into an agreement to provide North Korea with oil provided they halted their nuclear programs.  Also included was for us to provide them with technology that would produce nuclear power without proiducing weapons grade byproducts.  That agreement lasted until the Bush administration decided to renege against the agreement and stop sending the oil.  In retaliation, North Korea announced they would restart their nuclear program.  Their primary concern was to get enough energy for their country; their secondary goal was nuclear weapons.  The interesting thing is that it appears they did not want the nuclear weapons so much for their own sake, but because the threat of the nuclear weapon proliferation was a good club to hold over the heads of the West in order to get help with the energy.

Now, one way to look at this is that the threat worked; Clinton caved in and gave them oil and non-weapons nuclear technology.  This led to him being called an appeaser.  Bush, on the other hand, is "tough".  He isn't going to appease anyone; let them be cold, they ain't gettin' none of our oil!  I call this sort-sighted opinion the "wild west syndrome".

Another way to look at it is that Clinton's policy achieved the goals we want -- North Korea had no need to develop their own program as long as we were willing to provide temporary help with the oil and a more permanent solution with the non-weapons nuclear technology.  Bush, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to run the risk of North Korea restarting their technology in order to "prove" how "tough" he is.  I call this the "sticking a stick in the hornet's nest" approach.

There are some people who claim that North Korea was cheating on the agreement and proceeding with their own nuclear program despite Clinton's agreement.  I've seen lots of wild claims and not a shred of fact; there are more indications that it wasn't true.

What it seems like to me, is that once again the "shoot first and ask questions later" gang under Bush simply reversed a policy because it was first advanced by Clinton, and they hate Clinton, even if he was right.  I call this the "cut off your nose to spite your face" approach.  It matches perfectly with the typical Republican tendency to shoot themselves in the foot.


----------



## OkeeDon

Back when I was programming a user interface for a major corporation's computer programs, we first came up with that "6th grade mentality" approach.  Regardless of the level of education or employment, experience taught us that most people do not carefully read a computer screen, rarely read the help files, and make assumptions about what the propram will do.  Therefore, we had to be very careful not to make the interface too complex.  If the people had been willing to carefully think through what the program was supposed to do, and had been willing to make the adjustments that a sophisticated program required, our job would have been easier.  But, we discovered that we had to make the program easy enough for a 6th grader to handle it; then we had fewer problems.

Likewise, my earlier discussions.  You have already proven me correct.  YOu are trying to take the things I stated about the legal situation and turn them into a personal statement about what I uderstand or believe.  The two are completely separate, and the fact that you can't seem to understand this is what defines the mentality.  If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## OkeeDon

> What did this judge use, his own interpretation...


The judge was a "she", not a he, and in this case, her interpretation became the legal document by which this case was defined.  That is fact.


----------



## Melensdad

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> The judge was a "she", not a he, and in this case, her interpretation became the legal document by which this case was defined.  That is fact.


It is a *sad* fact. It is also based on an error in her judgement, and one that defies the commonly accepted definition.


----------



## ddrane2115

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> The judge was a "she", not a he, and in this case, her interpretation became the legal document by which this case was defined. That is fact.


 
I guess if your kid was doing this it would be ok then, since "fact" has it that it is NOT sex...........guess the whole damn world could have a bj orgy and it would be OK..........Guess it would be OK since your pres and some silly judge says so. Guess what, that means they both have a mentality of a six year old............

Reminds me of a joke. Chelsea getting serious with some dud, her mom asks if she is having sex yet.................her answer..............

NOT ACCORDING TO DADDY!


----------



## California

Not addressed to anyone in particular, but I think it needs to be said.
I just finished a callup for jury duty. (not empaneled this time). The chief thing that sticks in my mind was the continual admonitions that each juror had to rule based on *existing law*, not their personal beliefs. 

This concept that standing law supercedes individual opinions is important here. It is perfectly reasonable to say Clinton was really stupid to get mixed up with Monica, I've said that many times. 

But you can't call the judge or even Clinton wrong for relying on the law when in court.

He should have apologised more after he got out of court, no question about that. But he had no obligation to use anything but the definition of 'sex' that the judge provided to him. Really, if we can't make this distinction there is no way to hold a conversation, the two sides simply aren't in the same reality.


----------



## ddrane2115

OK, then morally clinton should have removed himself from office, since MORALLY what he had done to him was disgraceful, dishonest, showed his true lousy colors, and wrong.

Legally he was cool, my point exactly.........lets all just do it, since it is OK, and you can be president and do it...............

The judge should also remove herself from the bench for being bought off, sold out, or just stupid, or is ok for her daughter to do this too...............

personally, I dont want the man near me or my family, and he would never get a vote from me for anything..........I have no respect for him at all.


----------



## OkeeDon

Here is the most accurate and unbiased account of the situation I have been able to find:
------------------------------
During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones’ lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:

 

*"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes: 



1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 

2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or 

3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. 



Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."*
A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow.

   The Jones’ lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition.

 Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way:


 

*"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes: 



1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky]; 



Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."*
Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.

 Some have argued that Clinton’s interpretation of "person" is wrong, and that makes him guilty of perjury. But his interpretation is reasonable at most, and arguable at least. Even if Clinton did misinterpret the most obvious meaning, it is up to prosecutors to prove that he intended to lie about it rather than he was mistaken, something that is impossible to prove. And in any case, it is up the to the prosecution to agree to definitions that are not ambiguous. The Jones’ lawyers could have easily eliminated any confusion by replacing the term "person" with "deponent and any second party," but they did not. They could have also asked follow-up questions to clarify anything – indeed, they were invited to by Clinton’s lawyers – but they did not. The whole incident is a classic case of prosecutorial incompetence.

 Others have charged that Clinton lied because there was another form of sexual activity – namely, the infamous "Cigar incident." This was when Clinton allegedly inserted a cigar between Ms. Lewinsky’s legs. But this fails the definition too. It defines "contact" as "touching, either directly or through clothing." "Direct" means skin-on-skin. "Through clothing" means skin-on-clothing or clothing-on-clothing. The Cigar incident was cigar-on-skin, which fails the definition.

 Critics have yet another argument that they claim proves perjury. For Clinton’s legalistic answers to be true, he would have had to remain "hands off" during the many intimate encounters he had with Ms. Lewinsky. This is extremely unlikely, especially since Lewinsky testified that Clinton frequently touched her breasts and genitals, which is within the legal definition. In fact, the reason why Starr included so much graphic detail of Lewinsky’s testimony in his report was to show that Clinton did touch her sexually. The sheer volume of the testimony is damaging.

 There are several defenses: Lewinsky may have exaggerated her testimony, or Starr may have coerced it. Another possibility, implied by Clinton himself, is that he did not touch her with "an intent to arouse or gratify." He may have been "hands on," but it might have been for his pleasure, not hers. In that case, his answers are still legally accurate. Again, this may make him sexually selfish, but that is not illegal. For critics to prove perjury, they must somehow enter Clinton’s head and prove that he did not intend to sexually gratify Ms. Lewinsky. Which, of course, is clearly impossible. Clinton may have even made a mistake by interpreting the definition too narrowly, but that is not the same thing as lying.

 The bottom line is that the definition crafted by the Jones’ team was deeply flawed, and allowed Clinton to make legally accurate answers in spite of what actually happened.
---------------------------------
Later, when Clinton appeared on TV and stated he "had not had sex with that woman...", he has testified he was relying on that same definition of "sex".


 Danny, you're going too far. Obviously, none of this has anything to do with your behavior, my behavior, our kids' behavior or the behavior of anyone else in the world. I'm sorry you can't accept the legal facts in the situation. But, that doesn't change anything. It's also the primary reason why the Senate did not remove Clinton from office during his hearing, and the primary reason why the actual impeachment by the House of Representatives was a colossal error -- yet another case of Republicans shooting themselves in the foot.
--------------------
More to the point, there have been few public figures, people who have risen to postions of responsibility and power, who have not had one sort of moral shortcoming or another. Two exceptions I can think of were possibly Nixon, who was too obsessed and too insane to be interested in moral depravity, and Carter, who was so straight arrow that he believed his lustful thoughts were a moral depravity.


 Prior to Clinton, however, the opposition understood their own weaknesses in these areas and chose not to be a pot calling the kettle black. Generally, the media, recognizing that the success or failure of a world power does not depend on who bedded who, also has traditionally given leaders a "pass" when they have uncovered dirt. Only when the act is so blatant that it can't be ignored, like Gary Hart, has it reached the public eye. Until Ken Starr, leaders were judged on their policy decisions, not on their personal lives.


 Ultimately, this is good for the nation. It's important for us to have good leaders. Good leaders are usually convinced of their own ability to lead, which sometimes makes them feel outside the norms of behavior. There is something in the male ego that not only drives the leaders to power, but instills a compulsion to spread their seed. The two are tied together in antrhopology, and it's futile to think that they're not.


 But, the Republicans, in the case of Bill Clinton, were more interested in their own petty agenda than they were in the overall health of the nation. They were willing to make the United States a laughingstock in the rest of the world (where such things as leaders' mistresses are understood and accepted) in order to prove a point which ultimately had no meaning. Bang -- in the foot, again!


----------



## HarryG

ddrane2115 said:
			
		

> personally, I dont want the man near me or my family, and he would never get a vote from me for anything..........I have no respect for him at all.




 Clinton Lied, Thats why he was *IMPEACHED*. Although there are those they will argue that as usual.


----------



## ddrane2115

If you think that number 1 does not include oral sex, you are very much mistaken.  She touched his organs to arouse him............looking at her I doubt that would do it for me, but she did, and he allowed, and he lied about it.  The part I dont accept is the fact that this legal description is so far from the truth.....dem's do that.........that it is laughable and those legal stuffed shirts and skirts should be banned from anything to do with the legal arena of the United States of America.   

And for the record, if he had said, yep, I slipped up, got involved in something I should not have, and had been a MAN and ADMITTED it, I would not think he is lower than the bottom of the earth.


----------



## ddrane2115

But, the Republicans, in the case of Bill Clinton, were more interested in their own petty agenda than they were in the overall health of the nation. They were willing to make the United States a laughingstock in the rest of the world (where such things as leaders' mistresses are understood and accepted) in order to prove a point which ultimately had no meaning. Bang -- in the foot, again!


You make some sense, then you trash what you said, and lose my respect for it, by blaming the Republicans.  When will you ever get over the party thing and look at the person.  I thought till I read your posts my fil was the only one that would vote for Hitler if he were democrat, now I have to amend that.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Danny-  Your words:


			
				ddrane2115 said:
			
		

> When will you ever get over the party thing and look at the person. I thought till I read your posts my fil was the only one that would vote for Hitler if he were democrat


You are doing exactly what you are accusing others to do!  In your eyes, everything is black and white, democrats and republicans.  Look at your own words man and tell me otherwise!
Bone


----------



## ddrane2115

I have never said anything about it being all the ??? fault, my point is clinton lied, dont care what party he is.  My only reference to parties is when it is brought up how the rep's screwed up................I hate the party system we have, we should vote on the person, on his or her character, and playing on HIS OR HER own money.


----------



## Junkman

HarryG said:
			
		

> Danny,
> thats because there are two sets of rules here. One for those select few that like to dish it out and a second set of rules for those of us that are expected to take it and say nothing. Its the typical leftist attitude.
> I sure would like to meet in the middle but some people just want their own way. Thats why I will not even attempt to debate them as they only deny and sling insults and out and out are just plain rude. Its time some grew up.
> HarryG



Harry....... I don't give a damn about what you or any of the other participants on this thread or for that matter these Forums have to say in a post, but there is one, and only one underlying rule for everyone.  You, and every single member of the Forums must be civil at all times.  As long as that rule is followed and no one person is flamed, there is nothing that will be edited or deleted.  There are *no* two sets of rules here, no matter what you might think about the subject or what any of the others on the forums post on the subject.  The moderators don't take a leftist attitude, nor a right wing attitude.  When it comes to moderation, there is no attitude at all.  Just the rule of being civil by all to all participants.  Anything less will not be tolerated.  As for comments that are made being considered _rude_, that is a matter of opinion, and unless you can show that the comment is not civil, it will stay.  You and every other member has a right to speak his / her mind.  If a particular member continually goes out of their way to inflame and disrupt the forums, the that member will be asked to leave.  I, nor the other moderators don't play favorites and everyone is treated equally, as best as  humanly possible.  
Junkman... 
Sr. Moderator


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Sorry it bothered you, Danny, but when you look at some of the screwy things this president has done, the kindest thing you can say is that he has a blindfold. Any other explanation would make him really look bad.


 
Let me make sure I understand your position, Don. It is OK for you to post satire because you feel justified, but not for anyone else?

Did I state that correctly?


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Let me make sure I understand your position, Don. It is OK for you to post satire because you feel justified, but not for anyone else?
> 
> Did I state that correctly?


No.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> No.


 
Then why do you post the same type of material you complain so loudly about other members posting?


----------



## bczoom

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Clinton and Korea has been mentioned a couple of times.  I decided to do some checking.


Can you post/include the source(s) of your information?



			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> In 1994, the Clinton administration entered into an agreement to provide North Korea with oil provided they halted their nuclear programs.  Also included was for us to provide them with technology that would produce nuclear power without proiducing weapons grade byproducts.  That agreement lasted until the Bush administration decided to renege against the agreement and stop sending the oil.  In retaliation, North Korea announced they would restart their nuclear program.


Again, please post your source(s).
N Korea disclosed their clandestine nuclear weapons program which is what caused the Bush administration (and other countries) to pull out of building NK the power plants.


----------



## Cityboy

Here is a link to CBS news with a debate between Bob Dole and Clinton. Dole confronts Clinton with the fact that he provided NK with nuclear power plants and other aid. Clinton attempts to spin, but does not deny the fact that NK has nukes because of his appeasment policy.

This is typical Clinton spin to attempt to blame Bush for the fact the NK used the nuclear power plants provided by Clinton to manufacture nuclear weapons. NK has broken every agreement ever made with them. Why would Clinton think it would be different with him? NK was making nukes before Clinton left office. Can't blame Bush for this one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/clintondole/main549987.shtml


----------



## Gwill

What arrogant crap! Why in Hell didn't you run for President so the world wouldn't be so screwed up by us peons. clinton wasn't argueing in court when he pointed his finger at the camera... he was lying to all of us low lifes! *All of us*. Most didn't fall under his spell like you have. Come down off your high horse and deal with reality.  

I could be a rich man if I could buy you for what you're worth and then sell you for what you *think *you're worth.




			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I guess I don't expect you to understand that a judge had already provided Clinton a written, legal definition of "sex", and that definition specifically did not include oral sex. In fact, the original definition had included a paragraph that included oral sex, but that paragraph was specifically deleted by the judge, This was the same judge that had already ruled against Clinton on several matters and was considered to be hostile to Clinton.
> 
> In other words, he had a specific legal definition that backed him up when he stated he did not have sex with that woman. According to the definition that applied to him in this case, he did not have sex.
> 
> But, that's a complex explanation for a legal subject that requires some thought to understand. The nation in general did not have the ability to understand such a fine point. The simple folk said, "I know what sex is, and he did it." According to their definition, they were right. But, Clinton was involved in a legal defense of a legal matter, and he was absolutely correct. He did not lie.
> 
> The real problem with Clinton, for which I have criticized him, was that he forgot that the general public could not handle a fine legal point. It would have been much safer for him to assume, as I generally do, that most of the people whom I address have a 6th grade mentality, and adjust my comments accordingly. That's one of the reasons I occasionally use caps as emphasis , and sometimes allow a cuss word to enter, because that's the lingua franca of most of the people I encounter.
> 
> But, moral turpitude and lack of competence to govern are two completely different things. That's the other thing I can't understand. Clinton was a womanizer who was a superb leader and who understood what was happening better than almost any other president. Bush claims a moral high road but is nearly catatonic when it comes to the outside world (he hasn't gotten the label "bubble boy" by accident). The last time I checked, the president's job was to govern, not to play angel. Obviously, I have a different position than you or many others on this forum, but given a choice, I'd rather have a leader who knows what's going on...


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Then why do you post the same type of material you complain so loudly about other members posting?


Because it is not the same type of material.  The material I protest loudly is not based on any fact.  Go back and read my comments; I made clear that it is sladerous and inaccurate so-called satire which I was protesting.  To use the most recent examples, there is nothing in Kerry's protest of one war, a war he had already fought in, that indicates he would ever surrender to anyone in the future.  To make that kind of connection is ludocrous, insulting, and degrading.  On the other hand, there is every evidence that Bush does not want to be bothered by the outside world, that he is in effect, blindfolded.  He went to war on bad information when others around were trying to show him it was wrong.  He believes that we had enough troops in Iraq.  He believes that Iraqi forces are nearly ready to take over their own security.  He states he does not read newspapers or newsmagazines.  His speeches are at carefully controlled venues where no instrusions from the real world are possible.  He does not meet with members of Congress very often, even of his own party, and rarely with members of the opposition,  His Father and Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, regularly met with Democratic COngressmen.  The members of his staff reportedly are terrified that something they say may intrude on the President's preconceived ideas.  One foreign diplomat, being briefed by Condi Rice before a meeting with the President, was warned not to bring up certain subjects.  "Don't upset him", he was told.

As I've repeatedly said if you had bothered to read it, satire based on the truth is funny and has a point.  I said I have appreciated true satire aimed at Democrats like Kerry as well as Bush.  In addition, I've defended Bush as well as Democrats like Kerry.

The fact that you don't understand any of that tells me that at the least, you have not bothered to read what I've said, and at the worst, if you have read it, you're calling me a liar.  Which is it?


----------



## OkeeDon

bczoom, I did a Google search with the terms "Clinton North Korea" and used my own words based on a sysnopsis of several different sources.  It's almost 11 AM and I'm headed for Okeechobee very shortly; this evening, I'll go back and dig out those sources for you to make your own comparison with what I stated.  Rest assured that I generally have lots of backup and have done lots of research before I say something; I'm confident of my statements.

On the Dole/Clinton "mini debate", I read it 2 or 3 times, and it's clear that Dole was doing nothing but throwing out baseless accusations; there's nothing of fact in what he said.

The news reports were clear.  North Korea made a public announcement of when and why they were restarting their nuclear program, and it was a direct response to President Bush's actions.  It's also clear that the nuiclear technology we supplied to the NK under the Clinton agreement could not be used to generate any weapons grade material.  There is a lot of misunderstanding of the term "nuclear" (or is it "nucular"?) among the general public, and it's showing in this discussion.


----------



## OkeeDon

Gwill said:
			
		

> I could be a rich man if I could buy you for what you're worth and then sell you for what you *think *you're worth.


How do you arrive at that conclusion?  Where in any of my discussions do I refer to myself or what I think I'm worth?

Please.  Have enough respect to actually read and think about what I write, not try to twist my words into your interpretation of the world.  You can disagree and I'll respect that, but don't try to put words in my mouth.


----------



## Melensdad

Gwill, you are rapidly approaching personal attacks/insults and the rule we have is to be civil.  Disagree with Don all you want, but it strikes me that his response to you was incredibly restrained.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> To make that kind of connection is ludocrous, insulting, and degrading. On the other hand, there is every evidence that Bush does not want to be bothered by the outside world, that he is in effect, blindfolded.
> As I've repeatedly said if you had bothered to read it, satire based on the truth is funny and has a point.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand any of that tells me that at the least, you have not bothered to read what I've said, and at the worst, if you have read it, you're calling me a liar. Which is it?


 
That is your opinion, Don. You post your satire based on your opinion. You believe your opinion to be based in fact. Others do the same. You are conveying that your opinion is somehow more relevant than others opinions. Can you state for an indisputable fact that you know exactly what Bush thinks? You have castigated others for stating what they believe you think, pointing out that nobody knows your thoughts. Are you not doing the same here?


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> On the Dole/Clinton "mini debate", I read it 2 or 3 times, and it's clear that Dole was doing nothing but throwing out baseless accusations; there's nothing of fact in what he said.


 
Not true. Why is it the political left repeatedly makes this statement? I believe it is the typical response when they know they have been cornered and have no way out. You did not address the fact that NK's nukes were manufactured while Clinton was in office. How then, can you blame this on Bush?


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Not true. Why is it the political left repeatedly makes this statement? I believe it is the typical response when they know they have been cornered and have no way out. You did not address the fact that NK's nukes were manufactured while Clinton was in office. How then, can you blame this on Bush?


North Korea had a nuclear program which included the production of nuclear weapons grade materials prior to the agreement which Clinton reached with them in 1994.  That program was suspended until after Bush was in office, and the North Koreans annoiunced they were restarting their program.  How do you come to the conclusion that it is not Bush's fault?  They came right out and said it was!


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> North Korea had a nuclear program which included the production of nuclear weapons grade materials prior to the agreement which Clinton reached with them in 1994. That program was suspended until after Bush was in office, and the North Koreans annoiunced they were restarting their program. How do you come to the conclusion that it is not Bush's fault? They came right out and said it was!


 
Again, I allude to the fact that NK has broken every agreement it has ever made with the U.S., as is typical with all communist countries. Clinton, if he is as intellegent as you repeatedly state, surely was aware of this fact. Knowing NK's underlying character, how intelligent was it for Clinton to build NK two nuclear facilities on their "promise" not to manufacture nuclear weapons?


----------



## bczoom

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> North Korea had a nuclear program which included the production of nuclear weapons grade materials prior to the agreement which Clinton reached with them in 1994.  That program was suspended until after Bush was in office, and the North Koreans annoiunced they were restarting their program.  How do you come to the conclusion that it is not Bush's fault?  They came right out and said it was!


Who came out and said it was Bush's fault????  I see NOTHING in the timeline that shows anything being Bush's fault...

Here's the timeline... GW was working with them on resuming the Clinton plan (Agreed Framework) after there was a potential issue found (during the Clinton administration) that temporarily halted production of the reactors.  During these meetings on resuming progress of that plan, it was found out that they had a uranium enrichment program.  That had to be stopped before we would proceed.

1985 - DPRK joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
After several years, they still didn't implement an agreement with the IAEA for inspections.
1993 - DPRK announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT.
1994 - Agreement reached between US and DPRK known as the "Agreed Framework" (the LW reactors and oil).  KEDO created (several countries) developed as the financier and supplier of the LWRs.
1998 - The U.S. identified an underground site which it suspected of being nuclear-related. 
2000 - The U.S is finally allowed to inspect the site and concerns were resolved.
2000 - Agreed Framework Implementation Talks occur and is expanded to include a comprehensive missile agreement.
2001 - (January) GW becomes president and temporarily halted the talks so it could review the United States's North Korea policy (they wanted to prepare for and discuss with DPRK their conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues).
2001 - (June) The US government announced that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea.
2002 - Talks resumed and it was found out that they had a uranium enrichment program. This is in violation of the NPT, Agreed Framework  and several other agreements.  The US made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, the U.S. would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. 
2002 - The member countries of KEDO’s Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.
2002/2003, DPRK terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment, quit the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. 
2003 - present - Six-Party Talks.  Progress in progress.


----------



## OkeeDon

bczoom said:
			
		

> Who came out and said it was Bush's fault???? I see NOTHING in the timeline that shows anything being Bush's fault...


North Korea, themselves, said that their resumption of their nuclear program was due to actions taken by Bush.

Here's just one of the quotes I found: 




> "The Bush administration's abandonment of its commitment to provide LWRs to [North Korea] compels it to develop in real earnest its independent nuclear power industry," the North Korean news agency KCNA said on Tuesday.
> 
> The agency said this was in line with its "peaceful nuclear activities".
> 
> The North has already said it has restarted work at its 5 MW reactor in Yongbyon, which is also capable of producing plutonium.
> 
> KCNA also said that the North would work on developing its own LWRs.
> 
> And it repeated an assertion made on Monday that it would "bolster its nuclear deterrent" in response to the Bush administration's "arrogant, self-justified and high-handed practices".


----------



## BoneheadNW

The fact that North Korea themselves said Bush is to blame PROVES that he is not.  Anything an enemy state (N. Korea is one of the bad guys) would say has to be false.  Therefore, Clinton is to blame for the problems in N. Korea.  In fact, by analogy, he is to blame for ALL our problems, including the 22 straight days of rain we have had in my area.  Bush, on the other hand, is only responsible for the good things- flowers, puppies, and apple pie.

How is that?  I thought I would post this before the rest of you could.  
Bone


----------



## OkeeDon

Flowers cause allergies; puppies pee in the house, and apple pie is nothing without ice cream, which is controlled by liberals Ben & Jerry.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Just to back up my blaming Clinton for the weather woes in western Washington, this is from the local news:


> Down in the lowlands, it's just rain... again. Monday marks the 22nd straight day of rain in Seattle -- the fourth-longest streak ever. The record is 33 straight set in 1953, and with rain staying in the forecast at least through next weekend, the record is in jeopardy.



Note that the record set in 1953 took place during Eisenhower's presidential term, and he was a "moderate republican".  Hey, to some members, moderate republican=democrat=commie (no names mentioned, Atilla, er Bob).
Bonehead


----------



## OregonAlex

ddrane2115 said:
			
		

> OK, then morally clinton should have removed himself from office, since MORALLY what he had done to him was disgraceful, dishonest, showed his true lousy colors, and wrong.



You think Bush is more moral then Clinton?? Clinton just got caught and admitted he was wrong. I know someone that gets caught and never admits that he is wrong. Dont forget the title of this thread.

oh yeah.. if a president screws around then he is immoral, yet if he asks thosands of Americans to lay down their lives for a "personal" war then he is just. 

History has shown that "morals" have led to war and bloodshed. Recall what the Pope said to justify the Crusades attacks on the holy land. Killing a muslim is not murder, it is your way to be saved. Yet, screwing around is always immoral, no matter what. ...But you can be saved by going into a religous war and kill others in the name of God and Country because our leader said so. And if you disagree, with your leader, then you a re awhite flag waving coward and should be put in prison because the leader said so. Makes lots of sense.

Maybe Hillary is a cold fish who only married Clinton for her own political gains and has only had sex with him to get pregnant with her daughter. Who knows? who cares? He has his reason for cheating on her and it is non of my business and nor do I care to push my moral and religious believes onto others.

Sex bad.   
Murder to obtain personal goals, property, land, and power for God and Country led by a single person/leader. Good.





I personally don't care what a president chooses to do with his penis. That is high own private matter. Its just too bad that Clinton felt he had to hide it and denied that it ever happened because of the reality of how many feel they need to preach what someone should be doing sexually. Because that is more important then running a country to war and bloodsheed.. right?

I suppose if Bush was caught using his penis in a homosexual relationship with a male intern, while fighting the war with Iraq and terrorists, many conservatives some overlook their morals and continue to support him because putting him through impeachment would mean abandoning the war. That would be too funny. 

last time I looked there was no rules as to what you are allowed to do sexually while president.   And it should stay that way.

if a CEO did the same thing as Clinton did, no one on the board of directors or share holders would give a rip. As long as they are doing thier job, which is doing their best for the shareholders ("read citizens") as a whole, by increasing the stock price and keeping the company healthy ("read USA").


----------



## OregonAlex

oh if lying makes a president a canidate for impeachment then  "Read my lips; No more taxes".

how Clinton uses his willie has no impact on my life. Its his body part, not mine. He can do with it what he wants, I do not own it and nor does the american public. 

Lying about tax increases, impacts eveyones. More then what one man decides to do in his "personal" life.

Now which lie deserves putting a president through impeachment? One that has no impact on my life or one that does? Both were lies.

Too many people are thinking with their bible instead of their brains.


----------



## nixon

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> oh if lying makes a president a canidate for impeachment then  "Read my lips; No more taxes".
> 
> how Clinton uses his willie has no impact on my life. Its his body part, not mine. He can do with it what he wants, I do not own it and nor does the american public.
> 
> Lying about tax increases, impacts eveyones. More then what one man decides to do in his "personal" life.
> 
> Now which lie deserves putting a president through impeachment? One that has no impact on my life or one that does? Both were lies.
> 
> Too many people are thinking with their bible instead of their brains.



Which statement was made under oath in a court of Law ?    John


----------



## OregonAlex

nixon said:
			
		

> Which statement was made under oath in a court of Law ?    John



that makes a difference to you?  you're kidding right?  

reminds me of kids games... I promise.. ha ha .. had my fingers crossed... so it don't count. na na na na na...... you can't get me.. my word is only good if I am under oath & and I don't have my fingers crossed! suckers!


----------



## nixon

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> that makes a difference to you?  you're kidding right?


Nope. Not at all.  First of all it wasn't kids, It was the chief law officer of the land that lied under oath. And second , Damn ! can't think of anything else   John


----------



## OkeeDon

I've already covered in detail the statement under oath in legal situation; the legal definition of sex certainly applies in that situation. So, I was told, that's not important -- what is important is what he told the American public, on TV, not under oath. Exactly the same situation as "No new taxes." Also the exact same situation as Bush, last year making this statement: 





> Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.


In the face of the admissions this year about NSA spying (the subject of this thread), that makes his statement last year a bald-faced lie. Not a lie about his personal life, but a lie about American policy, made to the American public.

If Clinton's so-called lie about his personal life was an impeachable act, then certainly a lie about public policy -- a lie about the way the government is operating -- a lie that affects all of us -- certainly that lie is an automatically impeachable act. So? Which of you will be the first to call for Bush's impeachment based on the lie? Or are you as two faced as most right-wingers?

By the way, if you need documentation for that massive lie I quoted above, the remarks were made by George W. Bush on April 20, 2004, at Kleinshans Music Hall in Buffalo, New York. I took the quote directly from a copy of the speech at whitehouse.gov.

I wish I had found the quote earlier; it effectively answers all the questions in this thread about Bush and eavesdropping. Last year, he said they always got a court order. This year, he admitted he lied, that they do not get court orders, and that they would continue to do so. Obviously, he did not mention last year's lie; I'm sure he hopes everyone will have forgotten about it because he really doesn't want to be impeached.


----------



## nixon

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> If Clinton's so-called lie about his personal life was an impeachable act, then certainly a lie about public policy -- a lie about the way the government is operating -- a lie that affects all of us -- certainly that lie is an automatically impeachable act. So? Which of you will be the first to call for Bush's impeachment based on the lie? Or are you as two faced as most right-wingers?


Don, I'm not a right winger . But show me the evidence ,and I'll call for impeachment if it was a false statement (purgery ) made under oath in a court of law by any president .   John


----------



## OkeeDon

Well, you see, it doesn't have to rise to that level. Clinton was accused of lying under oath. That's why the House impeached him. But, it wasn't true. That's why the Senate refused to remove him from office. (Remember, impeachment is not removal; it's the equivalent of an indictment).

Bush's statement meets the test that so may of the right-wingers have advanced -- that Clinton lied directly to them, when he made his statement on TV. Bush's statement was made in a public address. I don't know if it was covered on TV; I suspect that CSpan has a copy of it. It was a direct public statement, no one can doubt that he said it; it was reported on the official Whitehouse web site. And, it was a lie. Period. No possible discussion. Last year, he said they get a warrant; this year he admitted (after he was outed by the NY Times) that they don't. I doubt he was lying this year; it was too damaging an admission. Therefore, he was lying last year. Can I say it often enough? _He *lied*!


_


----------



## nixon

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Well, you see, it doesn't have to rise to that level. Clinton was accused of lying under oath. That's why the House impeached him. But, it wasn't true. That's why the Senate refused to remove him from office. (Remember, impeachment is not removal; it's the equivalent of an indictment).


Don, ThankYou for a point well made.   John


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> North Korea, themselves, said that their resumption of their nuclear program was due to actions taken by Bush.
> 
> Here's just one of the quotes I found:


 
Come on Don. Do you really put any stock in what NK says? Why is it that political Leftists tend to take the side of Communist dictatorships over that of their own country? That is what is truly baffling about modern Democrats. They take what a dictaor says as truth against the president of their own country if that president is not also a Leftist. This is the epitome of the modern Democrat party. They put regaining their own political power over the good of their own country. Truly sad.


----------



## Melensdad

I believe that the history with negotiations with North Korea and the US proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that North Korea cannot be trusted to do anything other than lie.  You know when they agree to anything, they are telling you a lie.  That much, and only that much, can be trusted.  It has happened that way for 50 years!


----------



## OkeeDon

When someone says they're doing "this" and there's a real possibility they're doing "that", then I tend to be as skeptical as you all. Especially if what they are claiming is what you want to hear, or is designed to make them look better than they really are.

But, when a government says "We're resuming nuclear work, including nuclear weapons research and production", I tend to believe them.  Usually, various regimes try to cover up that fact; they generally do not come out and announce their plans.  Think about why it is claimed we went to war with Iraq: they appeared to be covering up their WMD program, and we didn't believe them.  We say that if they had just come out and told us the truth, we might have taken a different approach.

So, a government comes out and tells us exactly what they're doing, evern though they know we won't like it much.  Moreover, they tell us exactly why they're doing it, even though they know we _really_ won't like what they're saying.  They're not trying to make themselves look better.  They're not trying to cover something up.  They said, "We're going to break our side of our agreement with you, we're going to go back into our own nuclear program, and we're doing it because we don't like the way your President has treated us."

Now, you're going to claim they were lying?  What did they really mean?  That they weren't going  back to nuclear research?  Doesn't that kind of destroy your own arguments?  Or, maybe you think they're doing it because some guy who hasn't been President for the previous 2 years had something to do with it?  Maybe the North Koreans are a little slow to react?  Maybe they think they can retailiate against Clinton even though he's no longer in office?  I know they're pretty insular and probably don't really understand our system, but I doubt they're that much out of touch.

Nope, what they said has the ring of truth, simply because it doesn't really do them any good.  It also sounds as if they don't give a rat's patootie whether you believe them, or not.  That doesn't sound much like deception, to me.  But then, I'm not that paranoid.


----------



## OregonAlex

why should we invade NK to take over thier "admitted" WMD.  There is nothing there that we want.  Why should be go into Africa and stop the mass inhumanity and genocide. There is nothing there we want.  Lets focus on Iraq here.. they were an obvious threat to us and much higher prioirty the other countries with "admitted" WMD and known inhamities and genocide to others. For that matter why should we care about quick response to our own citizens like in Louisiana when their lives are threaten, appointing a "political" leader in that position with no experience in that field is good enough for the american people . I am sure they will do  "a heck' of a fine job!".   What do we care, we are the US we keep our noses out of business that does not concern us.. never mind about Kuwait.


----------



## OregonAlex

isn't it kind of ironic that will all of our fancy NSA and CIA equipment and intelligents reports it takes us many days to figure out what is happening on our own soil in Louisiana.  You would think we could use one of our fancy satellites to take a look at what is going on.. or is the excuse that the can't be done because it would require a court order.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

From many sources I found on the web (here's just one of them):

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310221200.asp

My favorite paragraphs are the following:

_"This is exactly what Clinton administration did. Its food aid to North Korea, for instance, served an important ulterior purpose: creating the illusion of progress with the North. "Officially a humanitarian gesture, American food aid has become a bribe for North Korea to attend meetings that create the impression U.S. diplomacy is working," wrote former diplomat Robert A. Manning in 1998._
_This was the Clinton approach. To return to it, as Kerry advocates, would be foolish and dangerous. If Bush does have to cut a deal with North Korea, let's hope it's an honest and strict one, and not just for show."_

The Kerry reference is obviously due to the election year slant of the article and really shouldn't be dwelled upon.

However, the points I like that are emphasised is that the Clinton plan was little more than bribing a spoiled child with candy to behave.  It may solve the immediate problem but you are doing little more than rewarding them for their bad behavior.  In this case, the Bush administration cut off the spoiled brat and sent him to his room.  It had to be done, we will be better off in the long run by keeping everything out in the open.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> isn't it kind of ironic that will all of our fancy NSA and CIA equipment and intelligents reports it takes us many days to figure out what is happening on our own soil in Louisiana. You would think we could use one of our fancy satellites to take a look at what is going on.. or is the excuse that the can't be done because it would require a court order.


 
I'm pretty sure our fancy NSA and CIA stuff still takes a few days to verify most of its information.  There are too many bureaucrats in those organizations to allow quick thought.

I'm pretty sure it isn't an excuse, it's the law.  It's the same type of law that this thread was started over.  It's all about how the US constitution defines a framework for the different tiers of government and in some cases defines limits on what the government can do.

I'm sure a benevolent and kind dictator could have gotten a lot of stuff to happen quickly in Louisiana but they would also be able to install cameras in our bedrooms.


----------



## Gwill

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> oh if lying makes a president a canidate for impeachment then "Read my lips; No more taxes".
> 
> how Clinton uses his willie has no impact on my life. Its his body part, not mine. He can do with it what he wants, I do not own it and nor does the american public.
> 
> Lying about tax increases, impacts eveyones. More then what one man decides to do in his "personal" life.
> 
> Now which lie deserves putting a president through impeachment? One that has no impact on my life or one that does? Both were lies.
> 
> Too many people are thinking with their bible instead of their brains.


 
Careful, Alex... you're beginning to look as biased as that other frequent poster. (I won't risk giving his name again). clinton made exactly the same promise about taxes as GHWB did... except for the "read my lips" part. This was not long before he brought us the largest tax increase in history, with algore's help. Your hero algore cast the deciding vote!

clinton also fought as hard as he could against congress to prevent a balanced budget, actually vetoeing two submitted budgets before finally shutting the government down. He claimed (*falsely*) that a balanced budget wasn't possible. You guys took credit for what a* Republican* congress actually did.

You can choose to think with your bible or not, but please, in the interest of fairness, do what you think others should do... use your brain... and your memory!

It's a favorite tactic of your side to piss and moan about imaginary lying, but you don't really point out cases where the "lying" is anything more than a difference of opinion. On the other hand, lying under oath about *anything *can only be tolerated by liberals.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> So They're not trying to cover something up. They said, "We're going to break our side of our agreement with you, we're going to go back into our own nuclear program, and we're doing it because we don't like the way your President has treated us."


 
What you are saying here is that NK preferred the money and materials the prior Leftist American president was giving them, even though they were manufacturing the nukes even then. Do you honestly believe that NK's Communist dictator would keep his word when history has shown that he has lied every prior time? So now you would have us believe that Kim Jong Il suddenly becomes truthful when the United States has a president who is not a fellow Leftist? I know you repeatedly have posted that no one here knows what you think, but I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe what you posted. Could party loyalty truly be that blind?


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> why should we invade NK to take over thier "admitted" WMD. There is nothing there that we want.


 
Actually, I think you just want to keep them from nuking their neighbors and drawing you into a regional war. They also appear to be exporting their technology to other less than reputable countries where it could just become a matter of time for a regional nuclear war which again would affect the USA in numerous ways.


			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Why should be go into Africa and stop the mass inhumanity and genocide. There is nothing there we want.


 
It would be nice to limit the spread and evolution of disease before it spreads further. Heck, Nigeria has tons of oil. Lots of gold and minerals all over that continent. 


			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Lets focus on Iraq here.. they were an obvious threat to us and much higher prioirty the other countries with "admitted" WMD and known inhamities and genocide to others.


 
What about Serbia/Croatia and Ethiopia. Why did you go in there?



			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> For that matter why should we care about quick response to our own citizens like in Louisiana when their lives are threaten, appointing a "political" leader in that position with no experience in that field is good enough for the american people .


 
Because Washington is a political "beast" and 90% of any person in charge of bureau or agency's job is to fight for funding and protect turf. I certainly do not want some expert on disasters running an agency unless they are also an expert on politics. From what I can tell the DHS politics is as much to blame for the FEMA disaster. It takes more than one bad political appointment to make a mess that big.



			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> I am sure they will do "a heck' of a fine job!". What do we care, we are the US we keep our noses out of business that does not concern us.. never mind about Kuwait


 
I'm pretty sure a lot of this business does concern the US. Whether you like it or not. It comes with the turf.

This should provide some good thread fodder for the day!


----------



## OkeeDon

> [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry...00310221200.asp


[/url]
I try to post links to unbiased sites or, in some case, sites that are absolutely biased in favor of the person I'm criticizing.  For example, my source on the impeachable lie Bush told about getting court orders came from whitehouse.gov.  

If you want me to have any respect for your "imformation", you should do the same.  the National Review is not to be considered an unbiased source when it comes to Democrats.  They are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy that has sucked all of you in.


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> ...even though they were manufacturing the nukes even then.


What's your independent source for that?  I can find nothing that definitively establishes that NK went on with their nuclear weapon program after the 1994 agreement.  All of the articles I found supported that they did not.  I found some right-wing blogs who made the weapons claims with no supporting evidence, just someone's prejudice and speculation.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I can find nothing that definitively establishes that NK went on with their nuclear weapon program after the 1994 agreement.


 
Conversley, can you definitively establish that NK told the truth at any juncture and actually stopped making nukes? Or could your information simply be the conclusion of your own prejudice and speculation? The only evidence you have produced thus far is based on the word of a world renowned liar.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I try to post links to unbiased sites or, in some case, sites that are absolutely biased in favor of the person I'm criticizing. For example, my source on the impeachable lie Bush told about getting court orders came from whitehouse.gov.
> 
> If you want me to have any respect for your "imformation", you should do the same. the National Review is not to be considered an unbiased source when it comes to Democrats. They are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy that has sucked all of you in.


 
The point I was trying to emphasis is largely one of opinion and did not necessarily require some form of specific facts to assert.

However, I found some great links that basically emphasis how the DPRK has not been living up to its promises:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/index.shtml

Check out the great references and links in this article:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB87/

I haven't read everything here as I don't have that much free time and don't really care that much.

It will be great to hear your observation of these articles.

PB


----------



## OregonAlex

PBinWA said:
			
		

> It would be nice to limit the spread and evolution of disease before it spreads further. Heck, Nigeria has tons of oil. Lots of gold and minerals all over that continent


Did you just say what I think you said..  you think genocide is ok in Africa because it  helps reduce the spread of desease.  Please tell me I simply misinterrupted your statement.


----------



## OregonAlex

Gwill said:
			
		

> Careful, Alex... you're beginning to look as biased as that other frequent poster.


Did I ever claim I was unbiased?  ;-)  

Anyhow.. if Clinton did in fact make this claim then I would rather seem him going through impeachment over that statement then what he does with his personal life.

I don't remember Clinton saying he wouldn't raise taxes..  do you have any evidence of this? Perhaps I have selective memory.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Did you just say what I think you said.. you think genocide is ok in Africa because it helps reduce the spread of desease. Please tell me I simply misinterrupted your statement.


 
Yup - mis-read that.  You had a lot of stuff crammed into that one jumbled up little post.  Genocide is bad.  Not sure how I got disease out of it.  Wasn't genocide what Saddam was doing to the kurds in Northern Iraq?


----------



## Melensdad

Saddam also did it to some of the Shiites in the Basra area and east toward the Iranian border.  And he futher drained their marshland that they fished in so they would starve (and many did).


----------



## OregonAlex

PBinWA said:
			
		

> Wasn't genocide what Saddam was doing to the kurds in Northern Iraq?


Saddam was doing this?  if that was the reason we went to war with Saddam, then I would be all for it. ...but I think the reason to go to way with Saddam had nothing to do with what was going on with the kurds.

yeah.. my statements where kind of crammed in there a little.  A bit disorganized.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Saddam was doing this?
> 
> yeah.. my statements where kind of crammed in there a little. A bit disorganized.


 
Apparently, it went on for quite a long time:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

This is an old 1993 report too.


----------



## OregonAlex

One would think that proving that Saddam was behind mass genocide would be easier then proving the existence of WMD.   If our leaders showed us that we were going into Iraq because we wanted to put an end to genocide by removing Saddam, then I would be all for that.  Attempting to mislead the public by linking Saddam to 9/11 did not do it for me.  It certainly would have gotten the attention of the UN more then the WMD reasoning.

going into Iraq to stop genocide I think would be enough justification for most americans not to mention the rest of the nations of the UN.  I wasn't complaining over the other anti-genocide military campaigns we have participated in.  I was all for them.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> One would think that proving that Saddam was behind mass genocide would be easier then proving the existence of WMD. If our leaders showed us that we were going into Iraq because we wanted to put an end to genocide by removing Saddam, then I would be all for that. Attempting to mislead the public by linking Saddam to 9/11 did not do it for me. It certainly would have gotten the attention of the UN more then the WMD reasoning.
> 
> going into Iraq to stop genocide I think would be enough justification for most americans not to mention the rest of the nations of the UN. I wasn't complaining over the other anti-genocide military campaigns we have participated in. I was all for them.


 
I agree with most of your opinions but I think it would have been harder for the republican led US to garner support for an anti-genocidal campaign in Iraq than an anti-"terrorism" campaign.  I think the whole thing is a political mess but since I also support Wolfowitz doctrine then I tend to think the ends will justify the means when it comes to the greater good in that area of the world.  

It will be up to us to capitalize on the changes or squander them.  This direction will be chosen in future elections.


----------



## OkeeDon

PBinWA said:
			
		

> ...I also support Wolfowitz doctrine then I tend to think the ends will justify the means when it comes to the greater good in that area of the world.


The means so far include more than 2,000 American lives and untold numbers of Iraqi lives.  I don't recall Wolfowitz suggesting that kind of carnage; if he had, I doubt that 5% of the American public would have supported any kind of involvement in Iraq for any reason. 

There were other observers who did suggest that the effort in Iraq would chew up those kind of numbers of good and decent people, along with the billions of dollars also never contemplated by Wolfowitz.  When these observers tried to inject some common sense even before our attack on another government, they were pooh-poohed by the Wolfowitz minions.

It's hard to envision any kind of end that justifies those means, unless those lives are meaningless to you.  Does that mean that you don't support the troops?


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> It's hard to envision any kind of end that justifies those means, unless those lives are meaningless to you. Does that mean that you don't support the troops?


 
WTF?  Nice try.  Why do you insist on closing your statements with thinly veiled personal attacks?  Do you think adding some form of emotional plea or accusation like this will strengthen your argument?

The last time I read anything about the Wolfowitz doctrine it had nothing to do with the actual details or end results and more to do with a position on how to deal with threats in the world.  Of course, there are lots of sites that contend that the doctrine was some eveil neo-con war mongering plan.  However, the doctrine is largely a perspective and I would suggest it highly subject to the interpretation of the reader.

I'm not saying you have to agree with my position.  I'm simply giving you insight into why I believe and state the things that I am posting.

I really don't appreciate the way you assert your points here.  I think you tend to invite controversy through your choice of words.


----------



## OkeeDon

PBinWA said:
			
		

> WTF? Nice try. Why do you insist on closing your statements with thinly veiled personal attacks? ...I really don't appreciate the way you assert your points here. I think you tend to invite controversy through your choice of words.


You choose to see it as a thinly veiled personal attack; I intended it as a thoughtful question based on a logical extension of the doctrine which you support.  I guess I don't care whether you appreciate it or not; I would have preferred that you answer it rather than duck it by attacking me.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> You choose to see it as a thinly veiled personal attack; I intended it as a thoughtful question based on a logical extension of the doctrine which you support. I guess I don't care whether you appreciate it or not; I would have preferred that you answer it rather than duck it by attacking me.


 
Yes I see it as thinly veiled personal attack. I also see it as a weak attempt to counter my discussion points.  I'm not going to credit it with a reply.


----------



## Gwill

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Did I ever claim I was unbiased? ;-)
> 
> Anyhow.. if Clinton did in fact make this claim then I would rather seem him going through impeachment over that statement then what he does with his personal life.
> 
> I don't remember Clinton saying he wouldn't raise taxes.. do you have any evidence of this? Perhaps I have selective memory.


 

Your selective memory doesn't make his statements go away. You could take the time to look it up?

Many of us wish he was truly gone, like all other decent ex-presidents except Jimmy Cartah.

Of course clinton should have been impeached for other valid reasons than simply getting a hummer. I don't have time to list them. It was a mistake for congress and Ken Starr to fail to pursue over 30 other charges, hoping that that one would be a slam dunk.


----------



## Melensdad

"I'm Bill Clinton and I think you deserve a change. That's why I've offered a plan to get the economy moving again, *starting with a middle-class tax cut..." *
      --Bill Clinton campaign commercial, 1/16/92



 "I want to make it very clear that this *middle class tax cut*, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy and a longterm fairness strategy which is part of getting this country going again." 
      --Bill Clinton, New Hampshire primary debate, 1/19/92



"*I will not raise taxes* on the middle class to pay for these programs. Ifthe money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending or we will slow down the phase-in of these programs. I am not gonna raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."
--Bill Clinton, presidential debate, 10/19/92



 "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought *the most important issue in the race was the middle class tax cut" *
      --President-elect Bill Clinton, news conference, 1/14/93




 "To middle-class Americans who have paid a great deal over the last 12 years and from *whom I ask a contribution tonight*..." 
      --Bill Clinton, announcing the largest tax increase in history, State of the
              Union address, 2/17/93




 "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because *you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much too.*" 
      --Bill Clinton, remarks at Houston fund- raiser, 10/17/95




 "I take full responsibility, proudly, for what we did. *It *[raising taxes]* was the right thing to do." *
      --Bill Clinton, press conference, 10/19/95


​Now what I personally question is, in his mind what was the right thing to do? Was it raising taxes, or the fact that he lied about it during the campaign when he said he would not raise them because he knew damn well he was going to do it?


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> Now what I personally question is, in his mind what was the right thing to do? Was it raising taxes, or the fact that he lied about it during the campaign when he said he would not raise them because he knew damn well he was going to do it?


Wow!  A politician that makes a promise during a campaign that he doesn't keep!  That never happens!  The man is evil!  G.W., Bush Sr,. Tricky Dick, and Reagan would never have done that! 
Bonehead


----------



## Melensdad

BH, I think the point is that Republicans are typically called to task when they do that. Evidence GHW Bush, who was voted out of office largely due to a broken campaign promise.

But it was asserted that Bill Clinton never promised not to raise taxes.  I simply pointed out the evidence that he not only promised not to raise, but he did it several times, then just a couple months later proposed the largest tax raise in history.


BTW, thank you for admitting that Bill Clinton is evil.


----------



## Junkman

There is a big difference between a campaign statement and the reality of the facts when you become the elected official and learn all the ramifications of your campaign promises.  I remember other politicians saying that they would get to the "bottom of the facts" when elected only to ignore the subject once elected. It is easy to play fast and free when you don't have all the facts to deal with, but once in the position, you learn a lot that the general populous know nothing about..... Junk.....


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> BTW, thank you for admitting that Bill Clinton is evil.


Note to self:  Never pronounce the word *nuclear* as *nucular* .
Bonehead


----------



## OkeeDon

Junk, that's absolutely true, and is the primary reason why I don not call President Bush to task for all the campaign statements he made and later changed.  For example, he campaigned vigorously that he would never do any nation building. "I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders."   5 years later we're involved in the greatest example of nation building seen since the Marshall Plan.  I don't criticize him for that; it's obvious he never contemplated the level of involvement we now have in Iraq.

Then, there is, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."  I don't bring this up in debates about Bush, because I believe that he truly believed that about himself.  Same thing with "compassionate conservative", although that turned out to be not true, also.

Then, there were all the campaign promises about fiscal responsibility.  I don't blame him for all the spending; he sincerely believes that Homeland Security should pay for air condtioned garbage trucks and it was necessary to spend $500 Billion or so to protect the poor Kurds, or whatever the flavor of the day is to justify the Iraq action.

And, when he promised to bring honor and integrity to the White House, he never figured on things like his Vice President inviting corporate thieves to the White House to help plan how they were going to get richer.  Also, he probably didn't realize he was going to have to pile lie on top of lie to justify how the "war" is fought.
----------------------
Bob, I'm somehwat surprised at you.  You have taken a bunch of quotes from Clinton about several different things and tried to make them look like they're all about the same thing.  Then, I found the source for your quotes: "_(Taken from the GOP Talking Points from January 31, 1996.)"  _No wonder they're all jumbled up, it's a traditional right wing trick to try to muddy the waters and obscure the facts in order to paint a different picture.  I call it double-speak.

Your first 3 quotes are fine; they all say essentially the same thing.  Then, you quote Clinton as wondering why the press thought the middle class tax subject was the most important.  However, you fail to say what Clinton thought was the most important subject in the campaign; what he was actually talking about in that press conference.  That's because you don't know.  Your series of quotes has been requoted so many times that no one knows what the orginal meaning was; it's almost trite.

Then, your list of quotes goes on to the 1993 State of the Union Speech, and mentions a "contribution" from the middle class.  Here's the complete text for your quote, including the important part you left off: "To middle class Americans who have paid a great deal for the last 12 years and from whom I ask a contribution tonight, I will say again as I did on Monday night, you're not going alone anymore, you're certainly not going first and you're not going to pay more for less as you have too often in the past.  I want to emphasize the facts about this plan: 98.8 percent of America's families will have no increase in their income tax rates  -- only 1.2 percent at the top."

The contribution to which your quote refers was a broad-based increase in an energy tax, not a tax specifically on the middle class.  I've referred to this tax in the past.  Here's what he said about it, that night: "...these measures will cost an American family with an income of about $40,000 a year less than $17 a month...That means that for the middle class, who will pay something more each month, if they had any credit needs or demands their increased energy costs will be more than offset by lower interest costs for mortgages, consumer loans, credit cards. This can be a wise investment for them and their country now."   And, it turned out to be true -- as a result of the tax package  proposed that evening,  deficits were reduced and interest rates dropped, and the average middle class American had more money in  their pocket.

Your quotes mention "announcing the largest tax increase in history..."   There is some question about the accuracy of that, but I'll let that pass because it was a big increase.  However, the increase was on the 1.2% of the richest Americans, not on the middle class.  There was no income tax increase on the middle class, something your little list of quotes tries to obscure.

Your last two quotes have nothing to do with the middle class.

Bob, you really should check your sources before you post them; you know I'm going to if you don't.


----------



## BoneheadNW

*This just in:* 
From our foreign correspondant somewhere in Europe, a sign expressing the thoughts of our europian allies about our president.
Bonehead


----------



## OregonAlex

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> Now what I personally question is, in his mind what was the right thing to do? Was it raising taxes, or the fact that he lied about it during the campaign when he said he would not raise them because he knew damn well he was going to do it?


Bob,

Thanks for seeking out the proof and posting it here.  

Well I guess Clinton was no better then Bush in the lying category.  And vs versa.   

Bring on the impeachment proceedings!


----------



## OregonAlex

Gwill said:
			
		

> Your selective memory doesn't make his statements go away. You could take the time to look it up?



that may be true.. But I guess you should have the motiviation for looking this up and post it here to prove your point. Like Bob did below.

Telling me to "go fish" doesn't prove your point.


----------



## OkeeDon

Gwill and Oregon Alex (wow, I never thought I'd be addressing both of you in the same post!),  did you not read my post in which I ripped apart Bob's so-called "proof"?  Once again, Clinton did not lie, and did not raise income taxes on the middle class.  He did increase energy taxes across the board, on everyone equally, which includes the middle class, but as he promised, it was offset by cheaper interest rates and the middle class ended up way ahead as a result.  Bob's "proof" was a biased, heavily edited and mismatched conglomeration of quotes issued by  the Republicans as part of the talking points they so vigorously deny exist.  They probably would have combined a quote about the "middle" of the road with a quote about a dog obedience "class" if they could have found them.


----------



## Melensdad

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Your last two quotes have nothing to do with the middle class.
> 
> Bob, you really should check your sources before you post them; you know I'm going to if you don't.


Don, the original question postulated had nothing to do with the middle class, the question was did he lie about tax cuts.  I think I clearly established that he did.  He did it with regard to the middle class, excise taxes, corporate taxes, upper class taxes and even the tax on social security income.  And please feel free to check my sources, I have no problem with that, but please also make sure you understand what questions I am answering before you mistakenly claim to debunk them.  As a memory refresher, here is the original question, you will notice no mention of the type of tax:



			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> _I don't remember Clinton saying he wouldn't raise taxes.. do you have any evidence of this? Perhaps I have selective memory._


----------



## Melensdad

Now just in case we want to get back on topic, here is the latest news on opinions of American citizens.  It seems the majority of us want our President to use "due process" and attain warrants prior to wire taps . . .  it appears to me, after reading the story, that not only do the left wing folks like OkeeDon, OregonAlex and Bonehead feel that warrantless wiretaps are wrong, but a good number of right wing folks, like myself, also feel that warrantless wiretaps are wrong.  To the tune of 56% of those polled.  What I find perplexing is that the Republicans, the party that has stood for smaller government, a non-invasive government, and individual freedom, is the party pushing for a reduction in individual freedom and a more-invasive government.     

 




*




                  Poll: Americans Want Warrants for Spying                *

                                                                                                                                                        By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer_ 45 minutes ago_ 


 A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

 Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

 Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

 Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.

 "We're at war," Bush said during a New Year's Day visit to San Antonio. "And as commander in chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. ... It's a vital, necessary program."

 According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.

 Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

 Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said.

 But Peter Ahr of Caldwell, N.J., a religious studies professor at Seton Hall University, said he could not find a justification for skipping judicial approvals. Nor did he believe the administration's argument that such a step would impair terrorism investigations.

 "We're a nation of laws. ... That means that everybody has to live by the law, including the administration," said Ahr, 64, a Democrat who argues for checks and balances. "For the administration to simply go after wiretaps on their own without anyone else's say-so is a violation of that principle."

 The eavesdropping is run by the secretive National Security Agency, the government's code-makers and code-breakers.

 Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most people think that the eavesdropping is aimed at foreign terrorists, even when the surveillance is conducted inside the country.

 "They are willing to give the president quite a lot of leeway on this when it comes to the war on terror," said Franklin, who closely follows public opinion.

 Some members of Congress have raised concerns about the president's actions, but none of those lawmakers who have been briefed on the program has called for its immediate halt.

 The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, has promised hearings this year. Five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have called for immediate inquiries.

 On top of that, a memorandum circulated Friday from two legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service concluded that the justification for the monitoring may not be as strong as the administration has argued.

 The NSA's activity "may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," the 44-page memo said.

 Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism. 

The administration says the program is reviewed every 45 days and that Bush personally reauthorizes it. His top legal advisers argue its justification is sound. 

The issue is full of grays for some people interviewed for the poll, including homebuilder Harlon Bennett, 21, a political independent from Wellston, Okla. He does not think the government should need warrants for suspected terrorists. 

 "Of course," he added, "we all could be suspected terrorists." 

 ___ 

 Associated Press writers Will Lester and Elizabeth White contributed to this report.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Gwill and Oregon Alex (wow, I never thought I'd be addressing both of you in the same post!), did you not read my post in which I ripped apart Bob's so-called "proof"?


 
I have seen you make the claim that you have "ripped apart" someone elses argument, however, simply making this statement does not make it true. You then proceed to basically quote Clinton's word that he did not raise taxes on the middle class, which is not true. My taxes went up under Clinton. I was there, I paid the taxes and I have not yet entered the top 1.2% of income earners. Continually repeating inaccurate information does not eventually make this information accurate over time.

You claim that the tax increases were offset by low interest rates as if Clinton waved his magic wand and created those rates. Do you honestly believe that to be true? Did Clinton have the power to supercede market forces and single handedly lower interest rates? The fact is that Clinton simply happened to be in office during an economic upturn. There are those that blame Clinton for the dot.com bust and the resulting economic downturn that began while he was in office. There are those who blame Bush for it. There are those who believe that Clinton actually had something to do with the dot.com boom and the rapid stock market rise. None of this is true. Clinton was simply along for the ride, but he did take credit for it and those ignorant of the laws of economic cycles believed him. Had the United States been in an economic downturn when Clinton raised taxes, the results would have been dramatically different. You give Clinton far more credit than he deserves, and many of my friends on the right conversley give hime more blame than he deserves. 

Had Clinton or Gore been in office when we were attacked on 9/11 with their terrorist appeasment policies, I shudder to think of the economic and national security position the country would be in now. Especially with the Democrat party firmly under the control of George Soros and moveon.org. Purely speculation, I understand that, but given the Left's past history at dealing with terrorism and hostile foriegn powers with their appeasment mentatllity, it is the logical conclusion.


----------



## Gwill

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Had Clinton or Gore been in office when we were attacked on 9/11 with their terrorist appeasment policies, I shudder to think of the economic and national security position the country would be in now. Especially with the Democrat party firmly under the control of George Soros and moveon.org. Purely speculation, I understand that, but given the Left's past history at dealing with terrorism and hostile foriegn powers with their appeasment mentatllity, it is the logical conclusion.


 
I've given up reading some of these slanted posts by others more favored by the moderators, but you've introduced a bit of sense some others are lacking.

It's very apparent there are some who lack the talent or integrity to simply say "what if?", and answer honestly.


----------



## OkeeDon

Bob, I remember the orginal statements and questions very well.  Someone said they had no memory of Clinton stating that we would not raise taxes. You responded with quotes where Clinton stated he would not raise "middle class" income taxes.  No other types were mentioned in your quotes; Clinton never made any promises about any other kinds of taxes.   When he did raise income taxes, he raised them on the rich,  not on the middle class.  Therefore, his promise was kept and he never lies.  Go back and read my posts again; I made this perfectly clear if you take the time to read it all in detail.


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy, I don't have to "shudder to think" what the country would be like under Bush; I see the evidence every day.  I just watched a conference of the Homeland Security Department Advisory Council on CSpan.  They are the offically designated advisors to determine the sirection and progress of the department.  Their report was to Secretary Chertoff, who was in attendance.  The report was rife with comments like "we are not prepared" and "we have not done enough".  It was frightening.  It also illustrates the incompetence of this administration, the primary thing I criticize them for.


----------



## Melensdad

My interpretation of your interpretation of my post is different than yours.

I stand by what I wrote as accurate, and as accurately answering the original question.  I could very easily provide other lies he made about many other types of taxes where first he stated he would not, and then did, raise the taxes.


----------



## OregonAlex

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> Don, the original question postulated had nothing to do with the middle class, the question was did he lie about tax cuts.


Bob, 

you are right about my statement;  if taken out of context.  Recall the context of this question.  That was did Clinton lie to the american public by promising not to raise taxes and then doing it anyways?   By American public, I meant the middle class.  Anyhow.. regardess.

If he in fact said that he would not raise taxes on the middle class, and in fact did not,  but instead choose to do it on the upper class then I don't see how that is a lie.

Did he promise not to raise taxes on the upper class and broke that promise?

I don't know.. like I said.. I don't remember.. I will let you and Don debate that one. ;-)


----------



## OkeeDon

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> My interpretation of your interpretation of my post is different than yours.
> 
> I stand by what I wrote as accurate, and as accurately answering the original question. I could very easily provide other lies he made about many other types of taxes where first he stated he would not, and then did, raise the taxes.


Well, obviously my interpretation of my post is bound to be more accurate because they are my comments about my words; sorry I did not exhibit my "mastery of the language". 

I have to challenge you to produce statements where he said he would not raise other taxes. I can provide dozens of references where he promises to _raise_ taxes.  The only promise  he made to not raise taxes was to the middle class, and he kept that.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Gwill said:
			
		

> I've given up reading some of these slanted posts by others more favored by the moderators, but you've introduced a bit of sense some others are lacking.


Now THAT is a compliment if I have ever seen one!  
When you are watching a football game and they go into a huddle, do you think that they are talking about YOU?
Bonehead


----------



## Melensdad

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Did I ever claim I was unbiased?  ;-)
> 
> Anyhow.. if Clinton did in fact make this claim then I would rather seem him going through impeachment over that statement then what he does with his personal life.
> 
> I don't remember Clinton saying he wouldn't raise taxes..  do you have any evidence of this? Perhaps I have selective memory.




I don't see how I could have taken your quote out of context.  Above is the entire post you made.  Most of it had nothing to do with the tax issue at all.  I see no reference to middle class, upper class, or any class, not even inferred or implied.



			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I have to challenge you to produce statements where he said he would not raise other taxes. I can provide dozens of references where he promises to _raise_ taxes.  The only promise  he made to not raise taxes was to the middle class, and he kept that.



OK Don, on the GAS TAX:
"Oppose federal excise gas tax increases. Instead of a backbreaking federal
gas tax, we should try conservation, increased use of natural gas, and
increased use of alternative fuels."
Putting People First, September 1992.

"I think -- you know, raising taxes on Social Security recipients or middle
class people, the fifty-cent [Perot] gas tax and all these tax increases
when the economy is not growing is an error."
October 23, 1992.

After President Clinton realized he could not gain enough support for his
proposed Btu tax (which would have, among other things, imposed a tax of
about 7.5 cents per gallon for gasoline and 8.3 cents per gallon for
diesel), he had to accept a smaller tax that was agreed to in the Senate
and passed by Congress: a 4.3-cents-per-gallon motor fuels tax. The law
also extends a 2.5-cent gas tax set to expire in 1995.
P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan.

And on CORPORATE TAX RATES:
"I don't think we should raise corporate tax rates, [but I think we should
give corporations more incentives to invest in this country]."
July 13, 1992.

President Clinton's original plan would have raised the top marginal rate
for corporate income taxes to 36 percent, but Congress would only agree to
raise it to 35 percent (the current rate is 34 percent).
P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan.​


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> When you are watching a football game and they go into a huddle, do you think that they are talking about YOU?
> Bonehead


 
What? They aren't?  Wait till I tell Santa about this!


----------



## OkeeDon

Bob, it was nothing from Alex that mentioned the middle class; it was you list of quotes that specifically addressed the middle class.  The first three quotes you listed referred specifically to his promise to not raise taxes on the middle class.  All of the other quotes and information referred to the taxes he DID raise, which were NOT on the middle class.  That's why your list is bogus.

Since I haven't been able to make it clear to you, let me try an example:

Joe says, "I will not drive a blue car."

On another day, Joe says, "I will drive any color of car except blue".

However, Joe is seen driving a car.  The quote says, "After all Joe's promises about cars and driving, he was seen in a car yesterday."  

If it was repeated by every Republican spokesperson and wannabe spokesperson in the nation, like all of their talking points are, a bunch of people would believe that Joe broke his promise, and no amount of truth could convince them otherwise.

Now, the inference was that Joe broke a promise.  However, he only broke his promise if the car he was seen driving was blue.  If it was any other color, he did not break his promise.  If I produce evidence Joe was driving a red car, would you still believe he broke his promise?


----------



## OregonAlex

B_Skurka said:
			
		

> I don't see how I could have taken your quote out of context.  Above is the entire post you made.  Most of it had nothing to do with the tax issue at all.  I see no reference to middle class, upper class, or any class, not even inferred or implied.
> .[/indent]



"I don't remember Clinton saying he wouldn't raise taxes.. do you have any evidence of this? Perhaps I have selective memory."

this is what I meant by "selective memory"... as in I seem to recall things better if it seems to affect me.  I am in the middle class.    Not to be thrown by what I said to ArchDean a few weeks ago to rattle his chain.   I didn't lie.. I said... "What if I told you that..."


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Cityboy, I don't have to "shudder to think" what the country would be like under Bush; I see the evidence every day. I just watched a conference of the Homeland Security Department Advisory Council on CSpan. They are the offically designated advisors to determine the sirection and progress of the department. Their report was to Secretary Chertoff, who was in attendance. The report was rife with comments like "we are not prepared" and "we have not done enough". It was frightening. It also illustrates the incompetence of this administration, the primary thing I criticize them for.


 
I don't question that this is indeed your perception, however it does not reflect reality. The reality is that we have not been attacked on our homeland since 9/11. If the Bush administration was as incompetent as you would like for us to think, we would have been hit hard several times by now. The left works extremely hard to convince the public that Bush is a dolt or just basically stupid, but the results speak for themselves. It is extremely difficult to convince thinking Americans that Leftist appeasers like Gore and Kerry could have done half as well as Bush has based on recorded history. Europe has been appeasing terrorists for years, yet they keep getting terrorized while American Leftist's are still attempting to convince us this is the path we should follow. Yes, Don, it could be a lot worse. count Your blessings.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Cityboy said:
			
		

> The reality is that we have not been attacked on our homeland since 9/11. If the Bush administration was as incompetent as you would like for us to think, we would have been hit hard several times by now.


Using logic like that, all of the presidents that were in office when there were no terrorist attacks must have done a great job keeping them away.
Bonehead


----------



## OregonAlex

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Using logic like that, all of the presidents that were in office when there were no terrorist attacks must have done a great job keeping them away.
> Bonehead



go Jimmy Carter!!


----------



## OkeeDon

You do know the story about the kid who stands on a corner whistling an off-key tune?  No?  Well, when people asked him why he was doing such terrible whistling, he said, "To keep the elephants away."  "Whistling doesn't keep elephants away," said the passersby.  "No?" said the kid, "You see any elephants around here?"  Keep on whistling, Bushie -- in the meantime, those terrorists are busy killing almost as many Americans in Iraq as they did on 9/11, and running us into bankruptcy while they're at it.


----------



## OkeeDon

I did a little Google search on Clinton and terrorism policies. I found more information than I could digest quickkly. This news report from 1996 is typical. How soon we forget?




> *President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws*
> 
> July 30, 1996  WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
> 
> "We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
> 
> But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough. One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."
> 
> *Taggants value disputed*
> 
> Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.
> 
> "What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.
> 
> The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.
> 
> "The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.
> 
> *Hatch blasts 'phony' issues*
> 
> Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.
> 
> Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
> 
> Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."
> 
> "If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
> 
> Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.



Here's the link


----------



## BoneheadNW

Don, that whistling story reminds me of what my dad used to tell me:  *For example* does not make *for proof*.  In other words, just because you can cite an example of something, does not prove that it will always be that way.
Bone


----------



## OregonAlex

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> You do know the story about the kid who stands on a corner whistling an off-key tune?  No?  Well, when people asked him why he was doing such terrible whistling, he said, "To keep the elephants away."  "Whistling doesn't keep elephants away," said the passersby.  "No?" said the kid, "You see any elephants around here?"  Keep on whistling, Bushie -- in the meantime, those terrorists are busy killing almost as many Americans in Iraq as they did on 9/11, and running us into bankruptcy while they're at it.



One thing I know about terrorists is that they are smart and have patience.
No one would attempt to do another 9/11, a few weeks later. Remember how tight security was in airports after 9/11??  Well, it is getting to be a joke again it is so 'laxed comparied to the way it was in those days.  Eventually it will get even more 'laxed as money continues to run out and security employees get tired at keeping up the security measures.  Just you wait.. we will have another 9/11.  Don't fool youself.  We haven't fixed the reason we got attacked in the first place.  "When there is a will, there is a way"... and these people are motivated.. so motiviated they are willing to kill themselves to kill as many Americans as possible.

Bone, 

I suppose you can argue that my "When there is a will there is a way" phrase" don't make my opinion true either. ;-)


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> go Jimmy Carter!!


 
Sh*t Disturber!  Somebody sharpened their stick this morning!


----------



## BoneheadNW

Back to the original topic of the thread, I was pleased and surprised that Senator Hatch (who is considered to be very conservative) is so outspoken against the recent wiretappings.  Bob, it looks as though you are not alone.  I wonder how Atilla the Hun would feel?  
Bonehead


----------



## OregonAlex

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Back to the original topic of the thread, I was pleased and surprised that Senator Hatch (who is considered to be very conservative) is so outspoken against the recent wiretappings.  Bob, it looks as though you are not alone.  I wonder how Atilla the Hun would feel?
> Bonehead



Bone,

This surprises you?  Elections are coming up this year.  Its gonna be every man for themself.  What moron is gonna jump in the same boat with Bush at this point with the low approval rating...   This is a bad time for Bush to make more mistakes.. I don't see anyone jumping to support him prior to Nov 2006.


----------



## bczoom

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I did a little Google search on Clinton and terrorism policies. I found more information than I could digest quickkly. This news report from 1996 is typical.


Don (and all other members),

When you do a quote, please provide a link or something to the source.

Thanks
Brian


----------



## Cityboy

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Using logic like that, all of the presidents that were in office when there were no terrorist attacks must have done a great job keeping them away.
> Bonehead


 
The WTC was attacked while Clinton was in office and Clinton responded by......?

What exactly did Clinton do? Oh, yes, I remember now. Clinton did nothing. Pretty solid logic I'd say.

Still think appeasment works?


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> You do know the story about the kid who stands on a corner whistling an off-key tune? No? Well, when people asked him why he was doing such terrible whistling, he said, "To keep the elephants away." "Whistling doesn't keep elephants away," said the passersby. "No?" said the kid, "You see any elephants around here?" Keep on whistling, Bushie -- in the meantime, those terrorists are busy killing almost as many Americans in Iraq as they did on 9/11, and running us into bankruptcy while they're at it.


 
I take your response to indicate you prefer the European model of home land security.


----------



## Junkman

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Don, that whistling story reminds me of what my dad used to tell me:  *For example* does not make *for proof*.  In other words, just because you can cite an example of something, does not prove that it will always be that way.
> Bone



Your father is / was a very wise man.... What happened to his son???? Not much rubbed off so it appears......


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> The WTC was attacked while Clinton was in office and Clinton responded by......?
> 
> What exactly did Clinton do? Oh, yes, I remember now. Clinton did nothing. Pretty solid logic I'd say.
> 
> Still think appeasment works?


What was he supposed to do in your opinion?  What would you do?
please say "Attack Iraq".


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> I take your response to indicate you prefer the European model of home land security.



how did you come to this conclusion?


----------



## BoneheadNW

Cityboy said:
			
		

> The WTC was attacked while Clinton was in office and Clinton responded by......?
> 
> What exactly did Clinton do? Oh, yes, I remember now. Clinton did nothing. Pretty solid logic I'd say.
> 
> Still think appeasment works?


I didn't say anything about Clinton, just about your logic.  You assume that since there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, that Bush is not incompetant.  My point is that the two issues are not necessarily related.
Bone


----------



## BoneheadNW

Junkman said:
			
		

> Your father is / was a very wise man.... What happened to his son???? Not much rubbed off so it appears......


Not so!!  I have his hairline!!  
Bonehead


----------



## California

...


----------



## Cityboy

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> What was he supposed to do in your opinion? What would you do?
> please say "Attack Iraq".


 
Oh, I don't know....maybe make at least some effort to find out who did it, who funded it and take at least some form of retribution. Maybe take some action to prevent it from happening again. Maybe take custody of Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity.

So, what's your solution? I see many Leftists complaining, yet none offer workable solutions...other than appeasment.

Do you think maybe if we just be nice to the terrorists they won't attack us any more? Maybe build them a nuclear facility or two? Worked in North Korea real well, didn't it?


----------



## Cityboy

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> My point is that the two issues are not necessarily related.
> Bone


 
Oh, but indeed they are quite closely related. Clinton, (a past president) did nothing when we were attacked on our own soil. Bush did and is still doing something about it whether the Left likes it or not, whether the main stream media approves or not, whether Europe approves or not. Again, I see zero solutions coming from the Left.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't know....maybe make at least some effort to find out who did it, who funded it and take at least some form of retribution. Maybe take some action to prevent it from happening again.


How do you know that no action was taken?  According to your logic above, the lack of terrorist activity means the president's actions were working.


			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> So, what's your solution? I see many Leftists complaining, yet none offer workable solutions...other than appeasment.


Why do you have to be so antogonistic?  "Leftists complaining", etc.  The world is not black and white.  Just because someone is not of your political beliefs, does not mean that their solutions won't work.


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't know....maybe make at least some effort to find out who did it, who funded it and take at least some form of retribution. Maybe take some action to prevent it from happening again. Maybe take custody of Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity.


--------------------------
*Feb. 26, New York City:* bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]*Washington Post*[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]* The Covert  Hunt for bin Laden *
*  Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks*[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]_By Barton  Gellman_
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2001; Page A01[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda  destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton  directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's  network that carried through his final days in office.[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]• In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize  covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly  classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In  succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden,  then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the  shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]• The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to  maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the  nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise  missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the  order.[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]• Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton  ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's  organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton  authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the  intelligence aborted the mission.[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]• The CIA's directorate of operations recruited,  trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among  tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or  killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington  Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore  fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers  that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no  verified damage.[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]• Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities  Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They  prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate  U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project  of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to  place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.[/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to  define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short  of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and  declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin  Laden and his fighters after 1996. [/font]

  [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when  terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage  the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries…
-------------------------------------------------

[/font]


----------



## Cityboy

BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> How do you know that no action was taken? According to your logic above, the lack of terrorist activity means the president's actions were working.
> .


 
Because I have seen no action taken. Been here the whole time. Long time. No see.



			
				BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> Why do you have to be so antogonistic?.


 
I am not, however you seem antagonistic to me. This is simply a political discussion.



			
				BoneheadNW said:
			
		

> The world is not black and white. Just because someone is not of your political beliefs, does not mean that their solutions won't work


 
So, what is your solution? What solutions besides appeasment have been offered from the left?


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't know....maybe make at least some effort to find out who did it, who funded it and take at least some form of retribution. Maybe take some action to prevent it from happening again. Maybe take custody of Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity.


I believe you admit right here that they did what you suggest as your recognize that we "should have taken Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity".

 As to retribution, I think you have to think about your actions before you do them. They decided to put themselves into a defensive position by increasing intelligence instead go on a offensive by attacking entire countires like Bush did.

fighting terrorism by going on the offensive has never worked for Isreal. They just keep coming back more pissed off at you. Why should it work for us? 



			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> So, what's your solution? I see many Leftists complaining, yet none offer workable solutions...other than appeasment.



For one thing is we should stop taking sides in the religious war in the Middle East. Our position there is unwelcomed. We should stop supplying Isreal with weapons like F-16s.

if we want to just a few key terrorists, then I propose it would be a lot cheaper to pass a few million dollar onto the "assassin" network through a broker and providing good intelligence.

How many billions or dollars and innocent lives have we spent trying to kill a few guys?


I would recommend that going on the offensive is the last thing we should be doing. It will is just bring more bloodshed. You have to understand the motivation of the terrorists. If you act offensively it will just start a war, which is what they want in the first place. You got to remember, these countries in the middle east are not full of terrorists. It is just a a very tiny percentage. If you start going on the offensive and taking over countries to flush out the terrorists you will just end up killing innocent civilians and pissing off people who had no wish to do us any harm until that point.



let me turn this around.

Does going on the offensive make things better then if we would have done nothing except increase our defensives and intelligence?'

you think the attack on Iraq put an end to terrorism or will bring more hate towards the US.

or is it a safe bet that you think might makes right and that beating your children makes them respect you.


----------



## OregonAlex

BoneHeadNW said:
			
		

> Why do you have to be so antogonistic?.






			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> I am not, however you seem antagonistic to me. This is simply a political discussion.




oh ....well that was a productive exchange.


----------



## OregonAlex

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> I
> if we want to just a few key terrorists, then I propose it would be a lot cheaper to pass a few million dollar onto the "assassin" network through a broker and providing good intelligence.



Actually, I want to change my position answer here. This will just make the terrorist leaders into martyrs and will make the situation worse. That was a bad call on my part.

Which bring up a good point. If we had actually succeeded in killing Bin Laden would we be better or worse off in our fight against terrorism?


----------



## Cityboy

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> I believe you admit right here that they did what you suggest as your recognize that we "should have taken Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity".


 
I have no clue what you mean here. Admit what, exactly? Clinton had the opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody, yet he did not. You can know that if Bin Laden had been handed to Bush as he was to Clinton, Bush would have acted.




			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> As to retribution, I think you have to think about your actions before you do them. They decided to put themselves into a defensive position by increasing intelligence instead go on a offensive by attacking entire countires like Bush did.


 
The defensive position led to the attack on 9/11 because the Islamic Fascists perceive this position as weak. Whether you agree with Bush’s action in Iraq or not, the terrorists are now on the defensive, and tens of thousands of them have been killed. The mainstream news media only reports the bad news from Iraq. Let’s apply the logic test to the situation in Iraq. We have approximately 120,000 troops in Iraq. By necessity, the majority of these troops are in support units. That leaves approximately 50,000 combat troops carrying out operations. Iraq is a country of more than 20,000,000 people. If things were actually as bad as the MSM and the political Left would lead us to believe, could our tiny number of troops survive with a death rate of 1.6% of the 120,000? Why would anyone want to assume a defensive position and fight the terrorists on our own soil?




			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> fighting terrorism by going on the offensive has never worked for Isreal. They just keep coming back more pissed off at you. Why should it work for us?


 
Oh really? Israel is surrounded by millions of people hostile to them and who wish to see the Jews completely annihilated. Do you honestly believe that the Islamic Fascists who want genocide of the Jews would leave them alone if they assumed your suggestion? These are the same Islamic Fascists that want you dead too, Alex. If the United States would get out of the way and let Israel do what must be done from a position of strength, then there would be peace through strength. Every time a peace agreement has been reached between the so-called “Palestinians” and the Jews, the Islamic Fascists have broken the peace agreement every single time. 




			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> For one thing is we should stop taking sides in the religious war in the





			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Middle East. Our position there is unwelcomed. We should stop supplying Isreal with weapons like F-16s.


 

So, you would have the United States allow the Jews in Israel to be annihilated by the Islamic Fascists? Your answer is just to abandon Israel? Who needs those pesky Jews around anyway, right Alex? That is exactly what would happen if the United States did what you suggest. Think about this for a while. Really think hard.




			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> if we want to just a few key terrorists, then I propose it would be a lot cheaper to pass a few million dollar onto the "assassin" network through a broker and providing good intelligence.


 
On this point we agree, however, soft hearted American Leftists put a stop to the practice. It would save thousands of lives if we could let the CIA quietly remove key terrorists and those funding those terrorists from the planet.




			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> I would recommend that going on the offensive is the last thing we should be doing. It will is just bring more bloodshed. You have to understand the motivation of the terrorists. If you act offensively it will just start a war, which is what they want in the first place. You got to remember, these countries in the middle east are not full of terrorists. It is just a a very tiny percentage. If you start going on the offensive and taking over countries to flush out the terrorists you will just end up killing innocent civilians and pissing off people who had no wish to do us any harm until that point.


 
I am thankful that those who espouse this Leftist philosophy were not in charge of our nation during WW2. Maybe if we had just tried to understand Germany and Japan a little better we would not have had to go to war, right Alex? After all, it was only Hitler and a few brown shirts causing the problem, right? The fact is the Islamic Fascists of the world seek world rule. They believe they have the divine right to rule by Islamic theocracy. That, Alex, is their motivation. We ignore this fact at our own peril. 




			
				OregonAlex said:
			
		

> or is it a safe bet that you think might makes right and that beating your children makes them respect you.


 
This statement is so asinine that I should not even reply, however it does give some insight to your thought process.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> or is it a safe bet that you think might makes right and that beating your children makes them respect you.


 
Wow - Alex, you've been taking debating lessons from OkeeDon!  

Wrapping up a bunch of points with a nice little personal attack is a great way to discredit your prior efforts.

IMO - very weak.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> For one thing is we should stop taking sides in the religious war in the Middle East. Our position there is unwelcomed. We should stop supplying Isreal with weapons like F-16s.


 
Israel will defend themselves no matter what.  They have proven this time and time again.  They are more than capable of this.  

If they needed planes they would just buy them elsewhere or build them themselves.  They would probably end up making better planes than us and then we would really be in no position to stop them from selling them to other countries.

We do give Israel a lot of money and I'm not sure I entirely support this.  The whole Israel issue is pretty yucky.  The PLO has done a good job of re-writing history and influencing world opinion against Israel.  I think turning our backs on Israel would not be the wisest thing to do.  I do feel that our involvement over there is largely to keep it from getting out of control.

What would happen to the world if we suddenly have Israel and Iran lobbing nukes at each other?  Not something I want to see happening. The consequences and resultant chain of events are unforseeable.


----------



## OregonAlex

PBinWA said:
			
		

> Wow - Alex, you've been taking debating lessons from OkeeDon!
> 
> Wrapping up a bunch of points with a nice little personal attack is a great way to discredit your prior efforts.
> 
> IMO - very weak.


PB,

You have a point there.


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> [I am thankful that those who espouse this Leftist philosophy were not in charge of our nation during WW2. Maybe if we had just tried to understand Germany and Japan a little better we would not have had to go to war, right Alex? After all, it was only Hitler and a few brown shirts causing the problem, right? The fact is the Islamic Fascists of the world seek world rule. They believe they have the divine right to rule by Islamic theocracy. That, Alex, is their motivation. We ignore this fact at our own peril.



Lets review who we fought with during WWI and who came back even worse to start WWII.   How did we treat Germany at the end of WWI??  Did they like us after WWI?
How did we treat Germany and Japan at the end of WWII?
What is our relationship with Germany and Japan Now?

No point in countering your other points.. we are just so far away on these points.  Even on the ONE point you aggreed wth I changed my answer in a follow up point..  ha ha


----------



## Cityboy

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Lets review who we fought with during WWI and who came back even worse to start WWII. How did we treat Germany at the end of WWI?? Did they like us after WWI?
> How did we treat Germany and Japan at the end of WWII?
> What is our relationship with Germany and Japan Now?


 
We DEFEATED Germany. We DEFEATED Japan. Both surrendered. Both were occupied and our troops remain there to this day. Point: We did not assume a defensive position. Victory was the only option. The rest of Europe had initially assumed a "devensive" position. Look what happened to them. Germany is not sending sucide murderers here or flying airplanes into our buildings. Neither is Japan. Our relationship with Japan is positive. Germany is upset because they lost billions in contracts with Saddam Hussein. Life is tough, but Germany is not our enemy. Victory over radical Islam is the only answer now. These Islamo-Fascists cannot be bargained with, only defeated through strength. The Leftist philosophy of appeasment did not work in WW1, or WW2 and it will not work now. History has proven this.


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> We DEFEATED Germany. We DEFEATED Japan. Both surrendered. Both were occupied and our troops remain there to this day.


yes... we did defeat Germany in WWI.. but they came back again, Why is this?

we did this again in WWII?  Why did they not come back the second time?

Whats was the difference?




			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> Point: We did not assume a defensive position. Victory was the only option.


we did take a defensive position after WWII.. that was a non-offensive relationship with Germany and Japan to prevent WWIII.  The same thing I propose here after 9/11.  By non-offensive, I don't just mean military attack.



			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> The rest of Europe had initially assumed a "devensive" position. Look what happened to them. Germany is not sending sucide murderers here or flying airplanes into our buildings. Neither is Japan.


Are you sure that Japan did not use suicide murders to fly airplanes into our buildings during Pearl Harbor? I think we know all too well how hard it is to defeat our enemy who is willing to commit suicide for their country to try to kill as many Americans as possible. 



			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> Our relationship with Japan is positive.


yes, I don't think this is because we beat them to a pulp.  This is because we wanted to help them rebuild their country after the war and helped them.  Same reason with Germany.



			
				Cityboy said:
			
		

> Cityboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany is upset because they lost billions in contracts with Saddam Hussein.
> 
> 
> 
> you have any proof to support this statement?  Post it.  Otherwise I will simply discredit your statement as a rumor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cityboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory over radical Islam is the only answer now. These Islamo-Fascists cannot be bargained with, only defeated through strength. The Leftist philosophy of appeasment did not work in WW1, or WW2 and it will not work now. History has proven this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we had no belief after WWI.. as a result this lead into WWII.  We then decide to take a different route and made an effort to turn our enemies into our friends.  As a result, WWIII with Germany and Japan is very unlikely today.  If we just repeated what we did after WWI, I think we would likely see WWIII with Germany and Japan.
Click to expand...


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> I am thankful that those who espouse this Leftist philosophy were not in charge of our nation during WW2.


I think it would be a good idea if you reviewed your history.  Check into the party and the philosophy of the Roosevelt administration, and check into the party affiliation and philosophy of folks like Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Robert Taft  and others.    Then, think about how you're tossing around the term "Leftist".

Charles Lindbergh: "As Nazi Germany began World War II, the Republican Lindbergh became a prominent speaker in favor of isolationism and pro-German policies, going so far as to recommend that the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Germany during his January 23, 1941 testimony before Congress."

Father Coughlin: "In              the late 1930s Coughlin moved sharply to the right and accused Franklin              D. Roosevelt of "leaning toward international socialism or              sovietism". He also praised the actions of Adolf              Hitler and Benito              Mussolini              in              the fight against communism in Europe. On 20th November 1938, Coughlin              defended the activities of the Nazi Government              as a necessary defence against the Soviet Union."

Robert Taft: "As a U.S. senator, he was given the nickname "Mr. Republican"; he was the chief ideologue and spokesperson for the old-fashioned paleoconservatism of the Republican Party of that era. An isolationist, he strove to keep the United States neutral during World War II..."


----------



## Cityboy

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> .
> 
> you have any proof to support this statement? Post it. Otherwise I will simply discredit your statement as a rumor.


 
It is common knowledge that Germany, France and Russia had money tied up in Iraq. Why do you think they were so upset that we were not going to allow them to participate in contracts with Iraq after the invasion because they and France opposed us? Just follow the money. Here are some interesting links about Germany's involvement in the oil for food scandal. I picked one from the BBC, not exactly a right wing publication. Enjoy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4382820.stm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/10/150717.shtml

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I think it would be a good idea if you reviewed your history. Check into the party and the philosophy of the Roosevelt administration, and check into the party affiliation and philosophy of folks like Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Robert Taft and others. Then, think about how you're tossing around the term "Leftist".
> 
> Charles Lindbergh: "As Nazi Germany began World War II, the Republican Lindbergh became a prominent speaker in favor of isolationism and pro-German policies, going so far as to recommend that the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Germany during his January 23, 1941 testimony before Congress."
> 
> Father Coughlin: "In the late 1930s Coughlin moved sharply to the right and accused Franklin D. Roosevelt of "leaning toward international socialism or sovietism". He also praised the actions of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in the fight against communism in Europe. On 20th November 1938, Coughlin defended the activities of the Nazi Government as a necessary defence against the Soviet Union."
> 
> Robert Taft: "As a U.S. senator, he was given the nickname "Mr. Republican"; he was the chief ideologue and spokesperson for the old-fashioned paleoconservatism of the Republican Party of that era. An isolationist, he strove to keep the United States neutral during World War II..."


 
And your point is? I am no fan of FDR by any stretch and do not consider him even remotely to be a hero, let alone a good president, but that could be an entirely different thread. We are still suffering from his welfare programs to this day. You purport to be an open minded guy Don. Here is some recommended reading for you: "The Roosevelt Myth" written by John T. Flynn. Also read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Reading that book inspired me to learn all I could about FDR. These two books are quite enlightening and have been responsible for reforming untold thousands of Leftists. Give them a read and we can have some serious FDR debate. You will be amazed at FDR's relationship with Joseph Stalin. The MSM will never talk about that, and it has been swept under the rug for years.

I do not think FDR was a true Leftist, though he surrounded himself with them. He was more of a megalomaniac and opportunist like Clinton, constantly seeking center stage. Read the book by Flynn, check out the thorough bibliography and references and then we can discuss FDR.


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> It is common knowledge that Germany, France and Russia had money tied up in Iraq. Why do you think they were so upset that we were not going to allow them to participate in contracts with Iraq after the invasion because they and France opposed us? Just follow the money. Here are some interesting links about Germany's involvement in the oil for food scandal. I picked one from the BBC, not exactly a right wing publication. Enjoy.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4382820.stm
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/10/150717.shtml
> 
> http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053




I "skimmed" through all three articles you reference.  The first two where off topic


the first one I believe talks about certain companies taking advantage of the "oil for food" program. I dont see what this has to do to supporting your statement that Germany is mad at the US because it was selling Arms to Saddam prior to the war.

second one I believe talks about how Germany was upset at the US for hoggin all the spending as a result of the War.  

"Across Europe, response was swift and angry Wednesday to the U.S. order barring companies based in opponents of the Iraq war from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction projects."

the last one.. is more on topic.  However, the article was written by a former Iraqi who is motivated to sell his book.  Hardly someone who has nothing to gain from his so called experiences.  I am sure he will make lots of money by selling his book to people who believe if the same thing you do and the existence of the WMD.

[font=Verdana, Times]_Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000_[/font]


----------



## OkeeDon

The real issue with France, Russia and Germany over Iraq was oil.  [font=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times][font=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]_[font=&quot]“It’s pretty straightforward,”[/font]_[font=&quot] said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. [/font]_[font=&quot]“France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them.”  [/font]_[font=&quot]Of course, the problem with that was that France and Russia, along with Gernany, refused to accept that rationale and did not provide any assistance.

Part of the Wolfowitz scenario before we invaded Iraq was that Iraqi oil revenue would pay to rebuild the country (after we blew it up, presumably).  Of course, we all know not that did not happen.  Instead, American taxpayers are paying to rebuld Iraq, and France, Russia and Germany are getting their loads to the Hussein government repaid, while their oil contracts are being honored.

What changed?  How did we go from an arrogant postion about France and Russia to the subservient position where we are paying for the reconstruction and getting none of the oil revenues?  I have a theory about that.  It's my own theory; I haven't heard it proposed anywhere else.  However, it's the only way I can connect  the dots.

I believe that what happened was that the United States assumed that the Euro powers (and Russia) would simply fall into line because of our power.  However, I think they forgot to take into account that France, Germany and Russia are all nuclear powers, and that all of them have been opponents of the United States at one time or another.  I think that France, Russia and Germany banded  together and said, "You better not take our money and our oil contracts in Iraw away from us, or you'll see WW III."

Nothing else can explain why we were so certain ahead of the invasion that we would control the oil, and that we would throw those three a bone, yet after the invasion we are eating the worst kind of crow and paying for it all ourselves.  I think the Wolfowitz/Cheney miscalculations in Iraq went so far wrong that we had to back down to governments we like to portray as pipsqueaks.

That's a big part of the reason why I consider the Bush administration to be incompetent; they should have been able to see that one a mile away.


[/font][/font][/font]


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> And your point is?


My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, or chose to ignore, was not whether Roosevelt was a "true" leftist, but that it was the right wing who were the appeasers who wanted to throw in the towel in WWII.  In other words, it was the right wing who possessed the attitude you proclaimed as "Lefitist" in you diatribe.

Simple question -- if it was the right wing who were the wusses in WWII, how can you label that attitude as leftist?  Since everyone seems to be offended by what they think are my personal attacks, I'll leave off my comments about whether you are blind or not.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> [font=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times][font=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times][font=&quot]
> 
> That's a big part of the reason why I consider the Bush administration to be incompetent; they should have been able to see that one a mile away.
> 
> 
> [/font][/font][/font]


 
It is clear to me now that you, Don, should be President of the United States with your superior knowledge and forsight.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, or chose to ignore, was not whether Roosevelt was a "true" leftist, but that it was the right wing who were the appeasers who wanted to throw in the towel in WWII. In other words, it was the right wing who possessed the attitude you proclaimed as "Lefitist" in you diatribe.
> 
> Simple question -- if it was the right wing who were the wusses in WWII, how can you label that attitude as leftist? Since everyone seems to be offended by what they think are my personal attacks, I'll leave off my comments about whether you are blind or not.


 
You pointed out some quotes with no sources, interjected your opinion and drew your conclusion. How could I have missed that? Silly me.

How can I label that attitude as Leftist? Simple. Just look at the modern Democrat party and listen to their rhetoric. Listen to the Leftist Europeans. Listen to George Soros, controller and financier of the modern Democrat party, Listen to moveon.org, official spokes-group of the Democrat party. Listen to Howard Dean, leader of the Democrat party. Oh, and don't forget Michael Moore, and finally, by listening to you and Alex.


----------



## OkeeDon

Cityboy said:
			
		

> It is clear to me now that you, Don, should be President of the United States with your superior knowledge and forsight.


Thanks. But, the truth is, there were plenty of people, some in the Bush administration who got fired over it, who were aware of what would happen if we invaded Iraq, who provided the warnings, and who were ignored and brushed aside. More than 3 years later, we can see they were right.

By the way, as for providing links to the quotes I used, I would have thought by now that you would know that my quotes come from reliable sources. I've proved it over and over and over again. If you really want me to use the bandwidth to pro ve it yet again, I will, but I think you are really just trying to duck the issue by side tracking it. Be assured they are not my words, and the facts they present are so widely known that there are innumerable sources. Or, are you calling me a liar, again?

I didn't interject my opinion or draw any conclusions the first time I posted it, but you didn't get it, so I had to explain it to you in simple words.  Having done so, you no longer dispute my opinon or my conclusions, you just try to ridicule them.  That's practically an admission of the truth of my conclusions all by itself.


----------



## OregonAlex

CityBoy,

Are you saying that if a Republican would have been in office during the Bay of Pigs, the outcome would have been different AND better?  Should we have attacked the USSR or Cuba instead of trying to take a the position of the soft leftist President Kennedy?  Maybe you feel attacking Cuba or Russia with a pre-emptive strike would be a better option because we actually had evidence of WMD.  

Please answer this question and don't dodge around it.

-Alex

ps. you wont hear me making claims that if a Rep. was in office we would have gone to war with the USSR and Cuba.   On the contrary, that would make me sound like you.  I do not doubt that the outcome would be the same.  Do you disagree?

 I am looking for your opinion to see if you still feel the same about your statements about how leftist Democrats are weak and Republicans at not affraid to kick some but.  And that taking the Republican stance will lead to better outcoming in protecting this country.
So if you feel strongly about that statement then this leads me to believe you would have favor'ed kicking some Cuban and Russian and taking a pre-emptive stike as we did in Iraq instead of taking a defensive position that JFK took.. correct?  Of course the two situations are not exactly similiar (that is obivious) but it is not too hard to see what similiarities there actually are between Iraq and the Bay of Pigs.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> Or, are you calling me a liar, again?.


 
I have not been keeping count, but you have used that line quite a few times now. Misinformed or deluded, perhaps. Lying? Don't know for sure, as you have repeatedly stated, no one knows what you think.



			
				OkeeDon said:
			
		

> I didn't interject my opinion or draw any conclusions the first time I posted it, but you didn't get it, so I had to explain it to you in simple words. Having done so, you no longer dispute my opinon or my conclusions, you just try to ridicule them. That's practically an admission of the truth of my conclusions all by itself.


 
Not true. I have disputed all you just mentioned. It is you who repeatedly resorts to ridicule cloaked in verbiage designed to insult, yet fall within forum rules. You attempt to accuse others of the same behavior you engage in. Nice try, Don.


----------



## Cityboy

> Please answer this question and don't dodge around it.


 
You are off on a tangent. If this topic interests you, then start a new thread.


----------



## OregonAlex

Cityboy said:
			
		

> You are off on a tangent. If this topic interests you, then start a new thread.


I give up.. I asked you not to dodge one question.. and what do you do?
Tell me what your current posts have anything to do with "Bush and the NSA".  Why do you call out my post as being off topic and not choose to answer??  I will tell you because you are between a rock and a hard place and don't know how to get out of it.

it is pointless to debate with you.  There is a difference between me and you which make it pointless to debate with you. And I am not just talking political views.  And that is this...

I am not affraid to admit when I am wrong and when the other person debating with me has a valid point.  

You sir, are unable and unwilling to do this. (I can see why you like Bush so much, he is your role model) Instead you dodge points and questions, and call the earth flat till you are blue in the face. For that it is pointless to debate with you.

Don, 
I encourage you to do the same and not waste your efforts any further with CityBoy.  

I am not sure ArchDean ever left FF.


----------



## OkeeDon

OregonAlex said:
			
		

> Don, I encourage you to do the same and not waste your efforts any further with CityBoy.


He's ducking me too, so I agree it's pointless.


----------



## Cityboy

OkeeDon said:
			
		

> He's ducking me too, so I agree it's pointless.


 
I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. By 1994, my political philosophy began to change thanks to him. I have been debating Leftists on message boards since 2000, when I was an elected union officer and steward on a union blog. That was interesting being one of the few conservative union officers. My fellow union officers were Leftist to the core and it boggled their minds that I was not. The local union's have lost nearly half their members because the national union continues using union funds to push the Leftist agenda instead of actually representing the members and implementing the collective bargaining agreement. I know well the thought process of the Leftist philosophy. There are those who wish to actually debate ideas, and those who simply push their agenda no matter what the cost on both sides. There comes a point in each debate subject when the exchange breaks down into insults and childish displays of emotion. This thread has now reached that point. I have observed Don insult and berate people who counter his agenda since many of us were at TBN and then observed him throw a temper tantrum and threaten to leave the forum when his treatment is turned back on him. Alex appears to be attempting to emulate Don. I have seen people complain about a conservative poster putting a satirical photo up on the board, stating such postings cross the line and that very same complainer post a photo comparing Bush to Hitler. I could not care any less what satire anyone wishes to post, as I take it all in context and have the ability to see the humor and ignore the tasteless. The hypocrisy is what is absolutely amazing. But what amazes me about the left more than anything else is their lust for power that supercedes love of nation. Their concern for terrorist rights simply to make the current president look bad is beyond reason and logic. They constantly complain, yet offer no solutions. They have placed themselves in a position that for their party to look good, America must fail both economically and militarily. Is your party loyalty really worth that price? Go ahead and try and turn my post around on me as I know you will, but you cannot argue your way out of the position your party has behaved itself into.


----------



## smita

Politics....

and our politicians is what I have always abstained from but somehow with new election campaigns & soaring promises, seems like we need to have our say. Let us begin with understanding the basic needs that need to be addressed & from thereon we can compare & contrast against the huge promises & issues being brought up by our political candidates from AL gore & Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee & Fred Thompson. We need to analyze for ourselves what concerns our next generations, our economy & impacts our global standing and then see for ourselves what is being fulfilled & if the leader has the ability or expertise to do what is being promised. I see lot many people considering & discussing Al Gore, Hillary Clinton & Fred Thompson to be the potential candidates on various other discussion forums. As common masses, we need to be equally aware of opinions running through the head of our fellow citizens to be educated about the complete truth before we maker a move. 

Wishing all of you a Wonderful year ahead as I go out checking more political blogs & forums.


----------



## thcri RIP

Talk about bringing up an old thread.  Bush today Vetoed it.  I think I am happy that he did. With Terrorism the way it is today why should the United States give in to protect them.  I have nothing to hide they can monitor my phone calls all they want.  It would be pretty boring so I don't think they would spend much time listening.





> *Pelosi: Override attempt
> *Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence and raise country's moral standing abroad.
> 
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would work to override Bush's veto next week. "In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, D-Calif.




Nancy talkin about Morals


----------



## Deadly Sushi

i say dunk their ass!


----------

