A generals’ revolt may be ugly,
but who else has the credibility?
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
SO YOU WANT to impeach President Bush?
Well, for the first time, I can see one way that ditching him might be helpful, and not hugely destructive, to a nation at war:
It would put Dick Cheney in charge, and he might have what it takes to fire Donald Rumsfeld.
Sure, they are old comrades and longtime Bush family retainers, and the family’s loyalty fetish has mutated in this generation to the point that it is valued above the good of the nation. But they are not Bushes by blood, and Mr. Cheney would as soon shoot a pal in the face as look at him.
OK, yes, I’m being facetious — about the veep and about impeachment. But serious and likely solutions are scarce right now.
The secretary of defense must go. He should have gone two years ago (as this editorial board said at the time). He went into Iraq with no realistic idea of how to secure the country after the inevitable collapse of the Iraqi army, and hasn’t learned a lesson yet.
Our troops adapt constantly to their adversary’s changing tactics. But Mr. Rumsfeld is too smart
to learn anything. Just ask him; he’ll tell you. If he doesn’t say it out loud, he’ll say it with the set of his stony jaw, the swagger of his shoulders even standing still, the contempt in his aquiline eyes.
You want to talk hubris? Robert McNamara had an inferiority complex next to this guy.
His attitude has always alienated at least half the nation, and pretty much all of our allies. His decisions, his actions and his inactions have alienated many others, including those (like me) who believe completely in our nation’s mission in Iraq, and are sick of watching him screw it up.
His abstract notions of the proper size and shape of the military do not yield to battlefield realities — or to anything else. Sure, he’s right about some things, such as the wisdom of leveraging our exponential advantage in technology and the expansion of Special Forces and other light, flexible elements. But if only he were one-tenth as flexible as a Navy SEAL, or an Army Ranger, or a typical Marine.
But light and high-tech isn’t a slice of the pizza to him; it’s the whole pie. Special ops, precision-guided weapons and air superiority are critically important. But so is securing the country after the battle — sealing potentially hostile (i.e., Syrian) borders, guarding ammo dumps, placing MPs at every important crossroads and on and on (your know, all those low-tech tasks we performed so well across Europe in 1944-45).
This administration went into office promising not to engage in any nation-building, and although that policy ostensibly changed after 9/11, “Rummy” still acts as though he aims to keep the promise. That Iraq has come as far as it has is a testament to the dedication of American troops, and the courage of ordinary Iraqis. (Ironic, isn’t it? In Iraq, civilians risk their very lives for democracy; in America, it’s only our heartbreakingly few young people who serve in uniform. The rest of us get tax cuts and whine about fuel prices that are still lower than in most of the world.)
But isn’t this just more of the ranting from “the anti-war left” that Charles Krauthammer was decrying the other day? He appropriately highlighted the fact that anti-war types who never before trusted anyone wearing stars are suddenly greeting the dissent of six retired generals as wisdom from on high.
Well, you got me, Charles.
Except that I have never been “anti-war” by any conventional political application of the term. (I’m ticked that the military isn’t big enough to credibly threaten Iran or protect Darfur.)
Except that we endorsed George Bush twice. (Although I’m still appalled that the major parties didn’t offer us a better choice.)
Except that I embrace the outlook of real conservatives (such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who had to force this administration to remember how the good guys are supposed to treat prisoners).
And so forth.
Look, I’m not any happier than Mr. Krauthammer to see six men who have recently worn the uniform speak against civilian leadership. But in an environment in which civilian criticism is dismissed as coming from the “other side,” ex-military officers may be the only ones with the neutrality to lift us out of the partisan mire. They are credible because they have shunned politics.
Still, speaking up has to feel to them like breaking the code. It all makes for an unseemly spectacle — their broken silence, the media rush to ask other generals what they think, and the Rumsfeld defenders’ rush to point out commanders who support the official line. Generals shouldn’t have had to do this. But we needed someone with standing to do it.
You say you like Rummy? Well, early in this war, I enjoyed him, too. I liked his unapologetic, we’re-gonna-do-what-it-takes demeanor. I even took guilty pleasure in the “old Europe” crack, even though I could see it was strategically harmful.
But over time, it got to where it just wasn’t cute anymore. I didn’t see pride in country; I just saw pride. He’s got to go.
Related Posts
Brad, I think I hear you saying you would like to have a “centrist” moderate running the Defense Dept. The situation in Iraq is improving rapidly and as the citizens of the new democracy of Iraq come together and set aside their sectarian hatred to the extent they can, this country is going to take off and be a role model for all of the middle east. What is past is past, and for sure no one planned for such an insurgency post invasion. Are you aware that after the fall of the Nazi regime there was widespread insurgency in Germany, with American troops shot by snipers, explosions and fires set by the remnants of the regime. Collaborating Germans were executed by the “insurgents:. It did not die easily with the signing of a piece of paper. You should be writing articles honoring the real results that the US Military, led “strategically” by Rumsfeld has done. Instead, you are joining this chorus of has beens. I hope you also know that Gen. Zinni is a Clintonite who happens coincidentally to be promoting a book. How many copies would he sell if he had no controversy. A mere opportunist. Several of the others are 2 Stars who were passed over for promotion by guess who. See a pattern here.
I know the liberal media liked it much better when we had the indecisive Cohen leading Defense, working side by side with granny Madelaine Not Always So Bright. Aren’t these the people who signed a nuclear treaty and paid money to the N. Koreans. These were true appeasers through and through. Now we have a real man running Defense combined with a tough and smart Condi Rice. Quite an improvement.
Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rice et al have taken it right to the terrorists and from what I see the media especially is extremely ungrateful for the fine job. In the past few days yet another would be terrorist cell has been busted, working out of Atlanta of all places. With phone calls and travel coming in from Bangladesh to Atlanta, do you think we may have listened in to help stop another 9-11? If yes, don’t tell the liberals, as once again the W administration has stepped on the rights of terrorists to protect the American people. What a shame to people like Dickless Durbin, Leaky Leahy, and Chappaquiddick Ted among a whole cast of cowards and those who would sell out this nation. In summary, we cannot afford a spineless, let’s make everybody happy, do gooder Defense Secretary. I only wish Rummy was young enough to run for President.
“Are you aware that after the fall of the Nazi regime there was widespread insurgency in Germany, with American troops shot by snipers, explosions and fires set by the remnants of the regime.”
No.
Because there wasn’t.
“Do you believe in fairies? Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!”
–J.M. Barrie
Of course, Warthen’s column is yet another example of the dishonesty that makes him a failure as a journalist and as a human being.
“Well, early in this war, I enjoyed him, too. I liked his unapologetic, we’re-gonna-do-what-it-takes demeanor.”
In other words, Warthen advocated dismissing any obervations and analysis contrary to his chickenhawk fantasies. Warthen constantly impugned the patriotism of the detractors of the war. However, the detractors of the war have turned out to be 100% right and Warthen has turned out to be 100% wrong.
Warthen does not care about Rumsfeld’s misjudgments. He does not care about Rumsfeld’s arrogance. He does not care about Rumsfeld’s incompetence. He does not care about the lives that have been lost, or the money that has been stolen and wasted, under Rumsfeld’s stewardship. He does not care about the harm that Rumsfeld has brought to the United States. Warthen cares about nothing except the fact that Rumsfeld has failed to vindicate Warthen’s chickenhawk fantasies.
NOTHING that Warthen predicted has come to pass, and he has a choice. He can either admit that his fantasies are wrong, or he can seek a scapegoat. He can choose the honest, courageous course of admitting that he was wrong and the antiwar forces were right, or he can take the diehonest, cowardly course of seeking someone to bear the blame for the failure.
Can anyone be surprised that Warthen chooses the dishonest, cowardly course?
Mary, You need to brush up on your world history. Operation Werewolf in postwar Germany is well documented. Visit German Insurgency!
6 generals out of 8,000 generals agree with the anti-war Democrats. Whoopee!
And they have no specific criticisms of what Rumsfeld is doing wrong NOW, and no ideas of how to do things better.
Brad, you said the generals are credible because they shunned politics. I agree, so let them keep shunning it. Think for a minute about when Bill Clinton took over as commander in chief, and not 6 but 1000 generals had come forward to say they could not obey him because they could not respect him. The outcry of mutiny would have been loud and the liberals would have wanted blood. The 6 generals are starting a dangerous precedent. Kerry will never make President but if he ever did, you may see the tables turned. Not a nice picture, eh?
Dave, once again you prove what a cowardly, hypocritical piece of garbage you are. Why should the generals shun politics because you tell them to? They are American citizens, the same as you, and actually better than you because they have contributed to America, while you have been nothing but a burden and a liability from the day you were born until now. If you had courage and integrity, you would seek to refute their arguments. Because you are nothing but a lazy, worthless, coward, however, you argue not that they are wrong, but that their viewpoint should not be given voice.
And oh yeah, I know all about “Operation Werewolf”. I know it was brought up years ago by apologists for the Iraq war, and I know that their claims were refuted years ago. Even the article you refer to cites only ONE incident, which occurred in March, 1945, BEFORE the German surrender.
Again, history consists of things that HAPPENED, not someone’s drug-induced subjective impressions.
Oh let’s see.
Commanding General George McClellan never thought the Commander and Chief was willing to commit enough resources to battle to accomplish the mission. There’s nothing new about generals not thinking they have enough troops.
The Union’s prospects were so grim several years into the war that there were serious doubts that Lincoln would be reelected.
Retired General McClellan was so incensed at the incompetency of the civilian commander that he ran against Abraham Lincoln for president in 1864. There’s nothing new about retired generals criticizing the president.
We know now that while George McClellan was credible, he was also wrong.
George McClellan credible?
Please use someone to make your point that wasn’t paranoid to the extreme.
I studied McClellan for almost 3 (too long) months as an undergrad, there are other examples to use for your point.
Mary is a hoot. She is too angry and seemingly hate filled to take seriously, but it is a funny read.
Lindsey Graham and John McCain are real conservatives? Does that make anyone to the right of these two an extremist?
Seems to me that Mr. Warthen has just put down most of the Republicans in our state, as well as most of the Republicans in Washington.
Careful, Brad, your liberal bias is showing.
Lindsey is a true Conservative – yes. Without a doubt. The American Conservative Union ranks Lindsey and Jim Demint (a man most likely thinks Bush is way too far to the left) with the same 96 score.
Donald Rumsfeld is a joke at this point. Bush is smart enough to realize that. I wouldn’t have voted for the guy twice if I thought he couldn’t figure this one out.
Operation Werewolf was begun in broadcasts by Goebbels himself, in a nightly program called, “Radio Werewolf”, to create guerilla resistance to the invasion of Germany. By the time US and Russian forces arrived, hundreds of moderate politicials and town leaders had been murdered by the SS and pro-Nazi guerillas. The resistance lasted well after the invasion of of Germany and its surrender.
Most Americans are unaware of this chapter of World War II, and liberals would prefer to remain ignorant of it.
Urban legends seem to be popping up everywhere these days. The moon landing is a hoax. Space aliens landed in New Mexico in the 1940s. Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle and for those of us in South Carolina the infamous Lizardman. Now we have Operation Werewolf. Here’s the truth about this right wing nonsense (from johnmckay.blogspot):
There was a limited amount of commando activity during the latter part of the war, conducted by German military troops under the command of the Nazi government. These activities ended as soon as the government surrendered. The occupation was remarkably orderly in the sense of resistance. The challenges faced by our troops were the humanitarian and economic challenge of dealing with millions of refugees and tens of millions of people living where the economic infrastructure had been completely demolished. There was no guerilla resistance in Germany. None.
Besides, what does ANYTHING associated with WW II have to do with the current Iraq conflict. The two have absolutely nothing in common.
Bud, it was an excuse for the continuing Iraq insurgency. Various administration apologists claimed “well, an insurgency like this isn’t unusual, there was an insurgency among Germans after World War II”. Of course, as you stated, there were no or almost no postwar acts of resistance, and certainly no organized resistance movement.
And as time passes, the references to “Operation Werewolf become more and more ludicrous. It is now almost 3 years since Bush pranced around on an aircraft carrier. Are any Bush apologists (other than the Bizarro World twins Lee and Dave) suggesting that there was an organized resistance in Germany as late as 1948? Because that’s what “Operation Werewolf” would have to be in order to have any kind or relevancy to the Iraq insurgency.
I have to admit, it’s hard for me to keep up. Out of one side of their mouths, the Bizarro World twins say that everything is going great, and it’s only the fifth columnists and saboteurs who say it isn’t. Out of the other side, they talk about Operation Werewolf.
If things are going so great, why are they talking about Operation Werewolf at all?
If you want to compare this war against radical Islam with World War II, Afghanistan is more like Eqypt and Iraq is like Italy. We still have Iran and other states of the Axis of Evil to conquer.
Liberals have no stomach for any defense of Western civilization, and all their arguments are just excuses for their craven hatred of seeing it resist reactionary movements like socialism, communism, fascism and now Islamofascism.
Lee foams:
Liberals have no stomach for any defense of Western civilization, and all their arguments are just excuses for their craven hatred of seeing it resist reactionary movements like socialism, communism, fascism and now Islamofascism.
David dismisses:
Mary is a hoot. She is too angry and seemingly hate filled to take seriously, but it is a funny read.
David could almost as accurately substitute “Lee” for “Mary.”
I say “almost” because some fools like Dave would take Lee’s bizarro world statements seriously.
If Lee had a clue then he’d understand that Bushism is fascism cloaked in the ole red, white and blue.
Same old personal smears in lieu of any constructive criticism of Rumsfeld, Bush, or anything related to the war on Islamofascism.
Buddhists or Quakers could have hijacked the planes on 9/11, but they didn’t.
Mary Rosh says about Dave:
[…] (the dissenting generals) are American citizens, the same as you, and actually better than you because they have contributed to America, while you have been nothing but a burden and a liability from the day you were born until now. […]
Mary, with all due respect, unless you’ve known Dave since he was born then I think that this statement qualifies as an ad hominem attack. (“ad hominem– appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason, as by attacking one’s opponent rather than debating the issue.”)
Dave may be a Vietnam Vet who suffered severe brain damage saving his comrades. Or, he may be a trained parrot that simply repeats rightwing talking points and BS.
Unless you know more about Dave than I’ve seen presented on this blog then I don’t think that you can honestly describe him as a “burden and liability” who hasn’t contributed to this country.
Lee says:
…old personal smears in lieu of any constructive criticism…
Pot-Kettle-Black.
Lee says: “Liberals have no stomach for any defense of Western civilization, and all their arguments are just excuses for their craven hatred of seeing it resist reactionary movements like socialism, communism, fascism and now Islamofascism.”
Wow, I always thought liberals were bleeding hearts that loved everybody. I didn’t realize I had craven hatred. Thanks for pointing that out.
Seriously, I guess when the facts are not on your side you can always resort to name calling.
Let’s face it Lee and Dave, the Bush Administration, including Rummy, have abandoned the time-honored principles of our founding fathers with their foreign policy failures. The torture, rendetions, secret prisons, etc. are not in keeping with the values expressed in the bill of rights, the ten commandments or any other document espousing ethical behavior. I long for the day when we can behave as a civilized America, a powerful, yet benevolent country, respected, not hated, abroad; a nation working for the betterment of mankind. But we can only get there by honestly examining facts, and not by embracing bizzare, wacky urban legend nonsense.
I just want to insert a plug here for the film “Why We Fight,” playing at the Nickelodeon Tuesday through Thursday. You can find links to info on my blog (click on my name). Of course Dave and Lee would hate it, but I really think it’s a completely different category of film from you-know-what-by-that-big-rotund-guy.
Eisenhower’s coining of the phrase “military-industrial complex” is well known, but few have heard much of the surrounding speech. Really remarkable and prescient. McCain in the film comes off as trying to position himself as a latter-day Eisenhower. We could do worse.
The only thing almost fascist I remember reading on this blog is Lee’s claim to Western European cultural superiority, which in comments he’s written before, sound chillingly similar to Aryan superiority. But I’m sure he’ll have plenty to say in defense.
This has nothing to with the above, but I just read an old definition of “fundamentalism” that I had never seen before (this time referring to Christian “fundamentalists”) — “too much fun, too much damn, and too little mental.” Except growing up a little with it, I’m not sure about the “too much fun” — I’d rather say “too little”.
I thought that was funny, though I mean no disrespect to many good and well-intentioned people.
RTH – I know I have told Mary I served honorably in the US Army active and REserves from 1971 to 1977. That doesnt matter to her. She or it is a flamer.
Phillip – I probably would enjoy it.. I will check your site.
Bud – The Bush admin has been working on re-establishing America as the beacon of freedom to the world. I will have more on this later as I have to run.
“The Bush admin has been working on re-establishing America as the beacon of freedom to the world. I will have more on this later as I have to run.”
No problem but the way they have went about it isn’t going to make too many other nations want to follow our lead. That is the problem.
When you damage your credibility with intelligence that is off-base and flat out wrong, that isn’t the recipe for anything but trouble.
Herb, how can illiterate, illegal immigrants from backward countries have a superior culture? Why are they unable to make their own countries into economic and social examples, if the culture is so superior?
White liberals need to stop with their racist insistance that “all cultures are equal”, when many of them have not progressed in 3,000 years. That is why the smarter prisoners of these backwards cultures want to escape and sneak into America or Europe.
Still not a single specific criticism of Rumsfeld from his wannabe critics, much less any ideas on how to fight the war.
David, the US intelligence gathering capability was crippled by law due to the Frank Church commission and Jimmy Carter’s administration. Clinton had 8 years to ruin the CIA and NSA, and with lawyerly help from Jamie Gorelick he did ruin it. So we got 9-11 as a result of that weakness. Carter literally handed Iran over to the fundamentalist mullahs. He was being a nice liberal like many who would put foreign cultures on a par or even rate them better than the American culture. Carter showed weakness and that is what the Islamics look for and when they see it they pounce on it. Even now, the President of Iran is laughing at the threat of Europe or the UN doing anything via sanctions. It is clear they fear strength and only strength. Their day is coming and it may well have to be the Israelis that “seize the day”.
The Islamic fundamentalists fear Rumsfeld and will collaborate with the pacifist left in America to have him destroyed. Remember the French and Russians had assured Saddam that he would not be invaded. So he sat there puffing his chest bragging about the mother of all wars and how the US would lose. Then he quickly went to find a spiderhole to hide in. The Iranian thugs running that country are no different. They may have their ratholes already picked out. And Ramsey Clark on retainer to defend them. Much of this is predictable.
Lee, as progress continues in Iraq, day by day, even the traitors at the NY Times will have to eventually recognize progress. Then, you can be sure that they will claim the progress occurred in spite of Rumsfeld and Bush. They would prefer to say that Sean Penn-is had a more positive influence in Iraq. They reluctantly give our military any credit at all.
American consumer confidence is at a 5 year high now. That is with the high gas prices. Interesting.
Brad’s original article discussed the obvious need to fire Donald Rumsfeld for his utter incompetence in handling the Iraq war. We are now up to 8 generals that have openly come out criticizing the Secretary of Defense. It’s crystal clear to me that ole Rummy has failed miserably in this endevour.
Of course Dave and Lee disagree with Brad and most of the writers. They claim that progress is being made and the press is only reporting the bad news. The press does seem to get hung up on American casualities (62 dead so far in April, double the total for all of March). So I thought I’d do a little research and see just how well things are going aside from the American soldiers killed. Well guess what, there really, really, really is very little good news to report. Here are some facts:
Electricity output has dipped to its lowest point in three years in Iraq, where the desert sun is rising toward another broiling summer and US engineers are winding down their rebuilding of the crippled power grid”, Associated Press reported on March 25. It reported that despite US$4 billion having been paid out to US engineering contractors to refurbish Iraq’s electricity network, output in February had dropped to 3750 megawatts a day. Prior to the US-led invasion in March 2003, Iraq’s sanction-crippled electricity output averaged around 4500 megawatts. Since then most residents of Baghdad, a city of 7 million people, have received less than eight hours of electricity a day. In February, they received 3-5 hours. “We’re living miserably”, Baghdad housewife Suad Hassan, a mother of four, told AP. Her family usually goes without hot water and machine washing, she said, and “often my children have to do their homework in the dim light of oil lamps”.
From Green Left Weekly, April 5, 2006.
BAGHDAD (Reuters – April 24, 2006) – Insurgents have succeeded in crippling Iraq’s energy industry and the government has ignored calls for help in the battle against corruption and smuggling, the oil ministry’s inspector general said on Tuesday.
BAGHDAD (Reuters – April 24, 2006) – A car bomb targeting an Iraqi police patrol exploded in central Baghdad on Monday, wounding 25 people, police said. They said the blast occurred near the Ministry of Health. There were no further details. The attack, which followed a rocket blast that killed seven people on Sunday.
Journalist shares experiences from Iraq
By Mary Kvachkoff
Dawgnet News Editor
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Freelance journalist Mike Shiley risked his life every day to capture a behind-the-scenes look at the war in Iraq, which he then brought back to America. Here are some of his findings:
§ “Iraqis are suffering from a fifty percent unemployment rate, which is double the U.S.’s unemployment rate during the Great Depression.”
§ “When they say ‘we’re outfitting hospitals as a part of rebuilding Iraq,’ I’ve been in the hospitals and I see many brand new X-ray machines which are pushed aside and go unused because once they are out of film, there are no backup supplies,” Shiley said.
§ “When I was in Iraq in 2003 there were only 14 insurgent attacks a day,” he said. “This has risen to over 100 attacks a day in 2005, and is happening partly because of a promise we have failed to uphold.”
BAGHDAD, Iraq – The U.S. military said Tuesday it has issued new orders to private contractors in Iraq to crack down on violations of human trafficking laws involving laborers brought in from around the world to work on American bases and other sites.
So this is progress? 50% unemployment, human trafficking, electricity shortages, shortages of supplies in hospitals! And the list goes on and on.
No Dave, there really isn’t much in the way of good news coming out of Iraq. Certainly you can’t describe this as progress? Brad is correct on this one, Donald Rumsfeld needs to go.
Who should replace Rumsfeld, and what would you have him do differently?
Do you even have a definition of success?
Do you really want the US to succeed in Iraq?
Bud, good points.
My 1st cousin recently returned from Iraq. He is a 1st Lt in the Army. He is for the war for the most part. He has so many problems with the running of the way I honestly got tired of hearing him talk about it when I saw him recently. It was pretty disheartening.
Heard a good discussion on this issue today on NPR’s Talk of the Nation show. Had 2 retired Generals on that have been critical of Rumsfeld and a retired Army Lt Colonel who thought the Generals should not have complained but even he gave quite a few reasons that he thought Rumsfeld was a disaster.
You can listen to the show at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5361889&ft=1&f=5
Great discussion.
Bud, Lee is right. The disaster in Iraq is YOUR FAULT for not believing hard enough.
CLAP LOUDER!!!!
Bud, everything you noted as bad news is coming out of the one small Sunni triangle. 80% of the rest of Iraq is moving to a normal lifestyle of peace and growth etc. It is unfortunate we are patient enough to fight a politically correct war in the Sunni triangle against thugs and murderers. A solution, you start with the most infested areas of Saddam supporters. Enforce martial law where autos and trucks are completely barred from the streets and no one is permitted on streets at night. The terrorists are obviously roaming the areas at will and using car bombs. That will be hard on the decent people but its the only way to stop the slaughtering. If martial law doesnt work in an area, you then remove the women and children and kill everyone else left behind. That will stop it. This is war after all, not hide and seek.
Dave, a lot of Iraq is uninhabited desert, so yeah, in the places where nobody lives, things are pretty quiet. In the places where people live, no so much.
How is enforcing martial law against the Iraqi people going to help take care of this:
“BAGHDAD, Iraq – The U.S. military said Tuesday it has issued new orders to private contractors in Iraq to crack down on violations of human trafficking laws involving laborers brought in from around the world to work on American bases and other sites.”
This is a response to crimes being committed by people BROUGHT IN BY THE UNITED STATES. Who’s responsible for those crimes? Not the Iraqi people. Not even the insurgents. The people responsible for that are the chickenhawks that planned and orchestrated the invasion.
But yeah, you can sit on your sofa, living off handouts, urging sacrifices on others, making excuses for failures, and blaming the people who were right about the war to begin with for failing to believe hard enough.
“Do you believe in fairies? Oh, say that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!”
–J.M. Barrie
Mary. I’m a big believer in some things. Fairies, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny are all plausible. But, as Dave has suggested, Bush acting as a beacon spreading freedom throughout the world???? Now there is a real fantasy. I’m afraid it’s going to take more than clapping to clean up the mess this bunch has given us.
To answer Lee’s question: Who would I appoint as Secretary of Defense? Congressman Murtha would be perfect for the job. He has an impeccable military background and fully understands the quagmire we’re in. It won’t be easy, but perhaps someone with his credentials could at least start the process.
Dave says:
even the traitors at the NY Times will have to eventually recognize progress.
Dave picks up the bankrupt “traitor” meme, again. It never fails. Bankrupt wingnuts just have to play the victim card and whine about the messenger instead of what their lyin’ eyes tell them.
Then, you can be sure that they will claim the progress occurred in spite of Rumsfeld and Bush.
Say, Dave, you remember when Rummy essentially sacked Shinseki because he had the temerity to give his opinion to Congress? Remember that opinion? Yeah, Shinseki thought that the invasion force should be A LOT bigger than Gen..er, Consiglierie Rummy. Then what happened? Well, we actually needed all those boots that didn’t fit into Rummy’s cute li’l plan.
Those troops could have protected the supply lines so that our truck convoys weren’t sitting ducks for the insurgents. They could have enforced a curfew; ensured civil order; and, ensured that the insurgents didn’t back up semis to arms dumps at their leisure.
Now, Dave, guess what happened to those artillery shells looted while Donald “that’s democracy for ya” Rumsfeld fiddled. Hint: they became IEDs.
Hey, Lee I’m betting that there are numerous people who’re more in touch with reality than the Donald. You know, the guy who OK’d disbanding thousands of Iraqi troops with their weapons.
Who would have thought that broke, unemployed and armed former soldiers would cause a problem?
Who would have thought that a society formerly under the harsh discipline of Saddam would have resorted to looting, thievery, and general lawlessness? Not Rummy. Not Feith. Not Wolfowitz. Not Dead-eye Dick. Not Dear Leader.
But, wait, the State Dept.had a multi-volume plan for post-war Iraq that did recognize the pitfals. They (and lots of others, actually) weren’t blinded by a stupid ideology that confused Paris, 1944 with Baghdad, 2004.
They would prefer to say that Sean Penn-is had a more positive influence in Iraq.
Really, Dave. Strawmen are the last refuge of intellectual weaklings who don’t have an argument.
They reluctantly give our military any credit at all.
Good, grief. The media marched in lockstep with Dear Leader’s propaganda machine all the way from Niger to Baghdad. They sang the praises of the military, especially when they slammed through a thoroughly overmatched, third rate army with no air cover. They adopted all the ridiculous operation names and played stirring martial music accompaniment of our “shock and awe” bombardment. They unquestioningly repeated the Jessica Lynch propaganda. They glossed over Rummy’s pro-torture instructions for Abu Gharib and Gitmo.
So, please. Spare us the “poor, pitiful victim” of the “bad ole Librul media” routine. It’s so shopworn that it’s transparent. And it makes you look even more stupid.
American consumer confidence is at a 5 year high now. That is with the high gas prices. Interesting
The price of gas goes up over 40 cents per gallon in a month and you think that consumer confidence will stay high? Good luck because the ripple effect through out the economy is just beginning to be felt and Dubya’s poll numbers will submarine even more when that happens.
Bud, aren’t you afraid of how your questioning of President Bush is affecting our troops? Everything would be fine if our troops weren’t demoralized by your lack of belief.
CLAP LOUDER!!!!!!!
The insurgents aren’t broke at all. Millions of dollars continue to flow in from the Iranians, Saudis, Syrians, and others. Much of the insurgency is mercenary in nature, including the suicide bombers. But it is lessening and being dealt with. The Iraqi military is not handcuffed like our military has been, with lawyers ready to sue any soldier accused of a misdeed. In spite of all the doom and gloom leftists, this will end with a political and military success. Count on it.
Lee, I owe you an apology. My last post was not accurate, and not even kind. To label an attitude as “fascist”, or to suggest it, is to impugn it as destructive of our republic, which is not what you intend.
I think I’ll refrain from posting much for awhile, not only because of current workload, but because I seem to be mostly trying to pick a squabble at the moment, which is not the way I normally operate.
Not that we agree with each other all that much, because we don’t. But your last reply was much more civil than mine. I do have some points to make about evaluating culture. I’m not sure that a wealth of material goods is really a positive indicator. But of course, the freedom to be able to accumulate goods is, and a freedom we may take too lightly.
Evaluating cultures is a complex issue, and there are many things that are good about ours, which I readily admit.
Still no specific criticisms from the liberals of Rumsfeld’s administration, the progress of the war, nor any suggestions for improvement.
Anybody notice how much calmer and more rational these dialogues get (however briefly) when Herb, or Phillip, or Paul DeMarco join in? Not to run everybody else down; I just want to thank those three (and I’m sure there are others I’m forgetting) for the efforts they make to inject civility. It’s a quality much needed.
Why do moderates value civility more than truth and clarity?
Brad,
I love Lee, Dave and Mary. They add considerably to the entertainment value of your Blog.
Keep up the good work.
Mr. W, I especially enjoyed the headline on that two-year old article: “IF YOU SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT IN IRAQ, YOU WANT RUMSFELD TO GO”
Since Bush has just, in his inimitable way, re-affirmed his support for Rumsfeld, may we infer that Bush doesn’t support Bush in Iraq? Maybe you can do a post about how Bush is so blinded by hatred of Bush that Bush would rather see Bush fail in Iraq than see America succeed . . .
Bud, Where there’s Bud, there’s life. Enjoy.
Lee wrote “Why do moderates value civility more than truth and clarity?”
LOL. A better question would be – why do hard partisans on either side of the aisle think that acting uncivil will convince anyone of anything?
Pretty basic common sense. If my neighbor shouts at me across the yard that I am doing something wrong, I won’t pay him any attention at all. If he walks over and greets me in a respectful manner, I’d probably go out of my way to discuss any concerns has has to make.
I think a lot of folks learn that lesson young in life. Those that don’t learn that lesson get awfully bitter because they are ignored a lot.
David, discussion ended on 9-11. If that neighbor approached you and said smilingly he was moving onto your property to build a shack, your civility would end soon. The Muslim terrorists are like that bad neighbor.
I don’t get it, Dave. Why does a tragedy do away with the lesson of civility? I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. If we become like our enemies, then they have won. 1 Corinthians 13 buddy. If people think you really don’t care, you can yell until you are blue in the face. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a case in point. He didn’t yell and scream at injustice, but he was no mamby-pamby in the face of evil, either.
There is a limit to how much civility one has a right to expect, when the engage in discussions with almost no knowledge of the subject, and just spout slogans masquerading as ideas, or chant that so-and-so is a loser and Bush needs to fire them, without ever naming what is wrong, much less how they would fix it.
Most people who do understand subjects and post in blogs need thick skin, to withstand the vitrol from those whose superstitions are threatened. That’s why you don’t see many physicians bothering to respond to the clamors for socialized medicine. Why should they take time to provide remedial education to people who slept through high school?
The problem is, it seems to me, Lee, that anyone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of the subject, by definition. So dialogue is squelched. I believe that is too typical of the polarization in this country. “I am all in the right, and whoever disagrees with me is all in the wrong.” That is the way too many people come across, even if they don’t mean it. And we wonder why Congress is gridlocked.
Great point Herb. That is why I don’t give any – not a bit – of thought to what Lee posts. His style is one of such arrogance that it isn’t worthy of consideration.
That is why Lee has to point to a town mayor in New Jersey to rebut my “Libertarians can’t win city dog catcher” argument.
It was the same thing listening to John Wrisley’s old radio show on WVOC 560am in Columbia. John was a good radio guy but John was always the smartest guy in the room – according to the way he interviewed people. John always ended up trying to make himself look better/smarter than his hosts – a big no-no to most classic radio hosts which John always looked up to. The end result was John always seemed to be complaining about everything and never- ever offering any solution – and never – every being willing to step up to the plate to try to get involved enough to do something about anything. Just liked to complain.
Dave
I wasn’t talking about terrorists or 9/11. I was talking about civil discussion on this board. If my neighbor shot at me with a shotgun, I am not going to politely invite him over for coffee. Context is important in any message board conversation.
Thanks Dave, but your post centers around 9/11 and Muslim terrorists. My point is that we need to rise above the level of our enemies, whether next door neighbor or terrorist. I’ve often had to go over to a neighbor and try to civilly discuss an issue that she/he was yelling about. Once it was a German landlord who would slam the broom against the ceiling of our apartment every time our daughter walked around the room. When we went downstairs to open up the issue, all of a sudden it didn’t exist. They didn’t expect an ignorant foreigner to have the courage to open up a conversation.
Obviously, terrorists are in a different class, but we still don’t need to be like them, do we?
Herb, some posters here have a lot of knowledge of the subjects, and they post facts which they consider to be relevant.
But most blogs attract people with little knowledge who blather slogans from TV and then insult those who try to inform them. Most educated people have no patience with that. Others decide to stick it out and not let the bullies and cyberthugs take over another corner.
Herb, Christ himself went after the moneychangers in the temple in a very uncivil manner. He trashed their tables and ordered them to get out immediately. I know I am preaching to the preacher here but what Christ did was to show passion. I think some people think that ANY form of passion or strong commitment is uncivil. That is part of the reason why this nation had begun to lose its moral compass. Take the illegals. Would you agree that it is a sin to break the law? So we have over 12 million people who openly sinned, and guess what, we have elected representatives who say, wait, let’s be civil about this. Lets simply agree to overlook the sin and move on. When does this ever stop? How about amnesty for tax cheats, car thieves, vandals, drug sellers, and so on? Some of us post more bluntly and directly than others and it is taken as being uncivil. I’m with the Christ on this one.
I didn’t say anything about illegals. OK, let me just review what happened here. Here is David’s post, which I thought was right on the money:
Then came yours:
f
David was talking about debating issues in general, mentioned domestic squabbles, then you moved it over to 9/11 and the most extreme case, almost sounding like the Muslim terrorists have their own political party in Congress or something. David was talking about people on this blog.
Since you didn’t say what you were thinking of doing to the terrorists, I was thinking of the worst case scenario. Just go nookler and burn them off the planet.
So it’s pretty obvious we are talking by each other. Let’s stick with David’s original post, which I thought was pretty good.
And personally, I don’t think the analogy of Christ driving out the moneychangers fits here. He was talking to the religious establishment there, the Jim Bakkers (who has since repented, I believe) and teleevangelists who milk the faithful for their own profit. The Sanhedrin were running big business in the temple precincts, and getting rich off of it. You never find Jesus even railing at Barabbas or the terrorist class in Judaea (except telling his own disciples not to use the sword). Jesus was hard on Herod, and hard on his disciples (if a soldier compels you to go a mile, go with him two).
Passion, yes. But remember Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. All he accomplished in going for Malchus’ head was cutting off his ears. Years ago a German Christian duo, Arno and Andreas, wrote a song entitled, “Jesus heals the one whom who was injured by His disciples” — sounds better in German, “Jesus heilt den, der von den Juengern verletzt ist . . .” Zeal can cut people’s ears off. Which is what I am afraid my own evangelical community does much too often.
Sorry, that should have been “ear.” No way you can get two ears with one stroke and not cleave the guy’s head, right.
Our commanders have a strategy to win in iraq. We are winning in iraq. Our losses have been light. We have freed 20 million kurds and shia from slavery. The former slavemasters the sunni are a little upset. They will get over it one way or the other. These are the truths liberal msm can not admit to. A year ago, USA Today said there were no iraqi battalions of troops. This was a lie as there was about 120 battalions of troops of which about 70 could fight by themselves or with US assistance. Today, the number able to fight by themselves or with US assistance would be closer to 90. The iraqi people have had three elections in the last year. A significant improvement over the 30 years of torture and oppression of Saddam. It will take time, but the people of iraq have a great opportunity to build a much better future for themselves and their children.
We have lost 2500 men killed in three years. This is a tragedy for these men and their families. In the big picture of war, these losses are light. To free 20 million people from slavery often requires war. War is about killing. Please remember that 7000 US troops died in 30 minutes at Cold Harbor, VA in 1864. 50,000 American soldiers were killed or wounded in three days at a place called Gettysburg in 1863. 1000 US dead at Tarawa in 96 hours. I could go on. By any rational standard our losses have been very light. Please remember the battle hymn of the republic, “As he died to make men holy, we die to make men free.” The kurds and shia have the right to be free. We have the opportunity to help them. God Bless the United States and George Bush.
Hey Dave, if you don’t give any thought to what Lee posts, why are you still wrangling with him and Mary down on on the anti-war folks piece?
I forgot my smiley on that last one 🙂
Herb
Great post. Dave did the classic blog/message board trick.
He took what I said (talking about being civil on this blog) and turned it against me by using an example of a terrorist. He paid no attention to the context of my post.
That is exactly like me telling my 5 year old that I don’t want him eating before dinner – and then him refusing to ever eat breakfast again in his life.
Context is always important. Dave knows that. He just didn’t want to discuss the issue so he took away the context.
Herb, I don’t think I ever indicated I don’t pay attention to Lee’s posts. Was that statement due to DAvid-Dave confusion? No big deal..
And David,,, I agree – I sort of switched contexts. My mind will do that sometimes as I get creative. haaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa No harm intended.
Hey, this is getting civil around here. Civil, but passionate.
Republicans amaze me!
So, a few years ago, Rumsfeld was a good guy. Now that Iraq is in civil war, almost 3,000 soldiers are dead and the war doesn’t look so good, Rumsfeld is bad.
So this war didn’t work out, but there is always Iran looming on the horizon! Maybe we can win that war!
Who cares if the reasons for Iraq have been proven to be lies? Who cares if the WMD’s were never found? Who cares if the insurgency is comprised now mostly of Iraqi’s who hate America for what you call “collateral damage”?
We were RIGHT to invade! We are AMERICA!
South Carolina has alot of military in it. A lot of these troops are on their 2nd to 4th rotation. Bush said “when Iraq stands up, we’ll stand down” then he said “troops won’t come home under my presidency”. But hey, as long as America gets to kill people, it’s all good right?
McCain and Graham are “real” Republicans? Why? Because they told Bush they didn’t like torture? Who is in charge; Republicans or Democrats?
Every year, record deficits. Every year, more deaths for lies. But at least gays can’t marry! Thank the Lord that our troops our dying for lies and incompetence and not gays getting married and living loving relationships.
For the record: General Shinseki spoke out BEFORE retiring and he was kneecapped for it. The retired Generals have to speak out, they are the only ones who can without reprisal.
For the record: The hate and mistrust of the military you cite in Democrats came from the Vietnam War. Does the Mai Lai massacre take you back? How about Tiger Force? There was a reason our troops were called baby-killers; THEY KILLED WOMEN, CHILDREN… AND YES… BABIES.
Americans, all of us, hoped that our military would fight with honor in Iraq. Then, we get Abu Ghraib. People were killed in Abu Ghraib, not just tortured and humiliated. If you cannot grasp that these were policies instituted by YOUR elected Bush administration, then look at the soldiers that are now in prison and the Lt. Colonel being charged. Who do you think gave that Lt. Colonel the policies? But thank God gays can’t marry!
I want to know how many military fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, etc, are going to be thinking about gay marriage when they bury their loved one who died in this war waged on lies?
Oh… and for the record… I voted Republican for years… I am a veteran of our armed forces… I was in the first Gulf War… I was in foxholes in Northern Iraq… and I have fought for our country.
The military oath of enlistment is to protect the CONSTITUTION from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. The duty of our troops is to protect our constitution, not to die in a foreign country in an illegal invasion and occupation because our administration lied them into the war. But until you bury someone you loved, you won’t get it, until you watch a buddy die for lies you don’t care… but at least those evil gays can’t marry!
You got your wish. Our troops are dying for lies… but gays can’t marry. Congratulations!
Michael – The attack on Rummy is pretty much over. The Drive By media has moved on to praising illegal immigrant marches and the Duke rape case. Are you really John Kerry using a pseudonym? Fess up now.
Dave,
I think the attack is just beginning.
When the President orders things so bad that the CIA is the leak then you threaten CIA agents/officers with their pension, the leaks can only get worse.
When the President (or his lackeys) swiftboat veteran after veteran, then the Generals who do speak out are ignored, the rebellion by the military can only get worse.
When the President loses the support of the CIA and the military… the administration is a rogue regime. Think about that.
The CIA is just fighting reform after their failures during the Clinton years.
Too many of these people care more about their pensions than doing their jobs.
We should abolish government pensions, anyway, but that is another subject.
But, but, Clinton!
Republicans have been in charge for 5 years now. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. Record deficits happened on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. Abu Ghraib happened on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. Gas prices hitting $3.00/gal happened on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. The Dept. of Homeland Security had 2 workers arrested that were pedophiles on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. The cabinet member, Allen, being arrested for theft from Target happened on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. Libby being indicted for lying and obstruction during the Plame leak happened on Bush’s watch, not Clintons. Bush signing statements left and right that the laws (as many as 750 of them) don’t apply to him was Bush, not Clinton.
Get over it… Clinton has been out of office for years. Republicans can’t take responsibility for anything they have screwed up… it’s always someone else’s fault.
Republicans think sex is so bad that Clintons extramarital affairs trumps getting nearly 3,000 soldiers killed for lies. Republicans are trying to ban the sale of sex toys in SC while Republicans are knee deep in the prostitution scandal in Washington DC thanks to Cunningham, a Republican.
Does the word HYPOCRITE ring a bell?
The pedophiles in Homeland security were lifelong Dems. Mary McCarthy, the traitor who purposely released classified data from the CIA is also a lifelong Dem. See the pattern???????? The soldiers who were convicted from Abu Graib court martials were democrats. Also, the last time I checked the constitution, people are still innocent until proven guilty, so who cares who was arrested or indicted. Democrat prosecutors routinely indict people for political reasons, re: Duke players, Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, and more. These kinds of prosecutors would have served well in communist Russia.
Sex toys – is that like an intern in the Bill Clinton oval office?
Dave,
Oh BS! It’s all the Dem’s fault oh boohoo… still can’t accept responsibility I see.
Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Pedophiles.
Frank Figueroa, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s program to stop child predators (Operation Predator), today pleaded no contest to charges he exposed himself to a 16-year-old girl. According to the victim, “Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes” in front of her.
Yep… Bush created the Department and stocked it with Democrats… sure… try again.
And McCarthy is a traitor… right… but Rove and Libby can leak Plame’s name to the press but they AREN’T traitors, even though that link compromised an entire CIA front company? Right…
The troops convicted from Abu Ghraib are now Dem’s as well? Gee… got any FACTS to back that up?
“Also, the last time I checked the constitution, people are still innocent until proven guilty, so who cares who was arrested or indicted.”
LOL… wait… NOW it’s innocent until proven guilty????? Gee… so who was GUILTY and why we should CARE?
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham said Monday he is resigning from Congress after pleading guilty to taking more than $2 million in bribes in a criminal conspiracy involving at least three defense contractors.
In reports on the conviction of former Gov. George Ryan (R-IL) on corruption charges, numerous news outlets failed to mention that Ryan is a Republican.
A jury convicted a former national Republican official of two telephone harassment charges for his role in a phone-jamming plot against New Hampshire Democrats on Election Day 2002.
Tony Rudy, ex-deputy chief-of-staff of former House Majority leader Tom DeLay, admitted to conspiring in a federal court in Washington.
I’m sure you’ll claim all of these GUILTY individuals were Democrats as well. Come on… spin it.
Michael, you must spend all of your time searching for “The Exciting Sexual Perversions of Republicans”. Did you write that book? It is a fact that Bush did not want the monstrous bureaucracy called Dept. of Homeland Security but he gave in to the pressure of the 911 Commission and the Dem whiners. Remember the debate over making all of the airport screeners Federal unionized employees? The FEMA mess is also a Dem creation of bureaucrats gone wild. As for spinning, who needs to spin when you have Barney Frank as the moral leader of the Dem party.
Dave,
Republicans unable to take responsibility… why are we not surprised? But, there is a line where “spin and divert” becomes lies.
“The FEMA mess is also a Dem creation of bureaucrats gone wild.”
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A22664
“But long before this [2004] hurricane season, some emergency managers inside and outside of government started sounding an alarm that still rings loudly. Bush administration policy changes and budget cuts, they say, are sapping FEMA’s longterm ability to cushion the blow of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados, wildfires and other natural disasters.”
“But since 2001, key federal disaster mitigation programs, developed over many years, have been slashed and tossed aside. FEMA’s Project Impact, a model mitigation program created by the Clinton administration, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now, communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars.”
So Dave, it’s all the Dem’s fault huh?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-09-07-our-view_x.htm
“Over the past four years, the Bush administration has replaced competent leaders with people long on political connections but short on disaster management expertise. At the same time, the war on terrorism has drained the agency’s resources and reduced its effectiveness.”
Yep… Clinton sure did it alright… no Republican responsibility here… drink the kool-aid, move along… right Dave? Is that why the same article quotes:
“James Lee Witt, the Clinton-era FEMA director who earned rare bipartisan praise for lifting the agency from scandal-prone backwater to a professional operation, says “it’s like a stake has been driven through the heart of emergency management.”
Bi-partisan praise… does that mean even Republicans couldn’t find fault and PRAISED the man? Why… yes it does Tim! And… who was in office before Clinton appointed Mr. Witt? Why… it was REPUBLICANS! So, it was REPUBLICANS who turned FEMA into the scandal-prone backwater to begin with, and it was CLINTON who pulled the agency from it, and it was REPUBLICANS who drove FEMA back into being non-effective. Don’t facts suck Dave?
They must, you have no FACTS to back up your claim the soldiers in Abu Ghraib were Dem’s? No rebuttal that it was BUSH in the White House and Rumsfeld in charge during Abu Ghraib? Why would that be? Why no response here? Oh right… no way to spin it, no facts to support it, move along… divert attention from the problem… blame the Democrats for the Republicans failures.
Republican House majority
Republican Senate majority
Republican Supreme Court majority
Republican President
But… but… CLINTON… THE DEM’S… it’s their fault!
Clinton reorganized FEMA, from a mess to a worse mess, beginning with the appointment of a shady Little Rock enforcer to a top post.
Lee,
Living in denial I see…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html
“But it was Hurricane Andrew, which hit Florida in 1992, that really energized FEMA. The year after that catastrophic storm, President Bill Clinton appointed James Lee Witt to be director of the agency. Witt was the first professional emergency manager to run the agency. Showing a serious regard for the cost of natural disasters in both economic impact and lives lost or disrupted, Witt reoriented FEMA from civil defense preparations to a focus on natural disaster preparedness and disaster mitigation. In an effort to reduce the repeated loss of property and lives every time a disaster struck, he started a disaster mitigation effort called “Project Impact.” FEMA was elevated to a Cabinet-level agency, in recognition of its important responsibilities coordinating efforts across departmental and governmental lines.”
“Witt fought for federal funding to support the new program. At its height, only $20 million was allocated to the national effort, but it worked wonders. One of the best examples of the impact the program had here in the central Puget Sound area and in western Washington state was in protecting people at the time of the Nisqually earthquake on Feb. 28, 2001. Homes had been retrofitted for earthquakes and schools were protected from high-impact structural hazards. Those involved with Project Impact thought it ironic that the day of that quake was also the day that the then-new president chose to announce that Project Impact would be discontinued.”
Now… let me highlight for you…
“Witt was the first professional emergency manager to run the agency.”
Yep… Clinton sure made the agency worse by hiring the FIRST professional emergency manager to run FEMA.
It must really gall the Republicans that once you got your wish, total control, your party has managed to screw up everything. But praise the Lord, gays can’t marry!
If Clinton made FEMA so good, why has it failed so miserably? Clinton’s vision of FEMA was as a manager of martial law on a wide scale. The hurricane management systems proposed to FEMA and the states back in 1990 have still not been implemented.
PS: Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t run FEMA.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what mistakes Rumsfeld has made, how they should have been avoided, what should be done differently now, and who would be better at doing it.
Lee,
“If Clinton made FEMA so good, why has it failed so miserably?”
Got reading comprehension problems? I’ve posted link after link spelling out why FEMA has failed. FEMA failed because Bush canned the leaders of FEMA and put his political cronies with zero disaster experience in charge which in turn drove out many of the career FEMA workers who knew what they were doing. FEMA failed because when Bush put FEMA under the Dept. of Homeland Pedophiles their mission went from disaster relief to terrorist attack planning. FEMA failed because with their budget now linked to the Dept. of Homeland Pedophile’s, they suddenly didn’t have a whole of money going directly to disaster relief. Then along came Katrina and guess how that turned out…
“I am still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what mistakes Rumsfeld has made, how they should have been avoided, what should be done differently now, and who would be better at doing it.”
Rumsfeld had his idea of how many troops should have been dedicated to the invasion of Iraq. General Shinseki, a career military leader and planner, told them they needed several HUNDRED thousand troops in order to secure the country AFTER the invasion. Rumsfeld didn’t listen and kneecapped Shinseki. The OTHER Generals then became “yes men”. General Shinseki was RIGHT. It has been too widely reported now that the planning of the Iraq was wrong, all wrong, and it was because Rumsfeld thought he knew more then the career Generals.
What SHOULD have happened?
Rumsfeld shouldn’t have been so arrogant to believe that he knew MORE then the Generals. When Shinseki said they needed more troops, Rumsfeld should have listened and there should have been an atmosphere where Generals could have discussed it. Obviously, there wasn’t.
I suggest you go to Barnes and Noble and buy the book, `Chasing Ghosts` by Paul Reickoff. He was a Lt. in Iraq right after the invasion. His book details how little equipment, support, logistics and troops they had to do a mission they were not trained to do. I have the book. It will blow your mind.
Paul’s unit was assigned to Sector 17 in Baghdad. Sector 17 had been secured by about 400-500 troops, with armor and Delta units. These troops were pulled out of Sector 17 to go look for Saddam. Paul’s unit was put in to replace them. His unit had about 140 troops. They were seriously undermanned for the mission given to them. In addition, his unit was extended repeatedly in Iraq because the planning didn’t call for enough forces to provide rotations.
During the time Paul’s unit was in Baghdad, Bush issued his “Bring it on” statement which incited the locals against the undermanned troops and Bremer’s edicts of disbanding the Iraqi Army dumped 400,000 pissed off and ARMED Iraqi’s into a fledgling insurgency.
Reickoff finally rotated out of Iraq. He started the group IAVA, “Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans Association” to try and fix the supply, equipment, logistic problems he himself had to endure.
I suggest everyone buys the book and read the firsthand account of what a field officer had to endure in Iraq due to the failed planning of Rumsfeld.
Correction:
Paul Rieckhoff `Chasing Ghosts`
Michael,
You need to get some news outside the Al Gore spin machine of the Washington Post. Sure Bush appointed inept leaders at FEMA, who did nothing to fix the mess left by the inept Clinton appointees.
What does that shallow article from the Post have to do with Rumsfeld, besides changing the subject for you?
Lee,
Oh yes… all of those “liberal media” outlets… you know the ones…
– Like the NY Times with Judy Miller who hawked all the bad intel on Iraq, helped out Plame and then kept the illegal wiretapping story under wraps for an entire year so it didn’t effect Bush at the polls in 2004… very liberal!
– Like the Washington Post that published 13 page-one Swift Boat stories in 12 days, most of which failed to address the key fact that the Swift boat allegations were riddled with errors and ever-changing stories… how liberal is that!
– Like NBC that alone covered the Swift Boat story on Aug. 8, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29… damn liberals!
– Like ABC that devoted airtime to the Swift Boat story on Aug. 6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26… appalling, how these liberals acted!
– Like CBS that covered the Swift Boaters and dedicated time for the story on Aug. 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 30… why do these liberal media types hate… er… liberals?
You mean ALL of these “liberal media” outlets that never once questioned the actual allegations of the Swift Boaters, instead, running story after story to give it as much airtime and press coverage as possible right before the election that helped the Republicans?
It was Time magazine that accurately reported how the Swift Boat charges failed to hold up under any sort of factual scrutiny while EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET perpetuated the story endlessly. Oh yes… media today is SOOOO liberal!
Now that we’ve thrown THAT myth out… back to FEMA and more of these NON-liberal biased media reports:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/344004p-293718c.html
WASHINGTON – The three top jobs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Bush went to political cronies with no apparent experience coping with catastrophes, the Daily News has learned.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-09-07-our-view_x.htm
“But a deeper review of the agency’s history, the records of its top managers and internal memoranda reveal far deeper problems than a momentary burst of poor decisions. Over the past four years, the Bush administration has replaced competent leaders with people long on political connections but short on disaster management expertise. At the same time, the war on terrorism has drained the agency’s resources and reduced its effectiveness.”
“In addition, FEMA has seen an exodus of experienced officials over the past four years. By the time Katrina struck, three senior positions were either vacant or filled on an “acting” basis, including the director running Katrina-ravaged Mississippi and Alabama.”
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1108268&page=1
“However, the latest government figures show that 75 cents out of every $1 spent on emergency preparedness goes to anti-terrorism programs. Well before Katrina, FEMA insiders were sounding the alarm.”
And yet… you STILL want to claim that it was Clinton who left FEMA in shambles… ROTF! Deny… deny… spin… lie…
“What does that shallow article from the Post have to do with Rumsfeld, besides changing the subject for you?”
I’ve addressed Rumsfeld and will again, but I’m pointing out to you and the rest of the Republican voters that your wishes have backfired. You got total control and your party has screwed up everything… the budget deficits… the war… FEMA… everything they’ve touched.
You think the economy is great? You think gas prices soaring since Bush and Cheney, two OIL MEN, took office is great for you? You think that the kid down the street that dies in Iraq, a war proven now to have been based on lies and cherry-picked intelligence reports is good? You think that having the world hate America for Bush’s “pre-emptive I’ll attack any country I want” policy is good? You think torturing people is good? You think that imprisoning people with no legal recourse when it has now been proven… PROVEN… that most of those incarcerated weren’t the “most dangerous terrorists in the world” as claimed because a large majority of these people are or have been RELEASED is good? You think the CIA extraordinary rendition program that has been PROVEN to have kidnapped innocent people and as such, now has warrants for the arrest of upwards of 20 CIA agents in the EU is good? You think illegal wiretapping of Americans is good? You think a President claiming he doesn’t have to follow the laws of the United States is good? You think the Patriot Act, which did nothing more then take away YOUR rights under the 4th Amendment is good?
No… you probably don’t care about all that… as long as the Bible might become required reading in schools for kids, gay’s can’t marry, and Bush claimed to be a born-again Christian… you seem to be happy.
The Republicans are driving the bus alright… right over the cliff… and like lemmings, you are lockstep behind it denying any responsibility for the state of America today.
Oh… and here is a Rumsfeld P.S. for you:
In 2004, the Toledo Blade, a small newspaper, ran a full miniseries on Tiger Force, a government sanctioned killing team in Vietnam. Won the Pulitzer for it. Rumsfeld blocked any government investigation into it and has obstructed any inquiry. Rumsfeld was the Sec. of Defense a few years after Vietnam, and he is Sec. of Defense again. Under Rumsfeld, we now have another failed war, Iraq, that many veterans have now called the second Vietnam.
2,400+ soldiers dead in Iraq for lies and Rumsfeld’s arrogant planning…
I’m sure you’re happy with it.
Here is another Rumsfeld P.S. to you:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/crooks/8164/#1019545
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
In Atlanta:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/04.html#a8164
Rumsfeld: …it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.
McGovern: You said you knew where they were.
Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and…
McGovern: You said you knew where they were. Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.
Rumsfeld: My words-my words were that-no-no, wait a minute–wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second….
So… Rumsfeld stated he knew where they were, then years later, states he didn’t say he knew where they (the WMD’s) were.
Lemmings… cliff… lemmings… cliff…
Great work, Michael.
Naturally, all Lee and Dave can say in rebuttal are proven lies from their wingnut propaganda outlets.
For the record, many people have listed indictments of Rumsfeld time-after-time on this blog. Lee continues to blatantly lie even about the content of this blog.
I mean, after all, who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes?
(Maybe someday Brad will deign to even reply to all the responses that his insulting and condescending post about “people who hate Bush can still want us to win in Iraq.”)
ready to hurl,
Let me tell you… while most will see my posts as me being a liberal, I am far from it.
I voted for Reagan. I thought he was a good President, especially after Carter, who I thought thoroughly sucked.
I didn’t vote for Bush Sr (voted Perot). I thought he was ok… not great, not poor… just a caretaker really after Reagan.
I hated Clinton as President. I thought he was a used-car salesman.
I even voted Bush Jr. in 2000 because I thought Gore was ineffectual. Oh how wrong I was… and I made sure to vote Kerry in 2004.
But, the Republicans and Religious Right have absolutely disgusted me since 2000.
When 9/11 hit, I was in law enforcement. I, along with many others, knew we could not sit idle from 9/11. I, like many others, were 100% behind going into Afghanistan after the Al-Qaeda training camps.
But, Iraq? Even *I* knew at the time Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. How did I know? Because after Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden approached the Saudi’s and Kuwaiti’s and offered to put his fighters against Saddam. Both refused as they didn’t want a muslim vs muslim war.
*I* knew Saddam HAD WMD’s. HAD is the operative word. WE gave him chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. But, I knew from MY time in Iraq he DIDN’T have WMD’s any longer. Why? Because I was deployed inside of Iraq after Desert Storm, and our unit was tasked with destroying ANY munition we came across. In my time in Iraq, we found ZERO chemical weapons, ZERO biological weapons, and ZERO nuclear weapons. So I KNEW that was a lie by Rumsfeld and Powell.
I also knew that 9/11 occurred BECAUSE of Bush Sr., Clinton, AND Bush Jr. How? Because ALL Presidents have wanted American bases in the Middle East for DECADES. When we FINALLY got military bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, and the UAE in the first Gulf War, which I was a part of, we never left. THAT is why Bin Laden, a CIA trained terrorist from his time in Afghanistan fighting the Russians, started his terrorism against America… we never left AFTER the first Gulf War. 14 years after the Gulf War, we STILL had bases in the Middle East, and, we had suffered attacks because of it… but… no President would leave because we finally got our foothold into the Middle East and ALL of them were loath to lose it.
All it would have taken was ONE of these Presidents to say, “mission accomplished” and remove our troops and 9/11 would never have occurred. None did.
So now… we are in a quagmire in Iraq, based on lies, with soldiers dying weekly.
But none of these lemmings can think for themselves. They are so used to people thinking for them, telling them what is right, what to do, that they listen to FOX news and take it as gospel… truth.
It isn’t truth.
I, myself, didn’t research the facts until after 9/11. I, myself, didn’t find out what really happened until after I saw King George begin his illegal war on Iraq. It was then I began learning the facts.
I can, and do, admit my mistake believing Bush would be a better President than Gore. But I didn’t compound that mistake by voting twice for him.
What “wedge issue” was touted in 2004 by Republicans? Gay marriage. So, the lemmings ran to the polls to vote Republican so that gay’s couldn’t marry.
All they did was enable Bush Jr. to rape our treasury, further our quagmire in Iraq, further give big oil subsidies even as they post record profit margins, all because they didn’t want the evil gay’s to marry.
We have a Republican majority Congress in BOTH parts of Congress that refuse to provide oversight on Bush. He has repeatedly thrown it in their face, that as long as HE is President he will do as he pleases.
As I stated earlier, I am a veteran. Bush knows that Congress, the majority of which are Republicans, won’t impeach him no matter what he does, so, he sh*ts on the Constitution I swore to protect. He continues to flout the laws and Congress remains idle.
And the voters here in SC? They remain ignorant of the facts, continue to blame the Democrats for everything Bush and the Republican Congress has done in the past 5 years, and turn a blind eye to the state of our country.
I didn’t like Clinton. I thought he should have been impeached for lying. But, when you look at Clinton lying about an extra-marital affair vs Bush lying about a war that has killed 2,400+ troops, disregarding our laws, taking away our rights under the Patriot Act… Clinton’s actions, while wrong, are minor… and Congresses actions? Non-existant.
It was the Republicans in Congress during Clintons days screaming about the rule of law… and today… they are neutered idiots refusing to act because it is a Republican President instead of a Democrat.
Unless we restore the balance… a Republican President, Democrat Congress… our nation will be devasted beyond repair.
Will a Democrat Congress impeach Bush? Yes, and rightfully so. He lied about Iraq. He lied about illegal wiretapping. He lied about the Patriot Act and how it would be used. He lied about the CIA and extraordinary renditions. He lied about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and torture.
He deserves impeachment at the LEAST, and war crimes trials if I had my way.
And the “liberal media”? They are silent. They refuse to publish the facts. They refuse to call out the administration on there lies for fear of being labeled “unpatriotic”. They have pushed lies, for the war, for all of Bush’s illegal actions, and kept Americans ignorant of the facts.
We had a great nation once. I fought for it and our Constitution.
But what galls me the most is that the average person in South Carolina won’t even take responsibility for voting for these people, always blaming the Dem’s, always blaming Clinton, when it is their party that has done the most harm.
That is why I say, “but Praise the Lord gay’s can’t marry” because that is all they care about. They don’t CARE that they are being harmed by their own party, as long as their ideology wins. They don’t CARE that America… their own country… is being demolished before their eyes… as long as it is in the name of their religion.
I fought when called for my country. I fight now to keep it MY country. Religion be d*mned. America is about laws, and NOBODY, even Bush, is above the law.
How about Patrick Kennedy? Now he isn’t above the law now is he? Son of Ted Kennedy following very much in Dad’s footsteps. Let’s give him a pass on this latest episode, after all, he is a Kennedy. Law for a Kennedy, what a joke.
Note to Michael – neither party is perfect in any way but your bitterness is unnatural. That is BS too for you to claim you were a Republican. We arent that gullible.
Let’s talk about why we resumed Desert Storm (becasue that is what we really did). These are 5 basic facts:
1. Hussein defied 17 UN resolutions between the end of the Gulf War and our resumption of hositilities.
2. Coaltion aircraft, mostly from the US, flying in the northern/southern fly zones were being fired at about every other day from Iraqi forces during that time.
3. Hussein consistlently had thousands of people jailed and murdered on a yearly basis. Remember the graves of 300,000 dead.
4. All intelligence said he had WMD or he was going to re-start his WMD program once he got inspectors out.
5. There is no doubt he was dealing with Al Queada and Bin Laden. That has been established in the past year.
When this country can do the right thing, we ought to do it. I would even argue that our historical feeble response to terrorism directly attributed to 911 and Husseins consistent defiance of UN resolutions. It was time for him to go. No war ever goes as planned. it is referred to in the military as the “Fog of War”. These retired generals can make there statements, but, they were only 6 out of 8000 retired generals. The Bush administration has done a good job based on an ever changing situation in Iraq. It is regreatable any soldier dies in a conflict. But, lets put it in to perspective. In Vietnam, we lost 55000 soldiers in 10 years. It would take just over 27 years for that to happen in Iraq. And quite frankly, the numbers are coming down. Again, I don’t want to discount the loss of any life, but a soldier in Baghdad is probably safer than being on American highways.
Could the Bush and Rumsfeld have done a better job? I’ll just say that hindsight is 20/20. If we had doubled the number of trrops in Iraq I dare to say that Warthern and his ilk would have complained of too many troops and stated this was overkill and not needed. So, you naysayers stand on the sideline while the bravest go out and get the job.
Dave,
Ah yes… Kennedy… another “liberal media” story… ABC alone roasted Kennedy with “preferential treatment”, “troubled past”, “cover-up”… but, my take…
Yes, if Kennedy was drunk, he should have been arrested. Was he? No. Why? For the same reason that the Lt. Governor of South Carolina can speed at 100 mph and not get a ticket from his own troopers. And don’t give me any, but, but, Clinton, the Dem’s!
Favoritism by police for the politicians over them isn’t just Democrats, nor is it just Republicans, it is a fact of life that has been around forever as Bauer and the history of the SC Troopers proves. But you notice, that amid all the corruption in the GOP, once a Democrat screws up, it is front page news screaming “COVER UP”. Yep… liberal media indeed.
Where was this “liberal media” when McGovern, a former CIA analyst, called out Rumsfeld in Atlanta? I watched CNN’s “coverage”. They showed the clip of McGovern asking “why did you lie” and Rumsfeld replying “I did not lie”, then they stopped right there. Did they run the film clip showing Rumsfeld’s words? No. Did they show how McGovern was 100% correct? Nope. Liberal media indeed!
COVER-UP IN CAPITAL HILL! KENNEDY NOT ARRESTED.
Bah! He should have been arrested, and Bauer should have gotten a speeding ticket, and Cheney should have been arrested for the felony in Texas when he shot the lawyer in the face because he was hunting drunk.
In all of the cases, law enforcement rolled over for the politician.
I didn’t say I was a Republican, I said I VOTED Republican. Here is where you aren’t too bright. I’m a veteran. Most military people voted Republican in my time because there was a clear distinction between parties; Republicans funded the military, Democrats didn’t. It didn’t MAKE me a Republican.
Rumsfeld and Bush have even screwed THAT up. Underfunding the VA, not enough equipment, not enough troops, not enough logistical support. You want to talk about “following in daddy’s footsteps”?
Veterans were told for decades that if they retired they got free medical for life. That changed in 1986 under Reagan/Bush when people like my father, 20 years Navy retired, were suddenly thrust into Tricare and denied even space available service at local military hospitals.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/0responses/2002-1226.resp.pdf
In 2003, Bush Jr. continued the assault on veterans, and the latest tricare “plan”, under BUSH JR, charges veterans even more.
http://www.pnhp.org/Veterans/veteran.pdf
So quit your whining about how it is all the Dem’s fault and Dem’s did this or that.
As for your “my bitterness is unnatural”????
I served my country and swore to protect the Constitution. Clinton lied about an extramarital affair. Republicans were up in arms calling for impeachment. Now it is Bush Jr. trampling the Constitution and lying every step of the way as these SAME Republicans are MUTE… MUTE… mumbling and fumbling around worried about how they can get re-elected instead of holding Bush Jr to the same standard they held Clinton.
Hypocrisy at its finest!
“Let’s talk about why we resumed Desert Storm (becasue that is what we really did).”
Oh good… I get to debunk these talking points for the 1,000th time!
“1. Hussein defied 17 UN resolutions between the end of the Gulf War and our resumption of hositilities.”
Point of FACT: The resolutions were UNITED NATIONS resolutions, not UNITED STATES resolutions. In 2002, Bush went to the United Nations seeking a UNITED NATIONS resolution allowing military use of force on Iraq. The UNITED NATIONS would not support said resolution. America then acted on its own, gathering a coalition of the coerced and blackmailed to invade Iraq AGAINST the United Nations wishes, claiming EARLIER resolutions gave America the authority. If that were true, WHY DID BUSH GO BACK FOR ANOTHER RESOLUTION to begin with? Answer: Because the earlier resolutions did NOT give us the authority to invade a sovereign nation, and make no mistake, earlier United Nation resolutions, in fact did re-establish the sovereignty of Iraq’s borders.
“2. Coaltion aircraft, mostly from the US, flying in the northern/southern fly zones were being fired at about every other day from Iraqi forces during that time.”
Point of FACT: The United Nations NEVER established the “no-fly zones”. The “no-fly zones” were established by the U.S. and Britain AFTER the United Nations re-established the sovereignty of Iraq’s borders. So, in effect, the United States imposed “no-fly zones” were an encroachment upon Iraq’s airspace and it was the United States that in fact broke the cease-fire agreement by refusing to recognize Iraq’s sovereignty of borders. The United Nations resolutions called for Iraq to cease aggression, to disarm, and to cooperate with the UN Inspection Teams so they could verify disarmament. You’d best quit watching FOX News for your talking points and go read the actual resolutions.
“3. Hussein consistlently had thousands of people jailed and murdered on a yearly basis. Remember the graves of 300,000 dead.”
Point of FACT: When Saddam Hussein was “gassing the Kurds” in the 1980’s, Saddam Hussein was friends with Reagan and Bush Sr., and Rumsfeld went to shake Saddam’s hand. Reagan and Bush Sr. did NOTHING at the time, but NOW, 20 years later, the acts that these two REPUBLICAN leaders dismissed because Saddam was their FRIEND became the justification to invade? WOW! So, since Pakistan’s General is our friend NOW, and HE is ruling his country in much the same way as Saddam, not to mention we are trying to send arms to Pakistan the same as we sent to Saddam, we can then, 20 years later, use his actions NOW to invade later right? Let’s forget about how AMERICA had jailed tens of thousands of Iraqi’s in Abu Ghraib and other “prisons” after OUR invasion, how WE’VE tortured people, how WE’VE killed people in the VERY SAME PRISON as Saddam Hussein. He’s bad. We’re good. Same actions.
“4. All intelligence said he had WMD or he was going to re-start his WMD program once he got inspectors out.”
Point of FACT: The intelligence was contradictory and old. We did not have internal sources to verify whether or not he did, or did not, have a WMD program as a retired CIA officer has JUST brought out on national television. Curveball, the supposed informant who claimed these things, wasn’t even interviewed by the CIA it was second-hand knowledge to us and wasn’t reliable. In fact, Bush and Rumsfeld were TOLD it was unreliable by the CIA. It wasn’t until a year or so before our invasion that we began getting the inside intelligence, and all of that intelligence indicated that Saddam, in fact, did NOT have WMD program and the CIA analysts REPORTED that to the Bush administration. ALL of the intelligence that said he did was outdated and new, more reliable, intelligence WAS available PRIOR to our invasion, and THAT intelligence was NOT made public, nor was it made available to Congress.
“5. There is no doubt he was dealing with Al Queada and Bin Laden. That has been established in the past year.”
Point of FACT: It was NOT established. Cheney has continued to spout this lie and the “liberal media” has continued to perpetuate it. What they have “proven” is that Bin Laden and Saddam had a few “contacts” to try and establish some rapport, and those meetings FAILED. This is no different then America extending peace talks with North Korea periodically and North Korea telling America to bunk off. Powell HIMSELF stated there was NO credible evidence of any link between Saddam and Bin Laden. What is claimed NOW is that AFTER our bombing of Afghanistan, SOME of the Al-Qaeda fighters fled into parts of NORTHERN IRAQ where the Kurds are located. But, this fact is pointless because Bush was asking the United Nations for a war resolution on Iraq BEFORE we even bombed Afghanistan, was planning to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11 even, and at the time of this planning, at the time Bush was seeking a war resolution on Iraq, there was absolutely ZERO link between Saddam, Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
“When this country can do the right thing, we ought to do it. I would even argue that our historical feeble response to terrorism directly attributed to 911 and Husseins consistent defiance of UN resolutions.”
You’d best go read your history books again, namely, the Nuremburg Trials. The actions of America in our invasion of Iraq were exactly what we prosecuted the Nazi’s for at Nuremburg. In addition, the ONLY thing that directly attributed to the terrorist attack on 9/11 was America’s flat refusal to remove combat troops from the Middle East for 14 years AFTER the first Gulf War. Hussein’s constant defiance of the UN resolutions came about when; 1) he had the inspection team leave during mob riots, and 2) the CIA infiltrated the UN Weapons Inspection Team and turned them from doing their mission to spying on Iraq, at which time, he kicked them out. What the “liberal media” reported was that Saddam was not allowing Inspection Teams access to buildings. What they DIDN’T report was that the buildings they wanted access to were in no way associated with any weapons program because the CIA wanted into buildings outside of the UN mandate so they could SPY. AFTER that inspection team was disbanded, a NEW team was reinserted back into Iraq, continued their MANDATED mission within UN mandated guidelines, and it was BUSH who ordered them OUT of Iraq so he could invade. This team stated, at that time, that the inspections were working and no invasion was necessary and Bush discredited that team. LATER, Bush’s OWN team couldn’t find the WMD’s, but, the “liberal media” downplayed it and eventually killed the story.
“It was time for him to go.”
So, America can decide now who governs what country around the world? That is now our job? WE decide if a leader is adequate for US? So, it is now our “policy” that if we don’t like a leader of a country, we can just invade and remove him because, well, we WANT to and we don’t like him?
“No war ever goes as planned. it is referred to in the military as the “Fog of War”. These retired generals can make there statements, but, they were only 6 out of 8000 retired generals.”
Oh yes… Rumsfeld talking point… but… but… it was only 6! In fact, the count is up to 8. Eight Generals who had direct knowledge of the planning process, who had commanded troops in the region under the plan, who could CREDIBLY make a determination on if the planning was viable or not, UNLIKE the OTHER 8,000 who were NOT in command of the region or forces within the region.
“The Bush administration has done a good job based on an ever changing situation in Iraq. It is regreatable any soldier dies in a conflict. But, lets put it in to perspective. In Vietnam, we lost 55000 soldiers in 10 years. It would take just over 27 years for that to happen in Iraq. And quite frankly, the numbers are coming down. Again, I don’t want to discount the loss of any life, but a soldier in Baghdad is probably safer than being on American highways.”
But you ARE discounting the lives of the soldiers by your very words! “So it is only a FEW who have died for lies, that isn’t as bad as say, Vietnam, where so many more died in a failed war!” Guess what… ONE dying for a lie is bad enough for me… or do you want to wait UNTIL 50,000 of our troops are dead for lies before you decide the death toll is too high? This is nothing but rationalizing the deaths so it sooths your soul, nothing more. Powell stated that Saddam had mobile chemical weapons labs; none found. Rumsfeld stated he knew where the WMD’s were located; none found. Cheney stated that Saddam and Bin Laden had ties; none were established. Bush touted the fake Niger documents and false uranium buy by Iraq: never happened. In fact, as each lie was exposed, the rationale for the war continually changed to a NEW lie, until finally, Bush just said, “our soldiers are dying and we must honor their sacrifice”. WTF! So, because they LIED to get soldiers to die, MORE soldiers must die for the lies???? You think THAT is doing a good job???? That he can lie, get caught, lie again, get caught, lie again, get caught, then throw up his hands like a little child and claim “I’m the decider! Leave me alone!” THAT is what you believe is doing a “good job”???? O…M…G!
“Could the Bush and Rumsfeld have done a better job? I’ll just say that hindsight is 20/20. If we had doubled the number of trrops in Iraq I dare to say that Warthern and his ilk would have complained of too many troops and stated this was overkill and not needed. So, you naysayers stand on the sideline while the bravest go out and get the job.”
You are wrong here in so many ways. 1) In order to secure the nation after the invasion, it would have taken 3 or 4 times the number of troops, not double. 2) As a veteran, as a person who has 3 Southwest Asian service medals, I have put my life on the line in a war zone, so don’t tell *me* about who is our bravest and who isn’t. I dare say that YOU are one of those who have sat on their butt rooting for war when you’ve never fought in one. 3) Rumsfeld kneecapped Shinseki when he disagreed with the war planning. Not me, RUMSFELD. 4) For SOME of us, this is NOT hindsight, this is validation of what we were saying years ago, but it is only NOW that YOU are catching up so deal with it.
Michael, try to stop living in the past for a change. The administration has done a fantastic job protecting this nation by taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Be grateful that we have real men and real women running the country. I commend you for your service but you are wrong on almost every thought you have. Fortunately, you and the rest of the Michael Moore wing of citizens will happily (to me) stay forever in America is always wrong fantasyland. But, whatever makes you happy.
Dave,
Here’s a little “present” for you:
– 73% of the nation believe America is on the wrong track under Bush.
– 71% of the nation disapprove of Congress.
Republican President… Republican Congress…
How’s that for living in the now.
The only people in denial are people like you… the 23% that still believe America is on the right track… and 25% of America that believes Congress is doing a good job.
That makes you a minority and everyone else, like me, you know… those “Michael Moore live in the past blame America” types… the majority.
In 1995, the liberals were aghast at “how close President George H. W. Bush had come to provoking Saddam Hussein to using some of the 191 chemical and biological weapons he had deployed during Desert Storm.
The New York Times went on and on about the “intelligence failures” which failed to discover these nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, when Hussein had already used them against Iran, and again after 1991.
Gee Lee… could you be any more irrelevant?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been “pretty convinced” that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.
“We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong,” Cheney said. “And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing.”
——————–
So Lee, you want to cite 1995, yet, the IAEA dismantled what was left of any Iraq program in 1997… America invaded in 2003… not 1995.
But what did Cheney say: “We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong,” Cheney said.
Who was right?
ElBaradei and the IAEA.
Who was wrong?
Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and Wolfowitz and Feith and Miller and…
Come on… keep spinning in circles Lee.
So why did Clinton drop 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq from 1998 until August 2000, “…to destroy his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs…”?
Why did Senate Democrats vote almost unanimously in 1998 to approve removal of Saddam Hussein “…by any means necessary…”?
Why, in 2001, did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most other Democrats declare that Saddam had WMD? Hillary even said she got the information from Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright.
Lee,
“So why did Clinton drop 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq from 1998 until August 2000, “…to destroy his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs…”?”
You really don’t listen.
The intel was old, out of date, but it was still being USED because AT THAT TIME it was the best we had. AGAIN, because you are being so dense… BEFORE Bush ordered the invasion, NEW intelligence, FROM INSIDE Iraq, became available that said there were NO WMD programs.
So, Clinton sent some Tomahawk missiles in. He didn’t invade and occupy the country based on lies.
“Why did Senate Democrats vote almost unanimously in 1998 to approve removal of Saddam Hussein “…by any means necessary…”?”
Because Congress got EXACTLY what they were GIVEN; intelligence that stated a bunch of cr*p. But that cr*p intel is all they had to go on… and that cr*p intel was updated BEFORE Bush ordered the invasion.
“Why, in 2001, did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most other Democrats declare that Saddam had WMD? Hillary even said she got the information from Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright.”
Once again…
THE INTEL WAS GIVEN TO THEM BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. IT WAS OLD, OUT OF DATE. THEY STATED WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. THE INTEL WAS UPDATED. CONGRESS WAS NOT TOLD. NOBODY WAS TOLD. BUSH AND CHENEY KEPT THE INTEL TO THEMSELVES. THEY INVADED KNOWING THE INTEL WAS BAD. THIS IS NOW FACT.
EVERYTHING THAT EVERY DEMOCRAT STATED WAS BASED ON WHAT THEY WERE TOLD BASED ON OLD INTEL.
BUSH HAD NEW INTEL THAT SAID THERE WERE NO NEW PROGRAMS.
THIS IS FACT.
Michael, even more important than the fact that Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq based on faulty information is the fact that he did not start AND LOSE a war based on faulty information, the way Bush is doing.
So your theory is that Clinton destroyed all those WMD, but had no intelligence evidence to prove that he did – in fact without knowing where the WMD actually were.
That would bring new meaning to “getting lucky” for Bill Clinton.
Mary,
Bush Sr., in the first Gulf War, probably thought about going to Baghdad. He didn’t because the UN mandate did not allow it, and he knew if he did, it was going to be on the U.S. alone. That window closed.
Clinton may have sent in Tomahawks, but you are correct, he didn’t invade Iraq because he knew the UN resolutions re-established Iraq’s sovereignty, and, I can speculate that while the intel he had was the best available, he realized it was unreliable. He wasn’t willing to chance being wrong.
Bush Jr.? He didn’t care.
The former top CIA official in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, flat said that White House officials had repeatedly ignored the intelligence community’s assessments about the state of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
The CIA had been trying to get INSIDE intel for years. It wasn’t until they FINALLY got that inside information, from a paid agent in Saddam Hussein’s inner circle, Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, that they reported to Bush that Iraq had no active programs for weapons of mass destruction.
According to Drumheller, the White House told C.I.A. officials that it was proceeding with plans to go to war anyway. When Drumheller asked, “Well, what about the intel?”, the reply was, “Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.”
This occurred in September 2002. The intel was not gained until late 2002.
Drumheller wasn’t the only one. “Paul R. Pillar, who until last October oversaw American intelligence assessments about the Middle East, wrote in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs that the Bush administration had selectively ignored crucial intelligence assessments about Iraq’s unconventional weapons and about the likelihood of postwar chaos in Iraq.”
What has to be remembered is that in September 2002 is when Bush addressed the United Nations about Iraq and claimed Saddam was a threat and he had WMD’s.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
So, just as Bush is about to address the United Nations about Iraq, the intel FROM INSIDE Iraq, what we DIDN’T have before, becomes available that in fact, everything Bush is about to say is FALSE to the UN.
What did Bush do?
He sh*tcanned the intel, didn’t release it, didn’t tell anyone, and went to the United Nations ANYWAY claiming things that the CIA KNEW to be false. FACT!
Lee,
No, my “theory”, which is based on FACT, is that since the CIA did not have INTERNAL sources, they had to go on speculation, old intelligence, second-hand reports and BEST GUESS, WORST CASE scenario’s.
But BEST GUESS/WORST CASE is NOT a reason to go to war. Reason to send in some Tomahawk missiles? Obviously it was for Clinton… but not to commit TROOPS to an invasion.
But, as I JUST spelled out for Mary, Bush in fact DID have INSIDE intel, and he went to the United Nations and LIED, then he LIED to Congress, then he invaded based on those LIES, and he continues to LIE.
2,400+ troops dead for LIES.
2003:
Spc. Rian C. Ferguson – Taylors, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. George Edward Buggs – Barnwell, South Carolina
Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings – Boiling Springs, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. Patrick Lee Griffin Jr. – Elgin, South Carolina
Spc. Orenthial J. Smith – Allendale, South Carolina
Pfc. Vorn J. Mack – Orangeburg, South Carolina
Pfc. Michael S. Adams – Spartanburg, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. Anthony O. Thompson – Orangeburg, South Carolina
Pvt. Algernon Adams – Aiken, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. Paul M. Neff II – Fort Mill, South Carolina
Spc. Darius T. Jennings – Cordova, South Carolina
2004:
Capt. Kimberly N. Hampton – Easley, South Carolina
Master Sgt. Thomas R. Thigpen Sr. – Greenville, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. Esau G. Patterson Jr. – Ridgeland, South Carolina
Sgt. Maj. Michael B. Stack – Lake City, South Carolina
Pfc. Thomas D. Caughman – Lexington, South Carolina
Pfc. Melissa J. Hobart – Ladson, South Carolina
Pfc. Rodricka A. Youmans – Allendale, South Carolina
Airman 1st Class Carl L. Anderson Jr. – Georgetown, South Carolina
Lance Cpl. Travis A. Fox – Cowpens, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. Jerome Lemon – North Charleston, South Carolina
Lance Cpl. Jonathan E. Gadsden – Charleston, South Carolina
Chief Warrant Officer Patrick D. Leach – Rock Hill, South Carolina
2005:
Spc. Jason L. Moski – Blackville, South Carolina
Spc. Katrina L. Bell-Johnson – Orangeburg, South Carolina
Lance Cpl. Joshua L. Torrence – Lexington, South Carolina
2nd Lt. Clifford V. Gadsden – South Carolina
Sgt. Anthony G. Jones – Greenville, South Carolina
Sgt. Andrew J. Derrick – Columbia, South Carolina
Sgt. Donald D. Furman – Burton, South Carolina
Pfc. Dustin A. Yancey – Goose Creek, South Carolina
2006:
1st Lt. Almar L. Fitzgerald – Lexington, South Carolina
Staff Sgt. Jay T. Collado – Columbia, South Carolina
Spc. Anthony C. Owens – Conway, South Carolina
These men and women were the best of us because they said they would give their life for the defense of our country. This isn’t even the wounded, just those from South Carolina who have died in the war in Iraq.
One poster earlier mentioned my anger. These people are why I am angry.
Who else in South Carolina is asking who knew what when? Is that “liberal media” the State Newspaper asking? Is Lindsay Graham asking? Is DeMint asking? Are any of the Representatives asking?
Is anyone but ME asking who knew what when, and why did these men and women have to die?
I count 34 military members from South Carolina who have died for Bush’s, Rumsfelds, Cheney’s lies. 34 glorious men and women too many.
Maybe now that I’ve shown that Bush knew he was lying people will ask the same of the State Newspaper… maybe they will ask Sen. Graham the same question… and DeMint… and their Representatives… and maybe they will ask, “why haven’t YOU found out why Bush ignored the intel given to him?”
Why am I pissed…
Because these, our finest, didn’t have to die for lies… but they did. But who else is asking “why”? I am.
CIA agents have come forward.
Drumheller asked, “what about the intel”? Has FOX News asked that question?
McGovern asked Rumsfeld, “why did you lie about the war?” Has the “liberal media” pushed that point home, asked that question, driven it until they got an answer? Or have they merely reported “hecklers” hassled Rumsfeld in Atlanta? What have YOU seen in the news?
Pillar stated that our government ignored crucial intelligence. Have YOUR elected leaders found out why? Have they even asked?
The Downing Street Memo’s stated that the intelligence was being formed around the policy of going to war. Who pushed the knowledge that this memo revealed? Was it simply reported then dropped? What do YOU remember about it?
Cheney asked, on national television, for a torture exemption to the McCain Torture Amendment for the CIA. When that wasn’t given, did Senator Graham then ask why President Bush wrote a signing statement to that very same amendment stating he didn’t have to follow that law? Do YOU remember Senator Graham being up in arms over that signing statement? Did you even HEAR about it?
Now that the United Nations is investigating the United States’ “revised” definition of torture put out by Atty. Gen. Gonzales, CIA Director Goss resigns suddenly. Is anyone asking WHY now? Why when the United Nations is looking into the CIA rendition program, why, when CIA secret prisons was leaked by a CIA whistle-blower, why, when over 1,000 flights were made by the CIA to European countries in the past few years and the United Nations wants to know the answer, why, why is Goss NOW resigning? Do you see any of the “liberal media” wondering?
Are YOU going to ask these questions… or do you not care to know?
Michael,
Your research is great, keep it coming. But trying to convince the Bizarro twins, Lee and Dave, about anything is beyond hope. Sadly, they represent the core supporters for the hopeless venture in Iraq.
If we can convince just a few fence sitters of the truth perhaps we can turn the tide and win control of the house in November. (Looking at polling data I think the senate may be a lost cause). That would send a strong message.
To continue to fight as we have for the past 3 years in Iraq is simply beyond the pale for it’s stupidity.
Only 2 real options are left. Plan A – Immediate withdrawl. And I mean immediate. No gradual draw down like we did in Vietnam. This would cut our losses at least. In a few years things may settle down and we can begin some sort of diplomatic dialog with whoever is in power. There are many unknowns with this approach but given that we have the world’s most powerful military what is everyone afraid of?
Options B is to go all-in. We bring back the draft, raise taxes and use all our resources to force the issue. There would be huge casualties, the entire world would be against us. But at least we would be intellectually honest. If this thing is really that important lets go all in.
Anything in between is doomed to failure. After 3 years the situation has actually deteriorated, so, plan C, staying the course, obviously will not work. The fourth option, plan D, gradual withdrawl, just postpones the inevitable and costs more lives.
I vote for A. But if we’re going to stay, lets do it to win.
Bud, the hopeless blogger is Michael. We need 300 million Americans working TOGETHER to DEFEND this nation, not 299,999,999 INVESTIGATING 1 President. That is what Michael wants. But why stop there if we are into endless investigations? What did Lincoln know and when did he know it. He began the war with incompetent generals and union soldiers were slaughtered as a result in several engagements. What did FDR know and when did he know it? Japanese communications were intercepted re Pearl Harbor but FDR wanted us to get hit so orders from above were to ignore the intelligence. Soldiers and sailors died as a result at Pearl Harbor. Where is the liberal media when we need them to ask these questions? Michael’s endless ranting of conspiracy theories puts Oliver Stone to shame.
Bush is the most honest and forthright President we have had since Carter. Carter was very honest but dumber than a brick about what the country needed. The bottom line is Bush is a decent, patriotic, honest family man but the left and the Bush haters persist in trying to demonize the guy. By the way, his approval rating has gone up 10 points in the last 3 weeks. Public sentiment is shifting partly due to the immigration issues and also Iraq is continually improving.
So, can we all agree we need to DEFEND this nation and stop the internally venomous debate about who knew what and when.
Dave,
Oh, where to start… again…
“We need 300 million Americans working TOGETHER to DEFEND this nation, not 299,999,999 INVESTIGATING 1 President. That is what Michael wants. But why stop there if we are into endless investigations?”
How many investigations did Republicans put against Clinton?
– Whitewater
– Cattlegate
– Nannygate
– Helicoptergate
– Travelgate
– Filegate
– Monicagate
In fact, Republicans spent millions upon millions of dollars trying to find SOMETHING to discredit Clinton and the Democrats. So, do you REALLY want to talk about “endless investigations” for political gain Dave? Guess who STARTED the endless investigations for political gain Dave? But, I’m sure your going to call it “oversight”, right Dave? But, we can’t have “oversight” on Bush, right Dave?
“Bush is the most honest and forthright President we have had since Carter.”
Bush ordered the secret NSA illegal wiretapping. When did Bush authorize warrantless wiretapping? Sources with knowledge of the program told CNN on Friday that Bush signed the secret order in 2002. The sources refused to be identified because the program is classified. THEN, Bush says publically in 2004: “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.”
TWO YEARS after he authorized warrantless wiretapping, he goes on NATIONAL TELEVISION and claims the wiretapping is being done with warrants. Then, in 2005, when he is caught in the LIE, he just claims that he has the authority to do it and tells America to go Cheney-themselves, he’ll continue to do it.
Cheney, on 11/4/2005 asked for what? “Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.” Bush said on 11/7/2005: “We do not torture”. Then, in 1/2006, Bush does what? After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a “signing statement” — an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law — declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
So, Cheney wants a TORTURE EXEMPTION FOR THE CIA, Bush declares WE DO NOT TORTURE, then Bush signs a statement to the TORTURE BAN saying HE CAN IGNORE THE LAW IF HE WANTS.
Do you want ANOTHER LIE Bush was caught in? Do you REALLY want me to put it all in your face Dave, or are you ready to accept REALITY?
In 2004, Bush said: “If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that’s not the way this White House operates.” Then, once it came out that Libby was about to be indicted, Bush CHANGED that to: “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration”
So wait… when it was unknown WHO leaked, Bush is all for getting rid of them… but when it starts coming out that the leaker was in his CABINET… suddenly, NOW they have to be convicted of a crime before they go.
Oh yes Dave, Bush is SO honest that he has been caught in lie after lie and you are STILL trying to defend Bush as an HONEST President. I am PROVING to you that he is not honest, but you are in denial.
“The bottom line is Bush is a decent, patriotic, honest family man but the left and the Bush haters persist in trying to demonize the guy.”
No Dave, Bush is not decent. Bush has fooled you and the rest of the “Praise the Lord” crowd into BELIEVING he can do no wrong. He demonizes HIMSELF by his words and actions… as I have PROVEN to you over and over.
“So, can we all agree we need to DEFEND this nation and stop the internally venomous debate about who knew what and when.”
No Dave we can’t.
I could care less if two gay’s marry. I DO care that Bush has LIED, Rumsfeld has LIED, Cheney has LIED, and our soldiers are DYING because of these lies.
YOU might want all the lies swept under the rug. YOU might want to forget you voted for the lies. YOU might put your religion above our soldiers lives.
I don’t. 34 South Carolina military men and women are dead Dave. 2,400+ troops are dead Dave.
DEAD.
I will continue to bring the lies to light because your “liberal media” refuses to do it. I will continue to put these lies into your face and everyone else’s until enough people in South Carolina wake up.
Bud,
Actually, there is another way for Iraq.
With Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, and reconstruction that has not occurred, we have lost any credibility in Iraq. The insurgency of Iraq now comprises upwards of 90%+ of Iraqi’s, not foreign fighters. The majority of average Iraqi’s now believe that these insurgents SHOULD kill American troops.
This won’t change as long as we continue to occupy Iraq with troops. But, there *is* a way to help Iraq evolve AND save our troops.
First, America has to broker a deal with the United Nations and NATO. We have to get their pledge that they put NATO troops and UN Peacekeeping forces into Iraq to provide security and stability. This deal will continue to guarantee Iraqi’s the same level security.
Second, America needs to broker in the deal that we pay for the reconstruction as promised. Bush promised we would rebuild Iraq, then he stated “Iraq is on its own” in rebuilding. (btw, all that money that was supposedly rebuilding Iraq? That has gone to build the 4 permanant American military bases and “military complex” called an Embassy)
Third, America removes not only all combat troops, but, American paid contract organizations as well. With no American occupation, the insurgency will die just as it did in Afghanistan when Russia removed their troops. In addition, by putting Iraqi’s to work rebuilding Iraq, at OUR cost, it takes away the unemployment issues in Iraq, takes away the resentment of foreign contractors shamming Iraqi’s, and the reconstruction will go MUCH quicker, giving Iraqi’s water, power, and infrastructure again.
Once the insurgency dies out, the Kurds, Sunni’s and Shia’s can sit down and actually have dialog on getting a government settled. NATO and the UN can provide the security until then. America pays for what we broke. Iraqi’s get work, their country back, and can rebuild their infrastructure.
This is the only way to bring stability back to Iraq.
The Russians learned this in Afghanistan. As long as occupation troops remain inside the country, the insurgency will flourish. Once the invading troops leave, the insurgency has nobody to fight.
This would be a workable deal, but, BUSH wants a “legacy” to his Presidency. He wants to be a “war President”. And now that Iraq is going bad, he doesn’t want to be seen as a failure. Well, that’s too late. He is a failure. Until he admits it and brokers this deal, he will continue to fail.
Michael, You are another of the surrender monkeys along with John Murtha. So you think Zarqawi will sit down and have a tea party with the Iraqis after we leave. Your kind of naivety is what allowed the N. Vietnamese to slaughter hundreds of thousands of their countrymen, and Pol Pot to kill a million or more Cambodians. All of the “spun” lies you placed above are just that. When a decision is made to get a court order to wiretap a terrorist, do you really think they wake Bush up at 3 AM to get him to sign off? You dont have a clue how the system works. But your senseless babble about all of these conspiracies is entertaining at least. ALL of us mourn the honorable dead among the SC soldiers who have given the utmost for us. Most of their family members would smack you right in the face for telling them their sons and daughters died for some goofy political posturing you say the Bush admin. is doing. You would deserve it big time.
PS – I knew you wouldn’t agree that we need to defend this nation. You are right in there with Michael Moore and the looney left.
Michael, I like your plan. It sounds a lot like what John Kerry wanted to do. Perhaps my analysis is over simplified. The big problem is our leadership (or actually lack of leadership).
Dave, you suggest that liberal don’t think we need to defend the country. That’s exactly the point, as long as we continue down the failed path in Iraq we’re not defending the country. This misadventure does but make the nation vulnerable. Even if the terrorists don’t attack us on American soil American citizens continue to die, by the thousands. And our millitary grows weaker, our standing in the world deteriorates and our economy weakens (thanks to the mounting debt, largely held by China and Japan). All because we’re fighting a war that has nothing to do with actually defending the nation.
I’m glad you brought up Zarqawi. Why haven’t we captured him or Bin-Laden or the others? Your man has had 5 years, promised us Bin-Laden dead or alive. That doesn’t sound like effectively defending the country. And your answer cannot include a reference to Bill Clinton. If if does it’s nonsense.
Dave,
So… I see you’re all for genocide then.
Congratulations. Dave, part of the moral party, the party of religion, who advocates killing everyone. Who would Jesus invade, torture, murder, and then call for complete genocide upon Dave?
So I’m a cut and run coward huh Dave? How much blood have YOU spilled for America Dave? How many deployments have YOU been on Dave? My DD214 shows 4.
See Dave, this is the difference between you and me. I don’t mind war. I just mind illegal wars. You, however, as long as you can rah-rah and other people die, you don’t give a sh*t. You think you’re supporting the troops.
So, the families would smack me huh. You think Pat Tillmans family wants to smack me? You DO remember Pat Tillman right Dave? The NFL player who volunteered for the war. The guy who Bush touted as an all-American hero that died fighting the enemy. How’d his family feel when they found out it was all a lie Dave? Let me show you how they felt. But first Dave, here is the LIE:
WASHINGTON – Pat Tillman, who gave up the glamorous life of a professional football star to join the Army Rangers, was remembered as a role model of courage and patriotism Friday after military officials said he had been killed in action in Afghanistan.
So… their son is a hero… gave all for America… the family was so proud they wouldn’t hear anything else, is that right Dave?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL
“The battle between a grieving family and the U.S. military justice system is on display in thousands of pages of documents strewn across Mary Tillman’s dining room table in suburban San Jose.”
“As she pores through testimony from three previous Army investigations into the killing of her son, former football star Pat Tillman, by his fellow Army Rangers last year in Afghanistan, she hopes that a new inquiry launched in August by the Pentagon’s inspector general finally will answer the family’s questions:”
“Were witnesses allowed to change their testimony on key details, as alleged by one investigator? Why did internal documents on the case, such as the initial casualty report, include false information? When did top Pentagon officials know that Tillman’s death was caused by friendly fire, and why did they delay for five weeks before informing his family?”
That’s right Dave. Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, yet, Bush and the military touted Pat Tillman to the world as being killed by enemy fire… just another LIE Dave. Is the family happy Dave? Do they want to lash out at people like me searching for the truth?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200865.html
Former NFL player Pat Tillman’s family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military’s investigations into Tillman’s friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.
More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman’s mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army’s “lies” about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.
“Pat had high ideals about the country; that’s why he did what he did,” Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son’s death. “The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.”
Disgusting Dave. Not my words, but Pat Tillmans mother. Disgusted that the Army would LIE about her sons death to try and use him to promote the war and recruiting. Disgusted that Bush would lie to the family.
Oh yes Dave, it is all my fault, it is all the Tillman’s fault, for wanting the truth to be known.
Bud,
If you are going to bring up Zarqawi, you must bring up the truth:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.
And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
—————————
That is Dave’s decent, honest, family man that is going to save us from the terrorists. The man who was too busy planning for Iraq to even care about taking out the real terrorists.
But then, if we took out the real terrorists, who would be the evil boogey-man Bush could tout? Who could he use to scare the public if he found and killed the real terrorists like he said he would do?
He had Zarqawi. But that was in 2002. That was BEFORE he got his war on Iraq. We’ve been in Iraq for 3 years now. Zarqawi is still alive.
So ask yourself…
How many times since 2002 has Bush ordered Zarqawi NOT killed?
Michael,
It’s refreshing to have a well thoughtout, reasoned answer to a question. I’d like to see Dave or Lee evaluate the current administration in the same forthright manner, without, and I repeat, without referencing Bill Clinton. It’s sort of like if you have a train heading west instead of east for 5 years and everyone on the right side of the train blames the previous engineer. They would say things like, “if ole Billy had just used the Nebraska route instead of diverting us through Kansas we wouldn’t be heading west instead of east”. Never mind ole Billy had the train heading east for 8 years. Because the right side of the train thinks Nebraska is more attractive they use this diversionary tactic to make their point. What completely baffles me is how so many people in the country buy the right-wing talking points.
Thanks Michael, you just provided proof that not only was Al Qaeda in Iraq at the courtesy of Saddam, but also there were biological weapons in Iraq, aka WMD. I am glad a liberal finally admitted what most of the rest of us have known all along. More evidence is coming out about WMD in Iraq so Bush, Cheney, Rice et al were right all along.
The Tillman episode is tragic and his family deserves to be beyond disgusted. But it is the Bush admin and Rumsfeld who have demanded the truth come out. So local on the scene officers fudged their reports, so they pay the price. Give Bush and Rumsfeld credit for getting the truth out, just like they did with Abu Graib. This admin. has NO secrets from the American people. Their actions have been honest and straight up from day 1.
By the way, Bush listened too long to Colin Powell about “building the coalition”. He should have said screw the coalition, Saddam was being given time to hide his weapons and get them into Syria where they are now. Believe it. The weaklings in the Dem party, the doves, would still be haggling over the 99th UN resolution even today if they had their way. Now 50 million people are free in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weaklings somehow think democracy, women voting, end of mass genocide graves, no more rapes of young girls by the Bathist thugs, is all bad news. Breaking news here for the CNN watchers, Iraq is turning into a positive environment, and just about everyone who has gone there lately is coming back saying just that.
Also, Gen. Omar Bradley made a mistake and had USAF planes drop bombs too close to US positions during the Normandy invasion. Not one Pat Tillman, but 600 Pat Tillmans were slaughtered. That is horrible, but we didn’t use that to surrender to the Germans, did we? We won’t surrender to the terrorists either, no matter how much some of you want to cut and run.
By the way, I have a DD214 from the US Army, so save your holier than thou “I served” rubbish. I did too.
Dave makes a valid point (finally) about the WMD in northern Iraq. This was indeed a serious threat and should not have been taken lightly. Unfortunately for supporters of the president this episode does not reflect well on Bush. For starters, the WMD were not in Sadam’s control. The war the US launched in March, 2003 was aimed at the Iraqi military and the Iraqi government, not at the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. But what is most important is that we did not capture Zarqawi nor did we find the WMD. Sorry Dave, the more facts that come out the worse the president looks. He has simply failed to protect us from terrorists and continues to fail.
Bud, keep in mind, nothing, and I mean nothing happened in Saddam’s Iraq without his condonence. That is what a police state is all about. He was meeting with his own Chemical team and discussing bio weapons up until right before the war. Documents prove that.
The US military and coalition have killed probably 50,000 or more terrorists or terrorists wanna bees. That is 50,000 comprised of Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, Iranians, and other Iraqis who will not harm a single US citizen in the future. The job isnt finished but Bin Laden even issued a command to leave Iraq and go to the Sudan. He knows his believers are being wiped out. History is on the side of freedom and liberty and we will finish the job in Iraq. It is God’s will that evil must lose and we are seeing that happen now.
Dave, what is a terrorist wanna bee? Is that a 6 year old child that just saw his mother’s face blown off by an off-target cluster bomb? Or is it a grieveing wife who just lost her husband at a check point when a young, scared soldier made an understandable, but incorrect, decision about an approaching car? Perhaps its a 15 year old that just saw his friend killed in a crossfire between Americans and insurgents.
Sometimes winning means winning the hearts and support of those we’re trying to save. The ham-handed approach of Bush, Rummy and company has seen to it that those 50,000 dead terrorists will be replaced by 500,000 very determined new recruits to the “cause”. Recruits that were probably saddened by the news of the 9-11 tragedy.
You say history is on the side of freedom and liberty? So let’s really liberate these people instead of killing, and torturing them. After all isn’t that what America is about? Not some boneheaded occupation of a nation that posed us no threat while the real terrorists are getting away and now, growing in number.
Dave,
You know… I sat wondering how fast you’d jump. You really need to follow along and get facts. What did I say? That Bush was planning the Iraq invasion long before Al-Qaeda was in Iraq… that it was AFTER the invasion of Afghanistan that some Al-Qaeda fled into N. Iraq.
We remember what happened on September 11th, 2001. But, do you remember what happened in October 2001? That’s right Dave… we attacked Afghanistan. By November 2001, we had ground advances into Afghanistan. Now Dave, the article you jumped all over… it said: “In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.” Now Dave… 2001 comes before 2002.
As for this: “Al Qaeda in Iraq at the courtesy of Saddam,”
Really Dave? Gee… the article says NOTHING about them being there COURTESY of Saddam. Care to find a newsreport for me? Ummm… only one problem Dave… and thank you for once again showing how little you read or know outside of FOX News… but Dave:
The United States instituted a northern “no-fly” zone. In fact Dave, the no-fly zones covered both north and south Iraq from 1996 to 2003. The northern no-fly zone extended from the 36th parallel north. Even if you take into account spelling, which from my time in Iraq I feel we have to do, Khurma, Iraq is on the 35th parallel, just south of the 36th parallel, or, the no-fly zone, where forces of Saddam didn’t patrol and had no control over.
Also Dave, the fact that Al-Qaeda was producing chemical agents means Iraq and Saddam had WMD’s how again? Al-Qaeda. Saddam. Gee Dave, in your infinite wisdom, explain to me how Al-Qaeda producing chemicals equates into Saddam producing chemicals.
Because by your logic Dave, the fact that 12 million illegal aliens crashed America’s borders means that they reside inside of America at the courtesy of Bush. Is that what you’re saying Dave? That Bush invited these illegal aliens to crash our borders and hold up in our towns? And Dave, if Bush didn’t invite them in, why are they still here? Why haven’t we tracked down these illegal aliens if it is so easy and pushed them out of America? Come on Dave, explain it. You feel it was so easy for Saddam to find some Al-Qaeda members in his country, why hasn’t America identified all of the people who crashed OUR borders? It isn’t like America has an outside country keeping us from roaming around our own country Dave, so tell us all, why, if Bush didn’t invite the illegals in, haven’t they been pushed out Dave. You know, the same logic you are using on Saddam, who DID have outside countries keeping him from roaming around his own country. I’m waiting Dave…
“More evidence is coming out about WMD in Iraq so Bush, Cheney, Rice et al were right all along.”
Cite that evidence Dave. Show me that evidence.
“But it is the Bush admin and Rumsfeld who have demanded the truth come out. So local on the scene officers fudged their reports, so they pay the price. Give Bush and Rumsfeld credit for getting the truth out, just like they did with Abu Graib. This admin. has NO secrets from the American people. Their actions have been honest and straight up from day 1.”
Come now Dave… I’ve shown you the lies. If Bush was pushing for the TRUTH to come out on Tillman, WHY is the THIRD investigation NOT being done in a timely manner Dave? Bush IS the President isn’t he? All he has to do is make ONE phone call, and voila, the truth comes out, right Dave? So why are the Tillmans waiting on the THIRD investigation Dave?
“By the way, Bush listened too long to Colin Powell about “building the coalition”. He should have said screw the coalition, Saddam was being given time to hide his weapons and get them into Syria where they are now. Believe it.”
No Dave… prove it. Prove that Saddam, under watch of spy satellites, under watch of UN inspectors, under watch of drones, under watch of spy planes, trucked loads of WMD’s into Syria. Show me Dave.
“Now 50 million people are free in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weaklings somehow think democracy, women voting, end of mass genocide graves, no more rapes of young girls by the Bathist thugs, is all bad news.”
No Dave, now the girls are being raped by American forces. Or do you only watch FOX News? Abu Ghraib Dave. Reports were coming out long before the photos that women being kept at Abu Ghraib by American forces were being raped. Women can vote? Oh wow Dave! Under Saddam, women were DOCTORS Dave! NOW, women can VOTE! Gee Dave, it isn’t like Iraq had elections. Saddam didn’t hold them, remember. But, he allowed women to go to school, to become doctors, lawyers. I mean, gee Dave, MEN couldn’t vote in Iraq, now could they? And mass graves… yes Dave… we’ve heard of them. So, now that America, by Bush’s OWN COUNT, has killed over 30,000 innocent Iraqi’s, will there be MORE mass graves Dave?
“Also, Gen. Omar Bradley made a mistake and had USAF planes drop bombs too close to US positions during the Normandy invasion. Not one Pat Tillman, but 600 Pat Tillmans were slaughtered. That is horrible, but we didn’t use that to surrender to the Germans, did we? We won’t surrender to the terrorists either, no matter how much some of you want to cut and run.”
Nice spin Dave. But Germany declared war on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor Dave, or, did you forget that fact? America invaded Iraq without any provocation, or, did you forget THAT fact Dave? Come on Dave, I know you’re desperate, but, if you are going to bring in straw man arguments, get your facts straight. Germany declared war on America first… America declared war on Iraq first.
“By the way, I have a DD214 from the US Army, so save your holier than thou “I served” rubbish. I did too.”
Good for you Dave. How many deployments? How many times did you go to a war zone Dave?
“Bud, keep in mind, nothing, and I mean nothing happened in Saddam’s Iraq without his condonence. That is what a police state is all about. He was meeting with his own Chemical team and discussing bio weapons up until right before the war. Documents prove that.”
Oh come now Dave. Saddam couldn’t even move around the north OR south of Iraq for 12 years, so, saying that he had total control over his country is flat out a LIE. So, you are now like your President Dave? You lie too? And what documents Dave? Documents that the Army state they found? Is this the SAME Army that just cannot tell the truth about Tillman’s death to his own family? THAT credible Army you are talking about Dave?
“The job isnt finished but Bin Laden even issued a command to leave Iraq and go to the Sudan. He knows his believers are being wiped out. History is on the side of freedom and liberty and we will finish the job in Iraq. It is God’s will that evil must lose and we are seeing that happen now.”
Ahhhhh… and NOW it comes out!
God’s will Dave? Like, it is Allah’s will that the infidel’s die? So Dave, Jesus wants you kill, right? Isn’t there a Commandment about killing Dave? Do you know where you have now revealed yourself to be Dave? You are now no better then the Christians before you that pulled the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the murder of pagans, the murder of millions for centuries that believed something other then YOU.
Congratulations Dave… you have now lost all credibility… it is God’s will people die Dave? Since when Dave? Since when did God say “kill people”?
As far as I was taught… thou shalt not kill Dave.
So… you have revealed yourself to be no different then the people you claim to fight… religious fundamentalist’s who claim their God gives them the right to kill others. You are just another fanatic Dave… no different then Bin Laden and Zarqawi… by your own words.
Bud,
Dave has revealed himself:
“It is God’s will that evil must lose and we are seeing that happen now.”
He is just another religious fanatic, no different then Bin Laden and Zarqawi, claiming that his “God” gives him the right to kill.
May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
-General George Patton Jr.
Michael, it isn’t that Dave is claiming his God gives HIM the right to kill. The members of the 87th Chairborne don’t actually personally do any of the killing themselves.
Mary,
Dave said: “It is God’s will that evil must lose and we are seeing that happen now.”
Bin Laden said: “We must be loyal to the believers and those who believe that there is no God but Allah. I remind you of what our Prophet, may God’s peace and blessings upon him, told Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him; He told him: Boy, I am going to teach you a few words. Obey God, He will protect you. Obey Him, you will find Him on your side. If you ask for something, ask God. If you seek help, seek the help of God. You should know that if all people come together to help you, they will only help you with something that God has already preordained for you. And if they assemble to harm you, they will only harm you with something that God has already preordained for you. God wrote man’s fate and it will never change.”
So Dave and Bin Laden are no different. Both believe their “God” is the only “God” and that their “God” will help them to kill others.
What Dave, and alot of others, refuse to see is that if they followed the teachings of Jesus (love thy neighbor, do not kill) the war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein would never have been waged. The Qu`ran teaches muslims to love peace, but, to fight transgressors.
People like Dave forget things, convienently, it is the important things, like facts, that show they are in the wrong.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden went to the Saudi’s and Kuwaiti’s, he offered his fighters to remove Saddam and protect their countries. Both countries refused because they didn’t want to see a muslim vs muslim war. They felt that it was better to have outside (the UN) assistance. Bin Laden didn’t like it, but, he accepted it.
It wasn’t until America refused to leave these bases in the Middle East that Bin Laden began his attacks. We became squatters on muslim soil because it has been American foreign policy for decades to try and get military bases into the region; a region we are not liked, nor wanted.
In fact, we didn’t remove our troops from Saudi Arabia until 2003, when we invaded Iraq. It wasn’t a withdrawal of troops, it was just a reshuffle of troops from one country in the Middle East to another.
If history teaches us anything, it is that it has been our continued meddling in the Middle East that has wrought the enmity of Islam. It has always been a religious fight since the time of the Crusades; Christians vs Islam.
Pre-WWII, America had little interest in the Middle East, but, Britain and France did have an interest from WWI. Christian’s (Britains) divided up Palestine (Islam) after WWI.
After WWII, America instituted its Middle East policy:
– The containment of Communism.
– Safeguarding Israel.
– Stability in the region.
– The free-flow of oil to the west.
But, in order to have the means to perform any of these, America needed military bases in the region. So, our government has been trying, for the past 61 years, to get our military into the Middle East, regardless if they are welcomed or not.
In 1952, the CIA pulled a coup in Iran, inserting their own leader into power; the Shah of Iran. From 1953-1979, the Shah ruled Iran like any dictator. It wasn’t until 1979, when the people of Iran had enough torture, enough government sanctioned killing, that they revolted against the Shah and America.
The 1967 Six Day War, which Israel started, began the period of U.S. dominance in the Middle East. This period of U.S. dominance in Middle East politics with Israel lasted until 1979, the same year that the Shah of Iran was ousted. This is not coincidence.
From 1979 forward, radical Islam began started and began to flourish in response to the United States` and western attempts to influence and dominate the region. But go back up to the reasons for the policy; oil and Israel. Natural resources and religious idealism.
When governments in the region are not “pro-U.S.”, what does our government call for? Regime change. But, a government, even a brutal dictator, that is pro-U.S. gets the handshakes and arms deals. Saddam did until he wasn’t “pro-U.S.” anymore. So, Dave is wrong that we are “helping and liberating” people. We are not liberating anyone, anywhere, unless the regime is anti-America.
Every empire throughout history has thought it could rule the world. Every empire that has tried has failed.
Only one religion has tried to convert the world to its beliefs, using murder and torture as it missionaries from 135 AD until the 1900’s. Some periods were harsher then others; the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials.
Now it is 2003. America, under Bush Jr., is a nation that believes it should rule the world and is doing so under the auspice of religious goodness and piety. Even Bush Jr. called the war in the Middle East a crusade.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
(Sept 2001) “On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”
The world cringed at Bush’s wording, calling the fight a crusade. Was this a slip of the tongue by a self-professed born-again Christian? I don’t think so, and, many in the world didn’t believe so either.
Some of the problems in the Middle East can be solved but they will not be solved by religious fanatics who believe their God gives them the right to kill others. The problems will not be solved under a government policy of dominating natural resources the entire world needs.
We are establishing military bases, permanant bases, in Iraq. We have already called for a regime change in Iran and the rhetoric for war is increasing daily. Oil. But China and Russia need that oil as well. American military dominance in the Middle East cannot bode well for these two countries, and, anyone who believes they will sit back and allow it unchecked is blind.
Bush is trying, through use of rhetoric, religion, and military force, to force pro-U.S. government and military presence into the Middle East. This policy of lies by Bush and the blind followership of people like Dave has led to the deaths of our military. It can only lead to more deaths, more rhetoric, more war.
Michael, If you can pound out that many words on one subject, you may be a one man newspaper if you keep at it. It isn’t coincidence that extremist Muslims asserted power in 1979. Jimmy Carter showed us as a nation of weaklings and we are still paying for it today. Read this recent excerpt of a Qaddafi speech, some would perceive him as one of the more moderate Muslim leaders:
Following are excerpts from a speech given by Libyan leader Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on April 10, 2006.
Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi: Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims.
[…]
The Muslims were enraged by the defamation of their Prophet. But the people who defamed Muhammad were defaming their own prophet, because Muhammad is the prophet of the people in Scandinavia, in Europe, America, Asia and Africa. But since the holy texts that they read in Scandinavia are forged and call for hatred, they believe Muhammad is not their prophet.
[…]
We expect to see a picture of Jesus with nuclear bombs over his head, because the nuclear bomb was developed by the followers of Jesus.
[…]
They drew Muhammad surrounded by veiled women, because of the veil worn by Muslim women. We expect them to draw Jesus surrounded by naked women, because the followers… because Christian women are naked. In Scandinavia women are naked.
[…]
In any case, the holy texts of the West, of Europe and America, call for hatred, there is no doubt about it. This text is corrupt and inhumane.
[…]
The so-called Old Testament and New Testament are neither Old Testament nor New Testament – because both testaments were superseded, and they are forged. They were written by hand hundreds of years after Jesus.
In the Bible there are things that are inappropriate for both Jesus and Moses. If we want to mend the state of humanity, and live in a global village, because of the globalization, we must search for the true Bible, because the Bible that exists today is a forgery. Today’s Bible does not mention Muhammad, whereas our Lord’s Bible mentions Muhammad repeatedly.
We must search for the Gospel of Barnabas, of St. Barnabas, because this is the true gospel. This gospel explicitly mentions that Muhammad would come after Jesus.
[…]
Today, we are correcting human history from here, in Timbuktu.
We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.
Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey, and adds it to the European Union. That’s another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Bosnia, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. 50 percent of its citizens are Muslims.
[…]
Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.
Back to me: Now, if that doesn’t make your blood run cold, nothing will. This is the Islamic agenda, destroy the West and rule us. We ARE in WWIII now whether anyone wants to believe it or not. Gen. Pace, the head of the US Marines, believes it.. Here is what he said at the Citadel graduation just this week. By the way, he is NOT a partisan by any means, just one fine military man. I read his speech in print but can’t find it on the web yet. “We are winning in Iraq, and the American people need to be patient and let us finish the job, whether you were for or against the war.”
Mary, If you will let me I would like to take out a patent on that nasty killer mouth of yours. It could be a great battlefield weapon. The soldiers would hold you up sideways and you could rant and rave about Brad Warthen and how much you know everyone is a piece of garbage. That would surely mow down the fanatical terrorists. It would be something they have never seen or heard. But you may be tried for torturing the enemy with cruel and unusual punishment. No, you better stay home reading Peter Pan.
Dave,
You finally spoke the truth, however, the spin of context is what is frightening:
“Back to me: Now, if that doesn’t make your blood run cold, nothing will. This is the Islamic agenda, destroy the West and rule us. We ARE in WWIII now whether anyone wants to believe it or not. Gen. Pace, the head of the US Marines, believes it..”
He SHOULD believe it. But you believe this war was started by the muslims, it wasn’t. I have shown you how America meddled in the Middle East until muslims became so pissed off they decided to act. This war has been decades in the making. America has been sticking our stick into the Middle East like a kid with a hornet’s nest. Well, we woke them up.
You claim that it was Carter’s fault for Iran in 1979. This shows your shallowness and lack of cognitive thinking, but then, you’re a fanatic, what did we expect. The Iranians lived under OUR imposed dictator for 26 years. So, it was Carter’s fault? No Dave, it was President Truman and President Eisenhower’s fault for allowing the CIA to instill a dictator into Iran.
There was a movie called `Red Dawn`. America is attacked, occupied, our citizens huddled into prisons. Some kids start a resistance movement. How moving, how patriotic!
But, when it is America doing the invading, when it is America doing the occupation, when it is America herding citizens into prison, the resistance movement against us is labled as terrorists. Go figure.
Yes, now that America has dropped all pretense of our intentions, World War III has begun. Bush isn’t even making the pretext of looking for Bin Laden anymore. Now, America is bent, under his leadership, on securing the oil in the Middle East, on getting the military bases at the expense of our troops. Yes Dave, WWIII is here, but, it wasn’t the muslims that started it. I don’t remember muslims installing a dictator as our President, do you Dave?
“I read his speech in print but can’t find it on the web yet. “We are winning in Iraq, and the American people need to be patient and let us finish the job, whether you were for or against the war.”
We are winning. Winning what? Winning the ability to rule a country by proxy that has oil? Bush touts democracy, but, when the leader is someone he doesn’t like, he inserts his nose to get someone he DOES like. He has done it in Iraq twice now, with Saddam, and now the new minister of the puppet government he’s trying to get in place. He is doing it with Iran, just as we did in Iran in the ’50’s. Winning the right to have military bases in the Middle East? And who has given us this “right” Dave? Your “God”? At what expense Dave? The women and children of Iraq? The expense of our military members that are told they are dying for a “noble cause”?
You’ve proven yourself to be a religious fanatic, no better then Bin Laden and his religious fanatics. Like them, you believe anything we do is right as long as you can spout the word “God” while people die.
Here is a clue, Dave; you aren’t going to be swept up in Rapture and saved by “God” in the end just as Bin Laden and his terrorists will not be received into their heaven.
You both have the blood of innocents on your hands.
What is that Republican word? “Truthiness”?
Bush now wants to close Guantanamo… is anyone asking “why now”? Porter Goss resigns… is anyone asking “why now”?
Go back… Porter Goss in charge of the CIA when Cheney lobbies for a TORTURE EXEMPTION for the CIA.
Now… the United Nations is calling for American officials to testify on CIA renditions, on torture, on secret CIA prisons.
Goss resigns… Bush suddenly says Gitmo should be closed…
This is war crimes and Hague trials time. Connect the dots…
Republican President
Republican House
Republican Senate
Republican Supreme Court
United Nations investigation into international torture by the CIA…
Not convinced yet?
How about the speculation that General Hayden was to be nominated as the next director of the CIA?
This is the man who was in charge when the warrantless wiretaps began. This is the man who decided that “reasonableness” was the only requirement of the 4th Amendment of our Constitution. This is a man who even Republican lawmakers are opposed to…
Bush has the “backdoor draft” in Stop-Loss on our troops while he wages wars based on lies… why not “backdoor martial law” as well by not only letting the military run the CIA, but, a man who doesn’t even know the 4th Amendment to our own Constitution?
Wake up South Carolina!
Mike:
Don’t blow a gasket! If you want to believe CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC it’s your right to do so. Wow, the generals are up to 8 from 6. They only have 7892 generals that agree with the administration. Sounds like the numbers are soldily in your favor!
Yes, my math was wrong! The number is higher! 7992 generals.
Allen,
How many General’s do you think will agree with General Hayden? This is a Q&A:
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. [Regarding] the standard…you use to target your wiretaps. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American’s right against unlawful searches and seizures.
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually — the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “we reasonably believe”; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court, and say, “we have probable cause.”
And so what many people believe is that what you’ve actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear — and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth. [I]t is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you’ve raised to me — and I’m not a lawyer– what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is “reasonable.” …I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
————————–
This is Bush’s pick for running the CIA. The constitutional standard of the 4th Amendment is “reasonableness”? The 4th Amendment says:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I guess if you don’t get warrants, you don’t have to show probable cause… right? This *is* Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program we are discussing here… so… no more probable cause… only whether or not Bush, Cheney, and their lackey’s believe the program is “REASONABLE”.
Not like the FISA law didn’t settle this when Nixon tried… but then we had a Congress that still believed in the rule of law and our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to calls made to or from persons outside the country, because the calls are intercepted outside the country.
Most of the foreigners on the watch list already meet the criteria for a wiretap warrant, though. After the initial call identifies a person in the U.S. only 25 have been listened to further, all with warrants. That has resulted in foiled terrorist plots, arrests, and convictions in jury trials.
Enemies of America want to create the false impression that the wiretaps are rampant and illegal.
Bill Clinton used illegal wiretaps on over 6,000,000 people in the U.S. while he was president, until Congress passed legislation to strictly forbid his executive orders.
Lee,
If you are going to try and justify Bush, at least use a factual argument.
“The Fourth Amendment does not apply to calls made to or from persons outside the country, because the calls are intercepted outside the country.”
Even BUSH calls it his “DOMESTIC surveillance program”… now… since when did DOMESTIC become “outside the country”? Really… quit watching FOX News!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
“President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.”
Secondly, the 4th Amendment IS at stake, because the Patriot Act bypassed the Constitution when it authorized “sneek and peak” searches that don’t require a warrant. Also, the FISA law was SPECIFICALLY enacted for the very purpose Bush is trying to circumvent; it requires a warrant be processed through the FISA court.
“Most of the foreigners on the watch list already meet the criteria for a wiretap warrant, though. After the initial call identifies a person in the U.S. only 25 have been listened to further, all with warrants. That has resulted in foiled terrorist plots, arrests, and convictions in jury trials.”
First of all, even General Hayden has debunked your statement here:
“Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.”
So… in FACT… the entire rationale is that they CAN’T get a warrant “in time” even though the FISA act gives them the ability to put a wiretap in place and 72 hours to get the warrant.
Also, you haven’t even explained how Bush said warrants were required AFTER he signed off on a program that by-passed getting a warrant… I wonder why…
We already KNOW that the FBI has abused the new directives… this is a fact:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1091910,00.html
FBI officials said the surveillance of the anti-war movement was necessary to prevent protests being used as a cover by “extremist elements” or by terrorist organisations to mount an attack.
But the critics have pointed to an FBI memorandum on anti-war demonstrations distributed last month to local police forces which suggests that federal agents have also been monitoring legal organising techniques used by opponents of the war in Iraq.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24528prs20060314.html
Two documents released today reveal that the FBI investigated gatherings of the Thomas Merton Center for Peace & Justice just because the organization opposed the war in Iraq. Although previously disclosed documents show that the FBI is retaining files on anti-war groups, these documents are the first to show conclusively that the rationale for FBI targeting is the group’s opposition to the war.
“It makes no sense that the FBI would be spying on peace activists handing out flyers,” said Jim Kleissler, Executive Director of the Thomas Merton Center for Peace & Justice. “Our members were simply offering leaflets to passersby, legally and peacefully, and now they’re being investigated by a counter–terrorism unit. Something is seriously wrong in how our government determines who and what constitutes terrorism when peace activists find themselves targeted.”
And of course… the FBI denied these allegations!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/22/national/main585120.shtml
“An FBI official on Sunday denied any effort to collect intelligence on people exercising their rights to free speech. The official said the effort was aimed at providing police around the country with information about how such protests should be handled, including the possibility of violence.”
“The FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the bureau is not collecting intelligence on protesters but wants to identify extremist elements, such as pro-environment organizations that destroy SUVs and anti-globalization groups that vandalize private property.”
But… evidence HAS come out that the FBI HAS, IN FACT, abused the new directives to spy on citizens. FACT. Oh… and they don’t keep files on protesters? Really?
http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2003-05-08/news.html
“The ACLU sued the Denver Police Department last year after discovering that the department’s detectives had compiled files on thousands of political activists, from anti-abortion groups to Catholic nuns, most of whom had broken no laws. Colorado Springs police contributed to the files by submitting information about local activists. In a settlement reached last month, Denver police agreed to stop the surveillance.”
“But recently unsealed court records from the “spy files” lawsuit also indicate that on several occasions, law-enforcement agents around the state have passed information about political rallies to Tom Fisher, an agent with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Denver.”
“Fisher didn’t respond to requests for comment, but FBI spokeswoman Atanasio confirmed that Fisher had requested and received a list identifying people who attended last year’s rally at The Broadmoor. “He requested information in which there was a legitimate law-enforcement interest,” she said.”
“She wouldn’t elaborate on what that interest was, but said the list was ultimately useless. “It was subsequently determined that the information was of no investigative relevance to the JTTF, and no further action was taken upon it,” Atanasio said. “I can’t comment further.”
Oh yes Lee… NUNS are terrorists now! Quick Lee… call the FBI… the nuns are protesting!
So… because BUSH tells you it is legal… and they wouldn’t abuse it… you believe him? I don’t! The FACTS have now PROVEN that agencies under Bush are ABUSING the powers he has given them.
Oh… and the typical… “but.. but.. CLINTON!” Can’t get over the fact that BUSH is President huh? But, what is your claim?
“Bill Clinton used illegal wiretaps on over 6,000,000 people in the U.S. while he was president, until Congress passed legislation to strictly forbid his executive orders.”
Really? Let’s see:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36067,00.html
“Clinton has signed a bill that requires the Justice Department to report how frequently it encounters encrypted conversations. Over 2,450,000 telephone conversations were legally intercepted in 1999, according to government statistics released this week.”
A BILL… that means… legislation… that means… CONGRESS.
http://www.cdt.org/security/001004analysis.shtml
“The bill’s declared purpose is “To enhance privacy and the protection of the public in the use of computers and the Internet, and for other purposes.” According to the Proposed Legislative History that accompanies the bill, it would update the relevant statutes ? the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Wiretap Act, and the Cable Act ? to create “a legal structure that will support detection and successful prosecution of offenders” in cyberspace. Particular problems mentioned by the Proposed Legislative History are a) child pornography transmission, b) commission of crimes using encryption, c) attacks on financial computers, d) illegal access to consumers’ personal and credit information, e) use of the Internet to commit “large-scale” fraud globally, and f) terrorists’ using the Internet to communicate threats over the Internet.”
In fact Lee, in a websearch of “Clinton illegal wiretap” I find nothing substantiating your claim that it was “illegal”.
http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/wiretap_overview.html
Highlights of the 2000 Report on Wiretaps in Criminal Cases
Number of wiretap requests approved in 2000: 1,190
Number of wiretap requests denied: 0
Average number of conversations intercepted per wiretap: 1,769
Average number of people intercepted per wiretap: 196
Approximate number of conversations intercepted: 2.1 million
Longest running wiretap: 308 days
Percentage of intercepted conversations deemed “incriminating”: 23
Average cost of wiretap: $54,829
Cost of most expensive wiretap: $1,082,990
“Nor does the figure of 1,190 approved wiretaps surveillances for 2000 cover the separate set of authorizations issued by a select group of federal judges, operating under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), who yearly issue nearly 1,000 interception and physical search orders in foreign counterintelligence and international terrorism cases (1,012 in 2000) (It is hard to tell, given the classified nature of the court’s proceedings, how many wiretaps these orders entail. Some of the orders are good for one year, while some require reauthorization every ninety days, so some targets are the subject of four orders in a year. On the other hand, one order may authorize multiple taps. Plus, starting in 1996, the figures for the FISA court included physical searches (“black bag jobs”) which are probably relatively few in number.) In its entire existence, since 1978, the FISA court has only twice (once in 1980 and once in 1997) refused a government request for electronic surveillance authority.”
So Lee… what is your source that Clinton authorized ILLEGAL wiretapping?
Oh… that was me btw… NOT Lee…
And the Republican hit parade marches on:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000581.php
Hayden, President Bush’s pick to replace Porter Goss as head of the CIA, contracted with MZM Inc. for the services of Lt. Gen. James C. King, then a senior vice president of the company, the sources say. MZM was owned and operated by Mitchell Wade, who has admitted to bribing former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham with $1.4 million in money and gifts. Wade has also reportedly told investigators he helped arrange for prostitutes to entertain the disgraced lawmaker, and he continues to cooperate with a federal inquiry into the matter.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/08/vaccine-industry-giveaway/
Last December, Senate Majority Leader Bill First (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert inserted a provision in the Defense Appropriations bill that granted vaccine manufactures near-total immunity for injuries or deaths (even in cases of “gross negligence”) caused by their drugs during a viral pandemic, such as an outbreak of the avian flu. The legislation was “worth billions of dollars” to a small group of drug makers.
Vaccine industry officials helped shape legislation behind the scenes that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist secretly amended into a bill to shield them from lawsuits, according to e-mails obtained by a public advocacy group.
E-mails and documents written by a trade group for the vaccine-makers show the organization met privately with Frist’s staff and the White House about measures that would give the industry protection from lawsuits filed by people hurt by the vaccines.
The final language of the provision was exactly what the vaccine manufactures requested in thier emails and meetings.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_go_co/lobbyist_probe;_ylt=ArwgmVlApMiQQdK4TbuO0D4DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M
WASHINGTON – A former top aide to Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, pleaded guilty Monday in the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal, admitting he conspired to corrupt Ney, his staff and other members of Congress with trips, free tickets, jobs, meals and campaign events.
————————–
Yep… the party of morals and values!
(pre-empting Lee and Dave)
But… but… CLINTON!
Mike, do you UNDERSTAND that the enemy is the terrorists, NOT Bush and the GOP? Do you believe we don’t need to listen to phone calls coming in to America from people on terrorist lists? Cell calls and web traffic are in real time, NOT postal mail. So if NSA picks up a phone call right this minute from Pakistan to NYC, you think we should not listen to it, but go find a FISA judge, get a written order, but then the call is over. What idiots the left are… Just like Moussaui, the terrorists laugh their butts off at weaklings who play be rules while they play to KILL. Can you ever understand that? I doubt it, you are so filled with Bush hate you will ride that senseless position to the bitter end.
Dave,
I understand that the government has all the tools they need to track terrorists. The FISA law is so lenient, that our government can put a wiretap in place, listen for 3 days BEFORE EVER GETTING THE WARRANT. Your “real time” argument holds ZERO water. The NSA can wiretap that individual for 3 days without a warrant by the law.
I understand that the ONLY reason Bush wouldn’t want to go before the FISA court is because he believes that not even THAT court would issue a warrant, which means, that the case is either non-existent, or, whoever he wants to wiretap couldn’t even begin to be called “terrorist” by any sane, rational person.
Do you believe the FISA court would give the FBI a wiretap warrant to surveil anti-war NUNS? NO. So… you don’t get a warrant. You come up with some bogus program, claim you are fighting terrorists, tout the boogey-man, go around the FISA court, and you surveil anti-war nuns whenever you want. Get it now? I got it LONG ago.
The intelligence services are supposed to be finding TERRORISTS… not ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS that are exercising their constitutional RIGHT to dissent peaceably.
You, and the rest like you, keep touting this “boogey-man” called “terrorists”… but when the rubber meets the road, you can’t find them. It’s been 5 years… where is Osama? It’s been 3 years since invading Iraq… where’s Zarqawi? But, our government has reams of files on some Quaker nuns??????
Bush said he would find Bin Laden. Almost every American, Republican AND Democrat, gave their blessing! Find him! Bush bombed the Afghanistan training camps and NOBODY was sorry. But, Bush took his eye off of Bin Laden and attacked Iraq. Bush then stated he wasn’t concerned about Bin Laden. HUH? Bush had Zarqawi in his sights… and actual honest to god TERRORIST… BEFORE he invaded Iraq. Did he get him? NO. In fact, Dave, he made sure we DIDN’T get him. Does THAT sound like DEMOCRATS not wanting to get those bad ‘ole terrorists or the Republican PRESIDENT YOU VOTED FOR?
So quit with the “Dem’s are weak”… “Dem’s won’t fight terrorists”… “Dem’s can’t make me safe”… because for the past 5 years, it has been REPUBLICANS that have screwed the pooch Dave. No Bin Laden. No Zarqawi.
In fact Dave, the Al-Qaeda recruitment poster child is BUSH… A REPUBLICAN. Every time our forces kill another innocent Iraqi, Al-Qaeda touts that death. Every Iraqi child that see’s their fathers and mothers hauled off to some American prison, or worse, killed as “collateral damage”, is a potential new terrorist because WE HAULED OFF THEIR PARENTS OR KILLED THEM.
The insurgency in Iraq started out about 4,000 strong and consisted of mainly foreign fighters. In 3 years, the insurgency is now estimated to be AT LEAST 20,000 strong and is over 90% pure Iraqi now. Why Dave? Abu Ghraib, Fallujah and those 20,000 (Bush’s own number) of INNOCENT Iraqi’s OUR troops killed.
What did you think Dave? Our troops would wipe out some 13 year old Iraqi kids family as “collateral damage” and he’d be waving an American flag? This kid, who might have wanted to be a doctor, is now dreaming of strapping on a suicide vest and walking into a building to kill people for revenge.
If we had bombed Zarqawi at his camp, we MIGHT have killed a few innocents. But when we destroyed Fallujah, we DID kill innocents… by the hundreds if not THOUSANDS.
No Dave… you can cut the cr*p about how weak Dem’s are. Killing everybody is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of stupidity. BUSH has failed to find Bin Laden AS PROMISED. BUSH failed to kill Zarqawi when he had the chance. Not Clinton. BUSH. Instead, Bush touts how he’s killed 20,000 innocents in Iraq and 2,400+ American troops in his “war on Iraq”.
Find the real terrorists… kill them… arrest them… try them… convict them… then kill them. Whatever, but get them.
Bush claimed Hamdi was a terrorist. Did they try him after keeping in jail for years? No. They let him go and deported him. What happened to all that evidence the government said they had on Hamdi? Why did they jail the guy for years only to let him go if he was a terrorist?
No Dave… YOUR party is screwing up the war against the terrorists… not the Dem’s.
Republican President
Republican House
Republican Senate
Republican Supreme Court
And what does America get?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_re_eu/un_us_torture
“The U.S. delegation told the committee that 29 detainees had died in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan of what appeared to be abuse or other violations of U.S. law.”
We get OUR country in front of the UN trying to explain why we are torturing people… why innocent Iraqi’s DIED after WE tortured them. Great job!
“The Defense Department took action against more than 250 service personnel, with 103 courts-martial and 89 service members convicted, he said. Nineteen received sentences of one year or more.”
We get OUR troops convicted and court-martialed because Bush decided he wanted to change the “definition” of torture and waterboard people. Oh wait… the UN is looking into it? Quick Cheney, ban waterboarding before I’m convicted of war crimes!
Great job of fighting terrorists the Republicans are doing.
Oh… and Dave… do you even know what waterboarding is?
It is what they did to suspected “witches” during the Salem Witch Trials to get people to confess to heresy and witchcraft.
How’d that work out Dave? Do you think the people who confessed were REALLY witches? But, suddenly, waterboarding will make a terrorist REALLY confess this time! How’s THAT for you Republicans turning back the clock in America?
Lee, it’s easy to Google and find the fourth amendment. Here it is. I see nothing exempting calls made to or from overseas. Americans are to be secure in their persons, regardless of where the calls are made or received. There simply is no other way to interpret this. Anyone who says otherwise can’t read or think.
4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Michael, You are the blame everything on America crowd. I notice you never reference how bad the terrorists are: car bombs at churches, beheadings of charity workers, “real” torture, as opposed to Christina Aquilera music, mass murders, etc. Your Bush hatred doesnt permit you to see what reality is.
Waterboarding, is the result of that like taking a late night drive with Teddy Kennedy near a tidal creek? How’s that for waterboarding, and he is your hero, he hates Bush too.
Bud, you missed Lee’s point, the calls are intercepted from a foreign origin. The 4th doesnt apply to that. This has been settled by several courts.
International calls have been monitored without warrants since the first transatlantic cable. There has been voice recognition and key word parsing on 100% of calls since the early 1970s.
So far, no one has found a single domestic wiretap under the Bush administration that did not have a search warrant. There is a judicial review panel of all the overseas wiretaps, and a monthly Congressional review of all the surveillance.
Contrast that with the 6,000,000 warrantless wiretaps, computer snooping, and financial evesdropping by the Clinton-Reno administration, until Congress outlawed the activities.
Dave,
America… the land of no responsibility.
It’s no longer our fault no matter what we do? We can ambiguously go kill women and children for lies, torture people, and it isn’t OUR fault… no… they shouldn’t have been living in another country that WE invaded. Is that your answer now Dave?
“I notice you never reference how bad the terrorists are: car bombs at churches, beheadings of charity workers, “real” torture, as opposed to Christina Aquilera music, mass murders, etc. Your Bush hatred doesnt permit you to see what reality is.”
Reality Dave? I’ve shown you reality. Reality is our government in front of the United Nations explaining our use of torture. Reality is Bush rushing to ban waterboarding, that he claimed was LEGAL, now that the UN refuses to back down. Reality is Bush suddenly calling for the close of Gitmo now that he could be brought to the Hague.
The REALITY Dave is that for as bad as terrorists are, Bush has made America no better now in the eyes of the world.
You see Dave, there are some of us who have this belief:
– we believe that America can track down real terrorists without trashing our constitution.
– we believe that if we have to, we can kill real terrorists, but if we get the chance, we can capture them, put them on trial, present evidence of their crime, convict them, and put them in prison in accordance with our laws
– we believe we are intelligence agencies and military can obey our laws and constitution while still doing their jobs
– we believe we are above torture and secret prisons
– we believe we can do this without killing 20,000 innocent people, including women and children.
You see Dave, the REALITY is that you keep running from responsibility, just like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.
“Waterboarding, is the result of that like taking a late night drive with Teddy Kennedy near a tidal creek? How’s that for waterboarding, and he is your hero, he hates Bush too.”
But… but… (insert a Democrat here)!
How would you feel Dave, if our government arrested your father, claimed he was a terrorist, claimed to have evidence he was a terrorist but never tried him, instead, torturing him, imprisoning him for years without letting you see him, and then, you are told years later, he was dead… died in prison of torture, branded a terrorist without any proof having been brought forth?
How would you feel Dave? Would you be here, spouting how bad your terrorist father was and how right America was? That is what we’ve done to others Dave… how would you feel if it was YOU?
Lee,
I see you are taking a page out of the Bush handbook. Here is what BUSH said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/05/25/BL2005052501250.html
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”-Bush, 2005
Again Lee… show us the source of your propaganda.
Michael, you had 8 years to believe what you believe under the weakling administration of Clinton. So, while people like you believe, we were attacked by Muslim terrorists repeatedly, and all of the plans were put in place for 9-11, while Clinton sat around with his thumbs up you know where, while occasionally launching a couple of cruise missiles to WAG the Dog. Nearly everyone in Guantanamo should never breathe a breath of free air ever again. We turned some loose and they went right back out killing Americans. Sub human scum like Moussaui and Khalid Mohammed. Maybe you will volunteer to adopt a couple as a foster parent. You all agree on the Hate Bush agenda. Peas in a pod you are.
Dave,
But but Clinton…
Let’s look at the timelines:
Bill Clinton – elected President in the 1992 election, he took office in January 1993. He stayed in office until the election of 2000 and left office when Bush Jr. took over in January 2001.
Now… why is this timeline important?
Because… Bush Sr. was still President when:
– Bin Laden wanted a) Al Qaeda to put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezbollah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies; b) the US forces stationed on the Saudi peninsula, including both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, should be attacked; and c) the US forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked.
– Bin Laden began to set up legitimate businesses in the Sudan, including a tannery, two large farms, and a major road construction company.
– A bomb explodes in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where US troops had been staying while en route to a humanitarian mission in Somalia. US intelligence agencies allege that this was the first terrorist attack involving Bin Laden.
Now… the inauguration of Bill Clinton was on January 20, 1993:
Febuary 26 1993 – Only 5 weeks after Clinton takes office Bin Laden hits the WTC.
1993 – Sudan, where Bin Laden resides, is put on the State Department list of sponsoring terrorism.
April 1994 – Saudi Arabia, under pressure from Clinton, revokes Bin Laden’s citizenship.
Febuary 1995 – Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States.
November 1995 – Bin Laden praises attack in Saudi Arabia on U.S. run Saudi National Guard training center.
May 1996 – Under pressure from Clinton, Sudan expels Bin Laden who moves back to Afghanistan.
May 31 1996 – The four Saudi men accused of bombing the Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh are beheaded in Riyadh’s main square.
April/May 1996 – Clinton signs secret order that allows the CIA to use any and all means to destroy Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network.
June 1996 – Bin Laden hits the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
July 1997 – Reports surface of U.S. backed force in Afghanistan whose mission is to capture/kill Bin Laden.
June 1998 – A raid is conducted in Albania against a cell of an Islamic terrorist movement by security personnel from the U.S. and Albania. Two suspected employees of bin Laden are arrested. The CIA takes custody of a van-load of documents and computer gear. Two weeks later, another raid was conducted and two more suspected bin Laden associates arrested. They were Egyptian nationals and were turned over to anti- terrorist officials in Egypt.
August 6 1998 – The Egyptian Jihad group sent the United States a warning: they would soon deliver a message to Americans “which we hope they read with care, because we will write it, with God’s help, in a language they will understand.”
August 7 1998 – Two simultaneous explosions at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
August 20 1998 – Clinton orders cruise missiles to strike suspected Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.
August 27 1998 – Followers of Bin Laden are arrested on charges from the August 7 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Mohammed Saddiq Odeh, and Wadih El Hage are convicted of charges in May 2001 including murder, conspiracy and perjury after a nine-week federal trial during which prosecutors called over 90 witnesses, including al Qaeda informants and survivors of the bombings. Owhali and Mohamed face the death penalty at their sentencing, while Odeh and El Hage face life in prison.
2000 – Attack on USS Cole.
In fact Dave… the only attack by Bin Laden on U.S. soil during Clinton’s Presidency took place only 5 weeks after Clinton took office and the mastermind was located by our intelligence agencies 2 years later, arrested, jailed, AND convicted.
Now… it is true that in Clinton’s years, from the signing of the 1996 order to 2001, Bin Laden himself was never brought to justice, but, it wasn’t because Clinton kept our intelligence agencies from finding him or from killing him. In fact, even C. Rice conceeded in her testimony during the 9/11 commission:
“After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton administration on many national security issues during the transition. The president-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaeda network.”
“Because of these briefings, and because we had watched the rise of al-Qaeda over many years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure that there was no respite in the fight against al-Qaeda.”
Now that we have this straight… let’s move on. Bush Jr. is inaugurated on January 20, 2001.
On September 11, 2001… 7 months after Bush Jr. takes office… Bin Laden strikes on American soil for the 2nd time.
Now… get this straight Dave…
– Clinton had 5 weeks in office when a truck full of explosives detonates in the basement of a WTC tower.
– Bush Jr. had 7 months in office when 4 aircraft are hijacked and flown into two WTC towers, the Pentagon, and 4th crashes.
In addition, Bush Jr. was given a Presidential briefing on August 6 2001, only one month prior to 9/11, entitled… are you ready Dave… “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.”
C. Rice stated, in reference to the Aug 6 memo: “…it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.”
Gee… THAT memo didn’t raise the possibility… but what about:
A 1999 report, prepared during the Clinton administration, said: “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,”
But let’s look at the statements Dave:
May 2002 – “Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people,” – Pres. Bush
He did know… lie.
May 2002 – “Steve, I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” – C. Rice
Really? She later recanted that statement to the 9/11 commission:
“Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.”
So… Rice was caught in a public lie! But, since she refused to testify under oath… nothing. But then, after she recanted her earlier statements to the 9/11 commission, what did she do?
“Yet, even after this admission [to the 9/11 commission], she proceeded to repeat the same claim, writing in a recent Washington Post op-ed, “we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles.”
Didn’t she make this statement before just to have to say she misspoke to the 9/11 commission? Why, yes she did! So… she goes BACK to lying!
This is FACT Dave… Rice LIED, got caught LYING, recanted her LIE, then went right back and LIED again… the EXACT SAME LIE.
Keep blaming Clinton for Bush’s failures and lies.
Dave, how many Americans were killed by terrorist attacks when Clinton was president?
How many Americans were killed by terrorist attacks while Bush has been president?
Those two numbers tell us everything we need to know about who fought terrorists more effectively.
Of course, you and the other members of the 87th Chairborne don’t care about terrorists or victims of terrorists, and you certainly don’t care about protecting America.
Mary,
I don’t believe the argument should be “how many”… I believe the argument is:
WHEN and WHERE.
Clinton had 5 weeks in office when Bin Laden struck on our soil. After that attack, America didn’t have another attack on our soil..
Until… Bush Jr. took office.
Bush Jr. had 7 months in office when the next attack came on American soil. The 9/11 commission was given evidence that Bush Jr, in fact, DID have warnings… as I proved by Rice’s continued lies.
WHEN…
– 5 weeks of being in office for Clinton
– 7 months of being in office for Bush Jr.
WHERE…
– FIRST attack on WTC for Clinton
– SECOND attack on WTC for Bush Jr.
But Dave thinks it was Democrats who failed.
Michael, you forgot about the Clinton bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan, a country that has one continual headache and really needed those aspirin. War crime perhaps? I knew you would leave that out. Also, the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. That wasn’t terrorism right? Selective memory here.
The point you are missing is because of the Clinton-Gorelick “wall” AQ had the luxury to set up cells in the US, get pilots trained, etc. while Bill played doctor-nurse with Monica. You need to read up on Able Danger also. But nice try.
Mary, if there is an 82nd Chairborne (by the way that is creative), you must be their fantasy commander. Please list your dates of service in the US Military for all to see, and which branch.
Dave, if you count the Oklahoma City bombing, what is the total number of Americans killed by terrorism with Clinton as president, versus the total number killed with Bush as president?
I’m also willing to count the lives lost by the following al Qaeda plots:
The plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. . .
Oh, wait, Clinton stopped that.
The plot to crash an airliner into the CIA Headquarters. . .
Oh, wait, Clinton stopped that.
The Millenium Bomb Plot. . .
Oh, wait, Clinton stopped that too.
But again, you and the other members of the 87th Chairborne don’t really care anything about stopping terrorism. You only care about ignoring Clinton’s successes and blaming Clinton for Bush’s failures.
Clinton’s terrorism failures:
Somalia pullout becomes Al-Qaeda recruiting tool.
Kobar Tower bombing.
World Trade Center 1993.
Oklahoma City bombing.
USS Cole bombing.
US embassy bombings.
Abandonment of Nigerians to savagery.
Abandonment of Rwandans.
Abandonment of Sudan to muslim gangs.
Turning over Kosovo and Bosnia to Muslim militias. He even armed them, and our troops find the weapons in Iraq and Afganistan.
Failure to extradict Bin Laden.
michael asked for a source, but did not say which facts it was with which he was unfamiliar.
Tell me the facts you deny, and I will provide the evidence.
Dave,
“Michael, you forgot about the Clinton bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan, a country that has one continual headache and really needed those aspirin. War crime perhaps?”
Right Dave. The aspirin factory in the Sudan that Clinton bombed with missiles when he bombed Afghanistan. The one intelligence told him housed chemical weapons. Guess that means he’s about as guilty of war crimes as Bush Jr. who pounded the village in Pakistan because intel told him there were terrorists in it, huh?
“Also, the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. That wasn’t terrorism right? Selective memory here.”
We are talking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, not every terrorist act ever committed Dave. Stay focused here. Bush Sr. had plenty of bombings during his watch as well, at abortion clinics.
“The point you are missing is because of the Clinton-Gorelick “wall” AQ had the luxury to set up cells in the US, get pilots trained, etc. while Bill played doctor-nurse with Monica.”
Oh… right… all Clinton’s fault… again… the wall… get that from the “liberal media” Dave? Here, let me debunk this myth as well:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007
In the past week, conservative media — including two New York Post columnists and two Post editorials — have falsely suggested that information obtained by military intelligence purportedly identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have been withheld from law enforcement officials because of a 1995 memo written by then-Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick. But the Gorelick memo and ensuing guidelines, which conservatives claim created a “wall” between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials, had nothing to do with military intelligence — those documents addressed communications only among divisions within the Department of Justice. Moreover, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the “wall” that conservatives accuse Gorelick of enacting had been operative well before Gorelick — or Clinton — took office.
While the truth remains unclear, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer have recently suggested that Shaffer’s classified military intelligence unit Able Danger identified Atta more than a year before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but was unable to relay that information to the FBI.
But if Able Danger did in fact identify Atta, the Gorelick memo and the subsequent 1995 Clinton administration guidelines based on it did not prevent the group from sharing that information with intelligence agencies or law enforcement officials. As former Attorney General John Ashcroft noted in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission, the Gorelick memo provided the “basic architecture” for the 1995 guidelines established by then-Attorney General Janet Reno that formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place. But, as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing “between the FBI and the Criminal Division” within the Justice Department, not a military unit established by the Defense Department:
SUBJECT: Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI [intelligence/counterintelligence functions] and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations
The procedures contained herein, unless otherwise specified by the Attorney General, apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that FI and FCI investigations are conducted lawfully, and that the Department’s criminal and intelligence/counterintelligence functions are properly coordinated.
Now Dave… look at that last line… last two words of the memo: PROPERLY COORDINATED.
There was no wall. The guidelines, in effect from before Clinton and only re-iterated by Reno, stated that the functions had to be PROPERLY COORDINATED, not that they couldn’t pass information, AND, it only applied between the FBI and the Dept. of Justice, not military intelligence, which was the “unit” that identified Able Danger.
You might actually want to READ about something before you try touting it. But… as you said… nice try.
Actually, Clinton bombed that Sudan medicine factory several years before he bombed a few abandoned terrorist camps in Iraq and Afganistan. He bombed it on the day that Monica Lewinsky testifed about his witness tampering.
Clinton knew that it was a medicine factory, because he signed the approval for the World Bank and IMF loans to build it, and Sandy Berger had an inspector in the facility write up a monthly report.
The plant owners sued for the loss and got nowhere, until they hired Clinton advisor Lanny Davis as their attorney. Then Janet Reno settled out of court and paid them the full amount they asked.
Lee,
“Tell me the facts you deny, and I will provide the evidence.”
This one for starters: Contrast that with the 6,000,000 warrantless wiretaps, computer snooping, and financial evesdropping by the Clinton-Reno administration, until Congress outlawed the activities.
Now… let’s address your “list”:
– Somalia pullout becomes Al-Qaeda recruiting tool.
Gee Lee, the Iraq War has become an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool!
But, let’s look at Somalia… Bush Sr. put America into Somalia, not Clinton: In December 1992 the United States led a multinational force of more than 35,000 troops. The military operation provided support for a unique effort at peacemaking by the United Nations.
Security deteriorated in 1993 culminating in Clinton trying to remove Aidid, which not only failed, but, pitted American forces against Aidid forces in streets battles which killed innocents because Aidid’s forces would fire on American forces while around crowds. This made military action in Somalia unwinnable without considerable civilian casualties ultimately turning the civilian populace against the UN forces as well due to casualties already sustained.
While I didn’t support the pullout itself, you cannot kill everyone just to “win”.
– Kobar Tower bombing.
The perpetrators of which were found and executed.
– World Trade Center 1993.
Which happened 5 weeks after Clinton took office.
– Oklahoma City bombing.
Which had nothing to do with Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda.
– USS Cole bombing.
Which occurred in the Middle East.
– US embassy bombings.
Which occurred in Afica.
– Abandonment of Nigerians to savagery.
You’ll have to explain this one…
– Abandonment of Rwandans.
Yes, Clinton did nothing in Rwanda. Bush is in year 5 of his Presidency and he has only now called for UN intervention into Darfur.
– Abandonment of Sudan to muslim gangs.
So… America who can’t police our own gangs should now police the worlds gangs?
– Turning over Kosovo and Bosnia to Muslim militias. He even armed them, and our troops find the weapons in Iraq and Afganistan.
Let’s see… civil war (which included muslims)… ethnic cleansing… UN mission… and the Republicans response?
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush: According to the Houston Chronicle: “Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough
response. ‘Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,’ Bush said.” [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
Fine talk about “exit strategy” from the man who has none in Iraq!
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Dan Quayle: “What has happened is we have taken a political crisis and a humanitarian crisis and escalated it into a full military crisis. The handling of the situation in the Balkans reflects the inattention of the Clinton Administration to foreign policy. … You have the same
situation [as Vietnam]. Ambiguity, no stated, clear cut mission and then you are going to have to be there quite some time.” [Omaha World Herald, 3/28/99]
Sounds like Iraq to me… Bush said we’d be there for quite some time.
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Lamar Alexander: “Once we’ve started bombing we should bomb aggressively and consistently and for a long time to try and bring Milosevic to the table. But the president
needs to tell us the rest of the story. Which is that if we put peace-keeping American forces in Kosovo they are going to be there for a long time, maybe as long as they have been in Korea, 25 to 50 years; and
if they are harmed as they were in Somalia, then we are going to put other forces in there to make sure that they are safe.” [Fox News, “Hannity & Colmes,” 3/26/99]
Gee… we’ve lost soldiers so we have to lose more soldiers… yep… Iraq.
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan: “And what are we doing bombing and attacking this tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away from them a province that does not
belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now
becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face. And that does not justify sending in an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans.” [NBC,
“Meet the Press,” 4/25/99]
Talk about “attacking” a country that never attacked us! WOW! Can you say… IRAQ!
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I
cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never
explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it
worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.” [Congressional Record, “Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” 4/28/99]
That’s right Tom! You can cut and run from Kosovo, but not from Iraq… who cares which one is next Vietnam, right?
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “America needs to quickly change directions and leave behind this chilling comedy of errors that has defined our foreign policy.” [Copley News Service,
3/22/99]
I agree Tom!
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “I had the utmost confidence in President Bush. He
had laid the groundwork, and our national interest in the Middle East was clear. In the gulf we had a
country that was invaded [Kuwait], and an oil interest to defend. … [In the Balkans] we have a president I don’t trust, who has proven my reason for not trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was
falsely described as a huge humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing.” [Washington Post, 5/4/99]
Right Tom. In Iraq we have OIL TO PROTECT. In Kosovo, it was just PEOPLE to help.
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “I think he’s [Clinton] gotten us into a mess. I don’t think you can bomb a country into signing a peace agreement.” [Washington Post, 4/13/99]
No Don, just bomb them into regime change.
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “The Administration, and NATO as a
whole, greatly miscalculated the response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I predicted, the Administration has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict. The bombings have unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster.” [Senator Don Nickles, Press Release, 4/21/99]
I agree Don… bombing has unleashed an evil… the recruitment of MORE terrorists and the humanitarian… well… Iraqi’s sure don’t have water and power.
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “I want NATO to be credible, but for
crying out loud, when you are so arrogant to say here is our wisdom, here is this accord, we determined this is in your best interest and you must sign it or else we are going to bomb you–I stated in my speech
on the bombing resolution that I don’t think you can bomb a country into submission or into signing an agreement.” [Congressional Record, Senator Don Nickles, 5/3/99]
Right Don… who are we to say “change regimes or else we bomb you”? Oh… right… Iraq and Iran.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): “(P)resident [Clinton] has decimated our ability to defend ourselves.” [USA Today, 4/5/99]
Yep James… broken military… sound familiar?
Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA): “This is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States.” [Washington Times, 4/29/99]
Coming from the most corrupt Representative!
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99]
Now now Richard… now is not the time to be pointing fingers about who did what and play partisan politics!
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said, “We should not be in Kosovo, as we should not
have been in Bosnia. Our concern is we should be able to defend America in the event something happens where our strategic interests are at stake, such as in Iraq or in North Korea. And this is just depleting and diluting our resources.” [New York Times, 4/8/99]
Right… oil… Iraq… oil… Iran… MUCH better war!
Representative Tom Campbell(R-CA) denounced the military campaign in Kosovo and said, “We are presently at war and it is an unconstitutional war.” (R-CA) [New York
Times, 4/14/99]
Why… I agree… totally illegal… no UN resolution for war… pre-emptive strike… regime change…
Senator Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) questioned funding the war in Kosovo. “We have
increased deployments by 300% under this President while cutting funding for the armed services by a third. So I am probably going to vote for it,” Hutchinson said. “But at the rate that we’re spending,
$6 billion will not get us through this fiscal year to pay for this war.” [“Crossfire,” CNN, 4/19/99]
Yep… cutting taxes sure paid for the war as well… wait… ummmm…
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) denounced the war in Kosovo and argued, “The
Administration has told us the U.S. has agreed to pay for 25 percent of the cost for rebuilding what we are now destroying in terms of a mini-Marshall Plan. I object to that. I do not think it’s appropriate
for us to come in an rebuild that part of Europe when the European Union is healthy economically and certainly can do that job.” [Washington Times, 4/20/99]
We will rebuild Iraq… wait… no we won’t… oil will pay for the war and rebuilding… wait… no it hasn’t…
Senator Richard Shelby (R
AL) said, “I don’t believe we’re winning it today. I don’t believe that the Serbs are winning it either,
but our air war has intensified some, especially this week, and if we’ll keep it up for another two or three more weeks and not let the politicians decide what targets to hit or veto the ones that the Army
wants go at, it could make a difference. I’m dubious, I’m not sure, I don’t know of any air war that has decided a conflict by itself.” [“Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields,” CNN, 4/24/99]
Shock and awe baby… shock and awe!
Commenting on the rejection of a bill that would have authorized force in the
Balkans, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) said, “The President is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House.” [USA Today, 4/30/99]
Wait Tom… NOT going to war is supporting the troops? But… that isn’t what Bush said…
GOP House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX) said, “We’re not paying for the air war. We’re paying to rebuild our defenses, which this Administration has gutted.”
[Associated Press, 5/3/99]
Darn right Tom… put the war on credit instead!
GOP House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX) as saying,
“While we may not support the President’s ill-advised war, we do support our troops. … Without any coherent international blueprint, the White House has bombed its way around the globe while dropping troops far and wide for ill-defined peacemaking duties. This policy has gutted the American
military, which now must be rebuilt.” [Washington Post, 5/7/99]
Iraq… Iran… nope… no bombing our way around the world now Tom.
– Failure to extradict Bin Laden.
Failure by Bush to get Bin Laden dead or alive.
Micheal,
You missed a couple of very important points. First, the US suffered few casualties in Kosovo. (Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think we had any hostile fire deaths, althought there were a couple of airmen killed in a helicoptor accident). Second, and most important, our mission ultimately succeeded. Sure, we still have troops there but they’re respected, welcome guests.
Bud,
There are alot of points:
– Somalia; UN mission
– Kosovo; UN mission
– Iraq War; pre-emptive regime change illegal war
– Somalia; US casualties 72
– Kosovo; US casualties 2
– Iraq; 2,400+ and counting
Republicans decried the Kosovo UN mission, Clintons handling of it, the cost, and that was with 2 casualties. But, they are all for Iraq which is not a UN mission, Bush and Rumsfeld have bungled beyond repair, costed hundreds of billions dollars, and has 2,400 casualties?
Do we see the hypocrisy here?
The illiterate perception of Kosovo is that we succeeded.
IN REALITY
* Only 10% of bombs hit their targets
* 5,000 UN troops are still there, unable to maintain order
* The Muslim militias armed by Clinton are now practicing “ethnic cleansing” on Jews and Christias. Since Clinton declared victory, over 250,000 Christians and Jews have been burned out of their homes and become refugees. Synagogues and churches are torched every week.
Michael’s long denial exhibits a grotesque ignorance of Al Qaeda and its role in the terrorist attacks I listed. The connections were described in State Department documents issued by Madeline Albright, who now has Arkansas Amnesia.
Lee,
Still waiting while you ramble… evidence:
Contrast that with the 6,000,000 warrantless wiretaps, computer snooping, and financial evesdropping by the Clinton-Reno administration, until Congress outlawed the activities.
Lee, you blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing, which happened 38 days after he became president, and you blame Clinton for the September 11 attacks, which happened nearly 8 months after he left the presidency.
I think we now have a good answer if anybody asks, why are Lee and other conservatives such worthless, shiftless, freeloading losers? Why do my taxes have to pay for the handouts that keep them alive? Why can’t they support themselves through their own initiative and industry?
The answer is simply to point to your acceptance of two contradictory positions as evidence of a total absence of integity, intelligence, and initiative.
I didn’t blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing, but I blame him for not accepting the extradition of Bin Laden when it was offered to him.
In 1993, Bill Clinton ordered the creation of the greatest domestic spy apparatus in U.S. history, called ECHELON.
Get up to speed with this:
Bruno Giussani, “European Study Paints a Chilling Portrait of Technology’s Uses,” The New York Times, February 24, 1998.
Some of you may be too young to remember Hillary Clinton’s spy system, called WhoDB, which included the illegal possession of FBI files of her critics and political enemies.
Mary, I will match my tax return to yours anyday. You are the freeloading parasitic leech that has never served the country. I asked you to post your dates of service. You probably never even served in the Girl Scouts. Come on, enlighten the rest ofus.
Lee,
Still rambling… evidence:
Contrast that with the 6,000,000 warrantless wiretaps, computer snooping, and financial evesdropping by the Clinton-Reno administration, until Congress outlawed the activities.
I guess Michael doesn’t intend to read up on, much less discuss, Clinton’s domestic spying program, called ECHELON, on on his warrantless capture of bank transactions by 6,000,000 Americans, or his illegal theft of FBI files.
Some of that ECHELON capture of every phone call in the US since 9/11 is in today’s news. That part is legal.
Lee,
YOU made the statement that you would back up anything you state with evidence… now… you don’t seem to be able to… is that all you have are talking points with no substance to back them?
SHOW THE EVIDENCE…
“Contrast that with the 6,000,000 warrantless wiretaps, computer snooping, and financial evesdropping by the Clinton-Reno administration, until Congress outlawed the activities.”
“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency.”
NSA computers, said Kroft, “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told “60 Minutes” that the agency was monitoring “everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs.”
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling “60 Minutes” that agency operators “can listen in to just about anything” – while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The “60 Minutes” report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton “engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens.” – CBS “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft, February 27, 2000
Lee,
So let’s see… you post about echelon… a 60 minutes transcript (no link btw).
Nice…
Now… here are the FACTS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml
– The CBS broadcast its story on 27 Feb 2000.
This is important now… read this from the interview:
“She says she was shocked to hear the voice of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) on a surveillance headset about 20 years ago.”
Get that Lee?
20 YEARS BEFORE THE YEAR 2000 ECHELON WAS IN PLACE.
Now Lee… who was President in the year 1980?
Why… it was Jimmy Carter!
So… let’s see how far back echelon really goes!
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma00richelson
“Before Echelon appeared in the 1970s, the agencies shared intelligence, but they usually processed and analyzed the intercepted communications.”
My Lee… echelon was around in the 1970’s!
Who was President in the 1970’s?
1969-1974 Richard Nixon
1974-1977 Gerald Ford
1977-1981 Jimmy Carter
Oh my… look there Lee… NIXON (surprise surprise)… Mr. I’m not a crook himself!
So… can we pin down when echelon FIRST went online?
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/24spy.html
“She said that Echelon had been set up as a military system, dating originally from 1948, to eavesdrop on the Soviet Union and its allies in the cold war, but that it had been converted to “economic espionage.”
Why… 1948! That would be Harry S. Truman… and echelon? That would be a multi-national system of intelligence set up between Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand to monitor the Russia’s activities during the Cold War.
So… what you have… is a system set up by America, Britain and it’s “terrorities” to spy on Russia but because of the immense capability, it was used to spy on political opponents and the rest of the world… basically Lee… industrial and political espionage on a global scale that has been around since at LEAST the 1970’s when NIXON was president!
But Lee… this still doesn’t lead to your statement: “Contrast that with the 6,000,000 warrantless wiretaps, computer snooping, and financial evesdropping by the Clinton-Reno administration, until Congress outlawed the activities.”
Now Lee… I know you want to bash Clinton… but Lee… here is a shocker for you… CONGRESS NEVER OUTLAWED ECHELON… EVER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
“Before the September 11, 2001 attacks and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries’ intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention).”
In fact Lee… the NSA’s “warrantless surveillance program” on “domestic surveillance” is based on the VERY PROGRAM YOU ARE CLAIMING CLINTON ABUSED!
“It has been alleged that in 2002 the Bush Administration extended the ECHELON program to domestic surveillance. This controversy was the subject of the New York Times eavesdropping exposé of December, 2005.”
So… what about Congress prohibiting anything about echelon?
“The proposed US-only “Total Information Awareness” program relied on technology similar to ECHELON, and was to integrate the extensive sources it is legally permitted to survey domestically, with the “taps” already compiled by ECHELON. It was cancelled by the U.S. Congress in 2004.”
So Lee… again… show me your evidence about CLINTON’S ECHELON PROGRAM!
Oh… and Lee… in case you missed it… echelon was for FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING… the fact is that NIXON was abusing it, and now BUSH is abusing it (which, you seem to think is LEGAL).
So… if it is LEGAL for BUSH to use it… how was it ILLEGAL for CLINTON to use it?
Care to explain that one Lee?
Oh… last thing Lee… and you can choke on this one:
ECHELON was a COLD WAR PROGRAM… when did the Cold War end? REAGAN’S term.
Which means Lee… that the UNDENIABLE usage of ECHELON outside of its original intention was used by REAGAN first… then Bush Sr. second… TWO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.
So… even IF Clinton followed suit and used it to illegally spy on political opponents, just like the REPUBLICAN presidents before him, Bush Jr. is STILL the first to extended it to ALL AMERICANS (that is proven by his own statements)… and… HE’S A REPUBLICAN.
That makes THREE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS ABUSING ECHELON CAPABILITIES… to ONE Democratic President.
I know Lee…
‘BUT BUT CLINTON!’
To which I respond…
BUT REAGAN…
BUT BUSH SR…
Oh… let’s not forget BUSH JR., Lee, who has turned your touted ECHELON program against ALL Americans!
Come on Lee… show us your Republican facts… show us all about CLINTONS “ECHELON”… I’m DYING to hear it!
Michael, you didn’t even know about Clinton’s domestic spying on our bank accounts until I told you. You don’t belong in this discussion. You are sand in the gears, which I suspect is your intent.
The New York Times has a series of 1997 articles on Clinton’s domestic spying on Americans and editorials justifying it, just on the outside chance that you decide to educate yourself on the issue prior to your next post.
Lee… ONCE AGAIN… since you just hate answering questions…
IF YOU THINK IT IS LEGAL FOR BUSH JR TO USE IT TO SPY ON AMERICANS, HOW WAS IT THEN ILLEGAL FOR CLINTON TO USE IT TO SPY ON AMERICANS?
WHY HAVE YOU NOT ADDRESSED YOUR CLAIM THAT IT WAS CLINTON’S PROGRAM, WHICH WAS FALSE, AND THAT CONGRESS OUTLAWED IT, WHICH WAS FALSE?
Duck… dodge… divert… spin… lie…
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEE
The only spying Bush is doing on Americans is very minimal, and with search warrants for wiretaps on a few dozen people contacting known terrorists.
The Clintons illegally stole hundreds of FBI and IRS files on their political opponents, and kept illegal dossiers on gun owners, until John Ashcroft was appointed and destroyed the files.
Tne phone companies have been keeping phone call records for years. Police use them all the time. They are not your private papers. I can buy your cell phone records right now, over the Internet.
Michael, you know 200% more than you did yesterday, but still not 1% enough to argue about this. As I told you, the phone records have been kept back into the early 1970s.
The first overseas calls were tapped. FDR and J. Edgar Hoover ran a huge illegal wiretap operation.
Lee,
Question: IF YOU THINK IT IS LEGAL FOR BUSH JR TO USE IT TO SPY ON AMERICANS, HOW WAS IT THEN ILLEGAL FOR CLINTON TO USE IT TO SPY ON AMERICANS?
Lee replies: “The only spying Bush is doing on Americans is very minimal, and with search warrants for wiretaps on a few dozen people contacting known terrorists.”
Lee, you didn’t answer the question did you? You tried to divert from answering the question, and doing so, have put out another flat out lie.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1156499,00.html
“According to the documents, Gonzales plans to assert in his opening statement that seeking approval for the wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court could result in delays that “may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack.” He will compare the program to telegraph wiretapping during the Civil War. In accompanying testimony, the Attorney General plans to leave open the possibility that President Bush will ask the court to give blanket approval to the program, a step that some lawmakers and even some Administration officials contend would put it on more solid legal footing.”
So Lee… how many LIES do I have to debunk before you answer the question? Bush is NOT using FISA, he is NOT getting warrants, in fact, Gonzales has argued AGAINST the need for the warrants.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
Now Lee… even BUSH HIMSELF admitted that HE authorized the spying, that the program is only REVIEWED, and that review does NOT INCLUDE the FISA COURT, who under OUR LAWS is the AUTHORITY on this matter.
So ONCE AGAIN Lee… HOW IS IT LEGAL FOR BUSH JR AND NOT LEGAL FOR CLINTON?
Lee replies: “The Clintons illegally stole hundreds of FBI and IRS files on their political opponents, and kept illegal dossiers on gun owners, until John Ashcroft was appointed and destroyed the files.”
What Lee? No links? Just more rhetoric after I’ve now caught you in, minimum, 3 flat out lies? SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE LEE… SHOW ME WHERE CLINTON STOLE FILES… SHOW ME HOW ANYTHING CLINTON DID WAS DIFFERENT THEN WHAT BUSH IS DOING NOW.
Bush said “We do not mine data”.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1156499,00.html
Gonzales says they are not casting out a dragnet: “Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales plans to use a Congressional hearing on Monday to lash out at “misinformed, confused” news accounts about President George W. Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program, and to declare it “is not a dragnet,” according to administration documents provided to TIME.
The phone records of TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS is now, NOT casting out a dragnet???? HOW? Since when did lying become truth?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060512/pl_afp/usattacksintelligence_060512192659;_ylt=Alyw.dBUoD6wEdYVWeSl5tOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US administration defiantly insisted it was doing nothing illegal amid mounting Congress questions over a secret program to track the phone records of millions of Americans.
The eavesdropping was first reported in December and embarrassed the administration because Bush allowed the NSA to carry out the wiretapping without seeking special court warrants.
New White House spokesman Tony Snow faced a barrage of questions about the phone data report but said: “Our hands are tied on talking about any operational details. The president has already said it is not ‘data mining or trolling’.”
He [Bush] asserted that US intelligence was not “mining or trolling” through the private lives of Americans, simply attempting “to intercept the communications of people with known links to Al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.”
Wait… ONCE AGAIN… getting records on MILLIONS of Americans to try and find a FEW terrorists is now NOT trolling? LIE!
Lee replies: “Tne phone companies have been keeping phone call records for years. Police use them all the time. They are not your private papers.”
First of all Lee… police get WARRANTS… second of all:
Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.”
Bush didn’t have a warrant, because Qwest requested one be presented before they would turn over records. Qwest didn’t turn over records… no warrant.
Bush didn’t have a court order, because Qwest requested one be presented before they would turn over records. Qwest didn’t turn over records… no court order.
Customers weren’t consulted, so no consent.
It is a SPY PROGRAM, doesn’t fall under “telemarketing”.
Administrative order? The NSA has no administrative authority to issue such an order, and that is who received the information. Which means that Bush told Gonzales to issue the order for the companies to turn over records to the NSA, right? I mean, that IS what happened?
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html
“AT&T provided National Security Agency eavesdroppers with full access to its customers’ phone calls, and shunted its customers’ internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit against the company.”
Nope Lee… they eavesdropped on PHONE CALLS and installed DATA MINING EQUIPMENT.
Now… show me Lee… where this is authorized under “administrative order” to turn over RECORDS. Again Lee… what is different? You say Clinton stole files, Bush is illegally wiretapping and mining data… come on Lee!
Oh… and answer this question: WHY HAVE YOU NOT ADDRESSED YOUR CLAIM THAT IT WAS CLINTON’S PROGRAM, WHICH WAS FALSE, AND THAT CONGRESS OUTLAWED IT, WHICH WAS FALSE?
Lee replies: The first overseas calls were tapped. FDR and J. Edgar Hoover ran a huge illegal wiretap operation.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEE! And do so without more rhetoric and lies please…
Listen to Scarborough Country about the phone data mining:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/12.html#a8260
And more information becomes available:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/more-unlawful-activity/
NSA Whistleblower To Expose More Unlawful Activity: ‘People…Are Going To Be Shocked’
CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush’s nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed:
A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. …
[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. … “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It’s pretty hard to believe,” Tice said. “I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now.” …
Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. “It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet,” he said. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.
Tice has a history for blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. He was one of the sources that revealed the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program to the New York Times.
And just for FYI… with elections coming… how about the “liberal media” looking into this?
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14548443.htm
“SAN FRANCISCO – Officials overseeing elections in three states have issued notices directing local authorities to take additional steps to prevent election fraud through a popular type of electronic voting machine.”
“Officials in California, Iowa and Pennsylvania said they issued the directives in recent weeks after researchers discovered a feature that could allow someone to load unauthorized software on Diebold Election Systems Inc.’s computerized machines.”
Wait… wasn’t Diebold the company whose CEO said the would deliver votes to Bush in Ohio in 2004? Why… yes it was! Amazingly, districts in Ohio that used Diebold machines went Bush AGAINST EXIT POLLING which showed they went to KERRY.
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf
Great read btw… but… let’s just hit the nail on the head:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11743
“DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS has brandished lawyers’ threats to take down that pesky citizens activist website blackboxvoting.org.”
Why you ask? Because a Diebold insider exposed the security “insecurity” of Diebold systems, and Bev Harris along with blackboxvoting.org has been on the company every since:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001838.htm
“In exclusive stunning admissions to The BRAD BLOG some 11 months after the 2004 Presidential Election, a “Diebold Insider” is now finally speaking out for the first time about the alarming security flaws within Diebold, Inc’s electronic voting systems, software and machinery. The source is acknowledging that the company’s “upper management” — as well as “top government officials” — were keenly aware of the “undocumented backdoor” in Diebold’s main “GEM Central Tabulator” software well prior to the 2004 election. A branch of the Federal Government even posted a security warning on the Internet.”
“Pointing to a little-noticed “Cyber Security Alert” issued by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the source inside Diebold — who “for the time being” is requesting anonymity due to a continuing sensitive relationship with the company — is charging that Diebold’s technicians, including at least one of its lead programmers, knew about the security flaw and that the company instructed them to keep quiet about it.”
So… at the time, the “insider” was “anonymous”… but, California led the charge to remove Diebold machines, decertify them, and try to have a secure voting system. How’d that go? Well, amazingly, Diebold machines were REINSTATED despite flaws!
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/14130060.htm
“Had you heard of this report? I hadn’t, not until Friedman referred me to it. And yet California just recertified a Diebold Co. voting machine even though it contains computer language rejected by federal guidelines because it makes the machines vulnerable to hacking.”
Btw… the story again documents the irregularities in Ohio… another great read. But… what about the whistleblower who brought out these irregularities? Well… he is being PROSECUTED!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-soby-jr/whistleblower-charged-wit_b_16411.html
“A whistleblower in Los Angeles is in legal trouble and needs our help. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold’s California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway.”
That’s right… when when a person blows the whistle… prosecute. Can’t have the pesky facts overriding voter machine election fraud, can we!
That Diebold CEO resigned from Diebold amid fraud litigation in 2005.
So… you ask… South Carolina doesn’t use Diebold… so why is this news? Remember blackboxvoting.org? Remember Diebold trying to shut them down? There is a reason… they broke this:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
“April 28, 2004—Voters can run, but they can’t hide from these guys. Meet the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Todd. Their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count (using both computerized ballot scanners and touchscreen machines) about 80 percent of all votes cast in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.”
“Both ES&S and Diebold have been caught installing uncertified software in their machines. Although there is no known certification process that will protect against vote rigging or technical failure, it is a requirement of most, if not all, states.”
Guess what company has e-voting machines in South Carolina? That’s right… ES&S!
For the record: I sent a letter to the South Carolina Secretary of State regarding the reported flaws of Diebold and ES&S machines. I never got a response. None. Not one word. Ever.
So… this is all “conspiracy theory” of “liberal moonbats” you say? Right???? I mean… NOBODY believes this… right? There isn’t any EVIDENCE… … right?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
In fact, there seems to be plenty of evidence… it just isn’t being reported by the darned “liberal media” in America.
If you don’t care about
* Clinton’s ILLEGAL theft of FBI files,
* Hillary’s ILLEGAL dossiers on thousands of political opponents,
* Janet Reno’s ILLEGAL records of firearms owners and gun sales, and
* Clinton’s ILLEGAL data capture of bank transactions after being forbidden by Congress…
* and you don’t care that law enforcement has LEGALLY had your phone call connection records for 36 years..
… then you really don’t care about the law.
You care about hating President Bush.
And Lee responds with rhetoric instead of verifiable fact. Doesn’t surprise me.
What’s wrong Lee, can’t back up your statements with facts?
Are you afraid to post that “liberal media” website for your source… you know… the one that screams “Republican pundit”?
Michael must be too young to remember the spy scandals I listed involving the Clintons. Do some remedial reading, Mike. Go to the library and read the old newspapers. Your denial of common knowledge really exposes you as unfit to be here.
No Lee…
You want to make claims and assert them as facts, but you put the onus on others to prove it. You have now gone as far, like any good shill, of making the claim that it isn’t you who are wrong, but the other guy who is wrong, simply because you don’t provide any verification and you are called on it.
Nice playground tactic…
If you are going to make a claim as fact, then prove them, or go back to your playground where little kids belong.
I gave sources for facts which were entirely new to you. If you want to dispute the illegal Clinton wiretaps and surveillance, try to find some credible source to dispute the wrongdoing to which Clinton and Reno already admitted.
Maybe you can choose one piece of reality at a time, and I can help bring you up to speed.
Lee,
Let’s catch everyone up on your latest: “I gave sources for facts which were entirely new to you.”
There are only two posts where you even cite a “source”… NEITHER of which is linked. This is your post where you claimed Clinton ordered the CREATION of echelon. Lie. Echelon was created in 1948.
1) “In 1993, Bill Clinton ordered the creation of the greatest domestic spy apparatus in U.S. history, called ECHELON.”
So Lee… you posted a flat out lie, then cited some news article, unlinked, which you hoped would be associated as the source to your lie.
The you posted this:
2)”If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency. NSA computers, said Kroft, “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world. Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told “60 Minutes” that the agency was monitoring “everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs. Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling “60 Minutes” that agency operators “can listen in to just about anything” – while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat. The “60 Minutes” report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton “engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens.” – CBS “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft, February 27, 2000
Now Lee… this is YOUR own post that supposedly shows Clinton ILLEGALLY wiretapped Americans. Amazing Lee… no mention in there at all about it done ILLEGALLY… no mention at all about no WARRANTS being issued… no mention about illegal FBI files… in fact Lee, this “sourced” story only says what we already know; echelon’s capabilities. What it doesn’t say is how Clinton used it outside of the FISA court, which Bush ADMITTED to doing.
And yet, you say: “If you want to dispute the illegal Clinton wiretaps and surveillance, try to find some credible source to dispute the wrongdoing to which Clinton and Reno already admitted.”
No Lee… prove it was illegal… post the links.
I know that Clinton used all sorts of wiretaps on individual Americans, because he claimed it was legal when caught. So Congress passed specific legislation to clear up Clinton’s “confusion”. The point is that you liberals don’t care about the domestic wiretaps of FDR and Clinton, but you pretend to care when Bush places 24 court-approved wiretaps on people caught phoning overseas terrorists.
After the Clintons were caught with their illegal dossiers, stolen FBI files, and 6,000,000 bank record interceptions, they proposed legislation to legalize warrantless wiretaps.
Clinton’s proposed 1996 legislation would have allowed wiretaps against suspected violators of any federal law. Jamie Gorelick, a deputy assistant attorney general, fanned such flames on May 3, 1995, when she told House International Relations Committee that tax protesters could be one type of “criminal” targeted by the expanded wiretap authority. Democratic Rep. Robert Scott of Virginia, questioning Louis Freeh on the same subject, asked, “Where would you have drawn the line to differentiate that tax protester from any other person that’s just mad about paying taxes? I mean, are you going to subject them all to wiretaps to find out?” Freeh responded, “No, we wouldn’t have the resources to do that.” Yet, since the antiterrorism legislation will greatly expand the FBI’s resources, far more tax protesters could presumably be tapped in the future. Private-property advocates who denounce the abuses of the Fish and Wildlife Service could be another easy target for the expanded wiretap authority.
In testimony before the FCC, Louis Freeh asked for 1% of switchboard capacity to be reserved for roving wiretaps.
The Clinton administration also announced that it had issued a new interpretation of the guidelines under which the FBI surveils domestic political organizations. The revised guidelines will give the FBI a green light to infiltrate far more private groups and political organizations. Assistant Attorney General Gorelick told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even “without a reasonable indication of a crime, a preliminary indication can be undertaken” and “you could use informants and you could collect information, and then determine whether you have reasonable indication for a full-fledged investigation.”
* They pushed for keys to all e-mail encryption.
* In 1993, the created the Brady Instant Background Check for every retail firearms purchase application. The records were supposed to be destroyed, but Janet Reno kept them in a secret database.
* They created national medical records databases, and a National ID database. South Carolina DMV sold information to a front company financed by Al Gore to gather personal data.
Lee, I guess it is just time to show you just how brainwashed you truly are:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-96.html
October 2, 1996
Democracy Betrayed Means New Wiretapping Powers
“In the wake of the TWA plane crash and Atlanta bombing, President Clinton and Congress scrambled to do something, anything, about terrorism. But somewhere in the back of our minds lurks an ideal left over from civics class: Elected representatives should deliberate carefully before they pass important new legislation.”
– Did you get this Lee? This was PROPOSED LEGISLATION. So what was the PROPOSED NEW LAW?
1) “The omnibus bill would strip out requirements that the FBI report to Congress on the agency uses broad new powers under the 1994 Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).”
– It would remove congressional oversight on the FBI. Republicans screamed to high heaven about NO OVERSIGHT. How much oversight has these same Republicans put on BUSH? NONE.
2) “Other measures proposed for passage in the omnibus bill include a provision allowing law enforcement officers to use “roving wiretaps” without getting permission from a court to do so.”
– Oh look Lee… your rhetoric about “roving wiretaps”! It was proposed to Congress as a new LAW. Now, don’t worry about correcting me Lee because I am right, but BUSH NEVER WENT TO CONGRESS TO PROPOSE CHANGING FISA’S COURT, HE MERELY DECIDED HE DIDN’T LIKE IT.
3) “Another proposed rule would allow investigators to use “emergency” wiretaps, which can be used for 48 hours without a warrant, even when there is no emergency.”
– Remember Lee… this is DOMESTIC WIRETAPPING… get it? Remember Bush’s program? THE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM?
“The suggested changes to the “emergency” rule would vastly expand the types of cases in which police could wiretap without a warrant. Currently, the police can use “emergency” wiretaps in cases involving organized crime, national security, or to prevent immediate risk of injury. The new rule would allow emergency wiretaps to combat anything the government might call “terrorism,” even when there is no immediate risk of injury or a threat to national security. But judges are available to authorize wiretaps 24 hours a day. There is no reason for police to wiretap without a warrant for two entire days, when there is no immediate risk of injury. Emergency wiretaps, if they are allowed at all, should be reserved for true emergencies.”
– Oh my Lee… the EXACT SAME THING! Clinton wanted to let law enforcement wiretap everyone, BUT HE WENT TO CONGRESS, Bush IS WIRETAPPING EVERYONE, and, HE DIDN’T GO TO CONGRESS!
“Supporters of the new roving wiretap rule have succeeded in concealing its impact from the public. The media has widely reported that the roving wiretap proposal would allow investigators to eavesdrop on criminals who are moving from phone to phone to evade interception.”
– Sound familiar Lee? We are only going after Al-Qaeda. We are only wiretapping terrorists. Same argument isn’t Lee?
“But federal law already permits this type of wiretap — when investigators have satisfied a court that it is necessary.”
– Gee… FISA… that thing BUSH doesn’t want to follow NOW.
“The new proposal would do away with judicial safeguards.”
– GET THAT LEE? PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS. THAT THING BUSH DIDN’T DO WHEN HE UNILATERALLY DECIDED, BECAUSE HE IS THE DECIDER, TO JUST DO AWAY WITH THE SAFEGUARDS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
“Absolutely no evidence has been presented that doing away with the safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps would have prevented any terrorist acts, or any other crimes. During the entire Clinton administration, not one investigator’s request for any type of wiretap has been refused. So why are law enforcement interests pressing for the change — and a bigger budget, while they’re at it?”
– Get that Lee? CLINTON GOT WARRANTS AND THEN ASKED FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE LAW. BUSH FLAT SAID HE ISN’T GETTING WARRANTS AND MADE THAT DECISION HIMSELF!
So get off the rhetoric and lies Lee. Until you can provide PROOF that Clinton ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, nobody will believe you. I can show you, and everyone else, PROOF that Clinton in fact DID work within the system.
1) He went to CONGRESS to change the law. Bush didn’t.
2) Clinton obtained warrants through FISA. Bush hasn’t.
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/Federal%20Roving%20Wiretap%20Rules%20Loosened.htm
“Oct. 13 1998 — Buried deep inside the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1999 is a provision that will change the way the FBI and other law enforcement agencies can listen to suspects’ phone calls. The new rule opens the doors for more “roving” wiretaps, which listen to all the phones a suspect uses rather than just a single line.”
– Did you get that Lee? THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS PASSED THIS MEASURE IN 1999 AND CLINTON SIGNED IT. YOUR STATEMENT THAT CLINTON’S ROVING WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL IS A LIE. How many LIES have I caught you in now Lee?
“To bug a suspect, investigators must first obtain a court order. Current federal wiretapping law allows multiple taps only if law enforcement can convince a judge that a suspect is trying to avoid being overheard. The new bill, introduced by Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), requires only that investigators show probable cause that “the person’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception.” Supporters maintain that such a change is necessary to keep up with exploding technology.”
– Get that Lee… IT STILL REQUIRED THE INITIAL WARRANT.
“According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, federal and state judges approved 1,186 wiretap applications in 1997 and 1,094 bugs were planted.”
– PROVEN LEE, CLINTON GOT WARRANTS, BUSH HASN’T BY HIS OWN WORDS.
Start showing your PROOF Lee… your lies are piling up on you. But then… how about the encryption?
http://www.cdt.org/crypto/admin/961115executiveorder13026.html
– Clinton’s Executive Order on encryption policy.
http://www.cdt.org/crypto/admin/961115letter.html
– Clinton’s notification letter to Congress on encryption policy.
But, Lee, you are claiming Clinton can’t sign this without it being ILLEGAL. But… BUSH CAN?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920
Friday 13 January 2006
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
The NSA’s vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.
In its “Transition 2001” report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that “American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist.”
“Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws,” the document says.
However, it adds that “senior leadership must understand that the NSA’s mission will demand a ‘powerful, permanent presence’ on global telecommunications networks that host both ‘protected’ communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target.”
What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.
But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that’s not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.
– So Lee… illegal for Clinton to sign and executive order… legal for Bush… right?
Lee, I guess it is just time to show you just how brainwashed you truly are:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-96.html
October 2, 1996
Democracy Betrayed Means New Wiretapping Powers
“In the wake of the TWA plane crash and Atlanta bombing, President Clinton and Congress scrambled to do something, anything, about terrorism. But somewhere in the back of our minds lurks an ideal left over from civics class: Elected representatives should deliberate carefully before they pass important new legislation.”
– Did you get this Lee? This was PROPOSED LEGISLATION. So what was the PROPOSED NEW LAW?
1) “The omnibus bill would strip out requirements that the FBI report to Congress on the agency uses broad new powers under the 1994 Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).”
– It would remove congressional oversight on the FBI. Republicans screamed to high heaven about NO OVERSIGHT. How much oversight has these same Republicans put on BUSH? NONE.
2) “Other measures proposed for passage in the omnibus bill include a provision allowing law enforcement officers to use “roving wiretaps” without getting permission from a court to do so.”
– Oh look Lee… your rhetoric about “roving wiretaps”! It was proposed to Congress as a new LAW. Now, don’t worry about correcting me Lee because I am right, but BUSH NEVER WENT TO CONGRESS TO PROPOSE CHANGING FISA’S COURT, HE MERELY DECIDED HE DIDN’T LIKE IT.
3) “Another proposed rule would allow investigators to use “emergency” wiretaps, which can be used for 48 hours without a warrant, even when there is no emergency.”
– Remember Lee… this is DOMESTIC WIRETAPPING… get it? Remember Bush’s program? THE DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM?
“The suggested changes to the “emergency” rule would vastly expand the types of cases in which police could wiretap without a warrant. Currently, the police can use “emergency” wiretaps in cases involving organized crime, national security, or to prevent immediate risk of injury. The new rule would allow emergency wiretaps to combat anything the government might call “terrorism,” even when there is no immediate risk of injury or a threat to national security. But judges are available to authorize wiretaps 24 hours a day. There is no reason for police to wiretap without a warrant for two entire days, when there is no immediate risk of injury. Emergency wiretaps, if they are allowed at all, should be reserved for true emergencies.”
– Oh my Lee… the EXACT SAME THING! Clinton wanted to let law enforcement wiretap everyone, BUT HE WENT TO CONGRESS, Bush IS WIRETAPPING EVERYONE, and, HE DIDN’T GO TO CONGRESS!
“Supporters of the new roving wiretap rule have succeeded in concealing its impact from the public. The media has widely reported that the roving wiretap proposal would allow investigators to eavesdrop on criminals who are moving from phone to phone to evade interception.”
– Sound familiar Lee? We are only going after Al-Qaeda. We are only wiretapping terrorists. Same argument isn’t Lee?
“But federal law already permits this type of wiretap — when investigators have satisfied a court that it is necessary.”
– Gee… FISA… that thing BUSH doesn’t want to follow NOW.
“The new proposal would do away with judicial safeguards.”
– GET THAT LEE? PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS. THAT THING BUSH DIDN’T DO WHEN HE UNILATERALLY DECIDED, BECAUSE HE IS THE DECIDER, TO JUST DO AWAY WITH THE SAFEGUARDS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
“Absolutely no evidence has been presented that doing away with the safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps would have prevented any terrorist acts, or any other crimes. During the entire Clinton administration, not one investigator’s request for any type of wiretap has been refused. So why are law enforcement interests pressing for the change — and a bigger budget, while they’re at it?”
– Get that Lee? CLINTON GOT WARRANTS AND THEN ASKED FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE LAW. BUSH FLAT SAID HE ISN’T GETTING WARRANTS AND MADE THAT DECISION HIMSELF!
So get off the rhetoric and lies Lee. Until you can provide PROOF that Clinton ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPED, nobody will believe you. I can show you, and everyone else, PROOF that Clinton in fact DID work within the system.
1) He went to CONGRESS to change the law. Bush didn’t.
2) Clinton obtained warrants through FISA. Bush hasn’t.
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/Federal%20Roving%20Wiretap%20Rules%20Loosened.htm
“Oct. 13 1998 — Buried deep inside the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1999 is a provision that will change the way the FBI and other law enforcement agencies can listen to suspects’ phone calls. The new rule opens the doors for more “roving” wiretaps, which listen to all the phones a suspect uses rather than just a single line.”
– Did you get that Lee? THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS PASSED THIS MEASURE IN 1999 AND CLINTON SIGNED IT. YOUR STATEMENT THAT CLINTON’S ROVING WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL IS A LIE. How many LIES have I caught you in now Lee?
“To bug a suspect, investigators must first obtain a court order. Current federal wiretapping law allows multiple taps only if law enforcement can convince a judge that a suspect is trying to avoid being overheard. The new bill, introduced by Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), requires only that investigators show probable cause that “the person’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception.” Supporters maintain that such a change is necessary to keep up with exploding technology.”
– Get that Lee… IT STILL REQUIRED THE INITIAL WARRANT.
“According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, federal and state judges approved 1,186 wiretap applications in 1997 and 1,094 bugs were planted.”
– PROVEN LEE, CLINTON GOT WARRANTS, BUSH HASN’T BY HIS OWN WORDS.
Start showing your PROOF Lee… your lies are piling up on you. But then… how about the encryption?
http://www.cdt.org/crypto/admin/961115executiveorder13026.html
– Clinton’s Executive Order on encryption policy.
http://www.cdt.org/crypto/admin/961115letter.html
– Clinton’s notification letter to Congress on encryption policy.
But, Lee, you are claiming Clinton can’t sign this without it being ILLEGAL. But… BUSH CAN?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920
Friday 13 January 2006
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
The NSA’s vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.
In its “Transition 2001” report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that “American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist.”
“Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws,” the document says.
However, it adds that “senior leadership must understand that the NSA’s mission will demand a ‘powerful, permanent presence’ on global telecommunications networks that host both ‘protected’ communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target.”
What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.
But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that’s not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.
– So Lee… illegal for Clinton to sign and executive order… legal for Bush… right?
At least you have gone from outright denial of the domestic spying by the Clinton administration, to claiming that it was stoppped by Congress. Some defense that is. I hope you don’t aspire to the practice of law.
Another lie Lee?
“At least you have gone from outright denial of the domestic spying by the Clinton administration, to claiming that it was stoppped by Congress. Some defense that is. I hope you don’t aspire to the practice of law.”
I said SHOW YOUR PROOF IT WAS ILLEGAL. To which you would answer MORE rhetoric, and yes, even some lies. Now, you think my calll for you to prove your argument is an outright denial?
YOU posted what Clinton did was illegal… you have YET to prove it.
And the hits keep coming:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HKA2E00.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_up&chan=db
David Sirota sums up the Supreme Court ruling nicely:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/supreme-court-helps-corpo_b_21052.html
In striking down the lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court not only ruled against Ohio taxpayers, but against all taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts, formerly a corporate lawyer, said in the official opinion that “State taxpayers have no standing … to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.” In other words, not only will the Ohio law remain, but state taxpayers throughout the country now have no legal right to challenge the decisions of their bought-and-paid-for elected officials who are selling off our government to the highest bidder.
To get a sense of just how far reaching an affront to taxpayers’ rights this ruling is, consider that USA Today earlier reported that taxpayers in other states were moving forward with similar cases. As just one example, in North Carolina, taxpayers have challenged the state’s $242 million giveaway to Dell Computer. Now, the Supreme Court has essentially said they aren’t even allowed to bring such a case.
Remember – these taxpayer giveaways are accelerating and come at a huge cost in terms of higher taxes for individuals. As USA Today noted, “In 1977, nine states gave tax credits to corporations [but] by 1998, that number had grown to 36.” At the same time, “individual income taxes are growing at a faster rate than corporate income taxes” because state/local governments are recovering the tax giveaways from ordinary citizens. According to the Census Bureau, “corporate income taxes collected rose 6.5% from 1994 to 2004, while individual income taxes collected went up 49.7%.”
But then, that’s what this is really all about: bought-off politicians giving away our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to already wealthy corporations without demanding anything in return. We see this with the Medicare bill and how it gives away more than $1 trillion to the health care/pharmaceutical industries without demanding these industries lower their prices (in fact, the bill prohibits the government from negotiating lower prices for medicines). We see it with the energy bill and how it gives away billions in new tax breaks to oil companies without asking them to lower their prices. And we see it with corporate welfare.
———-
Republican President
Republican Congress
Republican Supreme Court
AND NOW YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AS A TAXPAYER TO CHALLENGE GOVERNMENT GIVING AWAY YOUR MONEY TO CORPORATIONS…
(pre-empting Lee)… “but, but, Clinton!”
Your defense of Clinton’s domestic spying is proof that you really don’t care about your rights. The NSA is just a sham argument of convenience to attack Bush.
Lee states: “Your defense of Clinton’s domestic spying is proof that you really don’t care about your rights.”
Let’s see… you made assertions… I brought out facts. So, in the Republican mind, if you have FACTS, you don’t care about RIGHTS now?
Lee states: “The NSA is just a sham argument of convenience to attack Bush.”
Once again… I presented facts and verifiable reports. So, in the Republican mind, if you have FACTS, you are wrong unless you drink the kool-aid and follow along like good little lemmings?
FACT Lee… you have shown nothing to prove your assertions that any of Clintons of dealings were unlawful.
FACT Lee… after years of the Republican led congress investigating Clinton on EVERY aspect of his Presidency, the charges brought against Clinton were that he perjured himself under oath about a blowjob, AND HE WASN’T EVEN CONVICTED OF THAT BY A MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AT THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING.
FACT Lee… If Clinton had of engaged in anything even remotely resembling what Bush is doing, the Republican congress would have had his hide for it… again… go read the three articles of impeachment on Clinton and tell me where domestic spying unlawfully is stated in them.
FACT Lee… Bush has flat out LIED repeatedly to the American people about his activities… which I have PROVEN repeatedly.
FACTS Lee… nothing but the FACTS…
Hey Lee… here is a great lie for you to ponder:
1996 The Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress’
power under the “Effect” clause of Article IV, section 1 of the
Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or
other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to
grant legal status to same-sex “marriage.”
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the “union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).
So tell me Lee… how’d that Amendment to the constitution work out for the Republicans? You remember… the one they PROMISED would not be forgotten (at least until the next election).
Let me enlighten you Lee…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125628,00.html
“The Senate GOP needed 60 votes to end debate on the measure before the actual amendment could even be voted on. The final vote on the proposal to vote on the amendment was 48-50 — far from the two-thirds majority needed to continue debate. Six Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in virtually defeating the amendment.”
48 Senators in favor… 50 Senators against, INCLUDING 6 REPUBLICANS.
It’s election time Lee… what did Laura Bush just say?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/14/172402.shtml
“Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president’s ear: Don’t use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.”
But Frist said he would defend the amendment even to Dick Cheney. “I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country,” Frist said on CNN. “And we’ve seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that’s being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman.”
OOOOOO… you’re under attack Lee! Quick… run… hide… it’s the terrorists… it’s the gays… it’s those darned activist judges trying to change laws to suit them… it’s the little blue bug monster! Want to be safe Lee? Easy…
Just keep signing your rights away to politicians who turn around and use their power to give away more of your money to corporations. Don’t mind that they PROMISED to save you from the gays (didn’t happen btw Lee)… don’t mind that they PROMISED to catch that nasty terrorist Bin Laden and Zarqawi (hasn’t happened either Lee)… don’t mind that the ACTIVISM they fear-monger are their OWN JUDGES’ activism for corporations… just keep voting them in office Lee, I’m sure they will save you from the boogy-man one day… in the meantime… OH LOOK… citizens (that means YOU Lee) can’t challenge how the state gives YOUR tax dollars away to corporations!
I’m sure SOME Republican politician will PROMISE to save you in ’06 Lee… just vote for them… again…
Yes, the GOP has betrayed us with high debt for useless social programs…. but the Democrats wanted to borrow $144 BILLION more this year, and blow that.
Lee,
Sorry… you were not betrayed. You were lied to from the beginning. Think about it for once:
1) The Republicans have been in charge of Congress since 1994… 12 years… with the Defense of Marriage Act being passed in 1996 by the Republican Congress. But that didn’t BAN gay marriage, it left it up to the STATES. Nothing for another 10 years? But… they’ll get on it NEXT year… just vote for them… right…
2) Roe v Wade? You think that’ll be gone when the majority of Americans WANT Roe v Wade in one form or another… and the MINORITY is the ones wanting abortion banned totally? Try again. When you add up the numbers, repealing Roe v Wade would be the deathnell of the Republican party. They would be left with that same 29% that still thinks Bush is doing a “heckuva job”, because that is about the same amount of people that want abortion banned totally.
Great wedge issues. Really pulled out the “base” to vote didn’t they…
Action? After next election… maybe… what, it didn’t pass… oh well… we’ll make another campaign issue… we’ll vote again, after the next election… just vote us in again…
You DO notice that Republicans don’t tout the economy. Come on… from a budget surplus to deficit, record overall deficits YEARLY… of course they won’t… especially now that gas prices jumped from $1.50 to $2.60/gallon.
You DO notice that Republicans aren’t touting the war on terror like they were, right? Then they might be reminded that Bin Laden is still at large.
Iraq? The majority of Americans AND troops want out of Iraq… that won’t be brought out by Republicans.
Ethics? Come on… scandal after scandal of CONVICTED and INDICTED cabinet members, congressmen, governors… can’t run on that.
Illegal immigration? Only the hardest left-wingers are pushing for the “path to citizenship”… but then… so are some Republicans… and the Dem’s got smart (notice Kennedy) they are pushing for ENFORCEMENT now as well. Where’s the difference here?
So you are going to be lied to… AGAIN Lee… by the Republican party… who is going to PROMISE you… AGAIN… to deal with those evil gays!
And your economic comment Lee? Come on… Republican President, Republican congress, highest deficit spending EVER… EVERY YEAR. Democratic President, Republican Congress, budget SURPLUS. Name me the ONE difference here Lee… I’ll give you a hint… it’s in who ran the oval office. If Republicans were the ones who had the surplus, why none now?
Are those evil gays really that bad Lee? Are you willing to toss out all of your rights, give all of your money to the corporations, just for the HOPE, that ONE DAY, you aren’t lied to by your own party?
Let me tell you Lee, if you hate gays that much, that you are willing to allow our country, AS A NATION, to fall into ruin, then you need to go to church and re-read the teachings of Christ.
Do you know why I don’t hate gays Lee? Because my brother is gay. There came a time Lee, when I had to make a choice… hate my brother or love him. I cannot hate my brother. It works for him and it doesn’t affect my life one bit what he does with his partner. But let me tell you Lee, I’ve seen that hatred close up and personal… I’ve seen it put onto my brother… and remember what they say Lee, blood is thicker then water. I learned, just like everyone has to learn; gays marrying won’t be the end to civilization, just like ending slavery wasn’t the end to civilization and just like giving women the right to vote wasn’t the end to civilization.
Get over your hate Lee… for the good of America. Being “religious” doesn’t mean your right… it just means your religious.
I didn’t even mention “gays”.
So please just divert away from the Clinton Domestic Spy scandals with a rant about gays without fabricating insults to the rest of us.
If the small tax cut for all taxpayers in 2001 had not been passed, we would still be mired in the tax-induced Clinton Recession, instead of the current economy running at the best levels in 20 years.
Clinton induced recession??? Economy at best level in 20 years???
You truly are hopeless…
The GDP is ONE measure of a healthy economy, but it doesn’t measure QUALITY of living. 60% of America are unsatisfied with Bush’s economy. Why? Because the beneficiaries are the corporations that are making huge profits (raises the GDP) and the rich who get the most out of the tax breaks (remember that huge deficit)?
The unemployment numbers are down. But the unemployment numbers only count towards certain people, that is, people who qualified for unemployment and are still in the system. Once a person drops from the system, for any reason to include not finding a job after their benefits ran out, the numbers go down. That doesn’t mean the people found jobs, it just means they were kicked out of the system jobless and got counted anyway towards lower unemployment.
The growth in jobs created? You’d best look carefully at those numbers. Construction made gains during the housing run, but that is considered seasonal work, and now that the rates are increasing, that market is done. Food service made BIG gains. Unfortunately, it was because that was the only jobs available to people like an Army Reservist who got back from a year in Iraq to find his old job gone and became a manager at Burger King (true story btw). The high tech jobs are outsourced, have been outsourced, and while some were outsourced during Clinton, the huge spike in unemployment came when BUSH took office (fact) and that occurred because one of his first Tax Omnibus Bills passed HUGE tax credits on foreign earned income, which made it more profitable to companies to outsource jobs then keep them in America.
60% unfavorable on the economy… because that is how many people, percentage-wise, this economy is screwing. So, you might be in that 40% “I’m rich, don’t tax me” bracket… but there are many who aren’t.
Do you even realize the economic and security implications of Bush’s huge deficit, notes that are held by countries like China? Do you realize that it is the deficit that is driving these foreign countries to try and buy American infrastructure… like the UAE deals? They want hard assets for their notes. So, they were going to give Dubai our ports, under the table, but that came out and was blocked, so, we just gave them control over factories that manufacture weapons parts.
And what happens if we DON’T sell off America to these countries holding our debt? They crash our economy in a way that makes the 1929 stock market look like a blip on an economic radar.
You are so damn focused on Clinton that you cannot, will not, and flat refuse, to see just how sorry America is right now… internationally… economically… and MORALLY (under the “moral party”)… with the Republicans in control.
Every week the polls drop. But you are one of the 29%’rs… it doesn’t matter what Bush does. You just blame Clinton… who cares that he isn’t president… who cares about facts.
Well… the party is over. That “liberal media”… you know… the Scarborough’s, Dobb’s… are waking up and finally calling the Republicans, and the president, to the carpet for the BS he’s pulling.
29%… that is all that is left supporting Bush now… and you are one of them.
He has lied to you, used you, by your own words betrayed you, and like the good lap dog, you follow like the puppy you are.
Oh… and to everyone ELSE… here is your REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT in action to try and stop terrorism:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/air_marshal_pre.html
Air Marshal Prepares To Go Public
In open defiance of his bosses, an active duty federal air marshal is preparing to go public this week to protest policies the marshal says have already blown his cover by requiring marshals to publicly identify themselves in front of passengers.
“We’re not safer having air marshals on the plane if they’re not undercover,” the marshals says in an interview to be broadcast on World News Tonight and 20/20 this Friday.
And the agency itself…UNDER THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT… 5 YEARS AFTER 9/11?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_air_mar.html
Federal Air Marshals’ Bosses Accused of Arrogance, Cover-Up
A damning investigation of the Federal Air Marshal program is set to be released by Congress next week, staffers tell ABC News.
“The attitude of this agency stinks,” the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner, told Brian Ross in an interview to be broadcast on World News Tonight and 20/20 this Friday.
Sensenbrenner said officials of the Air Marshal program “stonewalled” his staff and retaliated against air marshals who tried to reveal problems.
“This report should have come out a year ago had we gotten even minimal cooperation from the Air Marshal service,” Sensenbrenner said.
“I think the American public will be shocked,” Sensenbrenner said of his committee’s findings.
(pre-empts Lee… “but but Clinton”)
I am focused on the dishonesty of liberals who supported Clinton’s illegal spying on gun owners, wiretaps on bank transactions, FBI files, etc… who now pretend to oppose the NSA snooping that Clinton approved.
The dishonesty of Democrats who proposed a spending deficit $144 BILLION GREATER than the one passed by the GOP…
The dishonesty of being “dissatisfied” with the best economy in 20 years, by people who don’t even work for living.
Michael, Do you understand that when a foreign nation or a foreign company buys an American asset, whether its real estate or a company, the seller pockets a nice sum of money, and then what does that seller do? He doesn’t stick it under his mattress for sure. It gets re-invested into something that they think is a better deal. Its called capitalism and the free market. It is a Win-Win for both seller and buyer. You should try it sometime. You talk like the Chinese or whomever is confiscating an asset without realizing some American is walking away very happy.
Most liberals don’t understand the economy because they are not participants in it. Most of them are students, welfare loungers, government employees, teachers, and worker bees at big corporations.
Dave,
“Do you understand that when a foreign nation or a foreign company buys an American asset, whether its real estate or a company, the seller pockets a nice sum of money, and then what does that seller do? He doesn’t stick it under his mattress for sure. It gets re-invested into something that they think is a better deal. Its called capitalism and the free market. It is a Win-Win for both seller and buyer. You should try it sometime. You talk like the Chinese or whomever is confiscating an asset without realizing some American is walking away very happy.”
Do you even hear yourself?
So a foreign company buys an American infrastructure asset… let’s say… a manufacturing company. The company makes a huge sum in profit. That profit is then cut down into big bonuses for the Board of Directors. Then, the preferred stockholders (usually board members and cronies) get a huge dividend. The rest (very little in comparison) goes to the people with common stocks (people who are “higher class” and can own stocks).
Do these people re-invest that money? Sure they do. In stocks, bonds, mutuals, WHATEVER MAKES THEM MORE MONEY.
A piece of America’s infrastructure is now owned by a foreign company/government. The rich get richer.
And EVERYONE ELSE? Well… MAYBE they’ll keep their jobs, working for a foreign company.
You have no better place to look at this then Big Oil. They can give their CEO a $400 million (total package) retirement deal, but, Americans are paying $2.60/gal at the pump. Gee… those billions in profit sure went to help AMERICA and AMERICANS didn’t it!
So, what you are saying… is that you are all in favor of class warfare… the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer… as long as your on the rich end right?
Michael, Foreign investment is extremely healthy for our economy and also for our long term safety. If China has a trillion dollars of assets sitting in the US, what are the odds they would launch nukes onto those assets. Ponder that for a while. National security.
How the profits are divided is the business of the stockholders, not some liberal in a coffeehouse or the U.S. Senate.
When Exxon’s profits were divided last quarter, governments took a larger share than they left for Exxon.
HIT THEM IN THE WALLET
Wounded to get millions in compensation
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday TelegraphLast Updated: 3:11pm GMT 10/12/2006
Hundreds of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be awarded millions of pounds in compensation following a ruling by the Government that they are victims of crime not war.
British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan will be paid compensation on a sliding scale of about £1,000 for a small facial scar, up to a maximum of £500,000 for the loss of a limb
Forty injured servicemen are to receive payments of up to £500,000 each in a series of test cases. This is expected to lead to claims from hundreds more of the estimated 1,000 troops injured in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.
Payments will be made on a “sliding scale” of about £1,000, for a small facial scar, up to a maximum of £500,000, for the loss of a limb. The ruling was agreed, it is understood, after Government lawyers raised fears that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could be subject to a legal challenge by troops claiming they were victims of crime because they were wounded in Iraq after the end of “at war” hostilities in May 2003.
All those injured fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who have decided to remain in the Army, could be entitled to lodge claims with the newly revised Armed Forces’ Criminal Injury Compensation (overseas) scheme.
This is similar to that run by the Home Office, which makes payments to the victims of crimes such as muggings, rape, burglary and robbery. Troops will be informed officially of the new policy in the next few weeks and the first payments will be made in early spring.
advertisement
Until now, the MOD has paid “criminal” compensation only for incidents where troops were injured in “civilian situations” such as a fight in a nightclub while off-duty.
Those injured in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were also eligible for such compensation because it was deemed that the terrorists attacking them were criminals and not enemy combatants in a conventional war.
The new ruling and expansion of compensation to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts means insurgents or terrorists launching surprise attacks and sabotage missions are also regarded as criminals and not enemy troops. It is thought the only circumstances where troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be eligible for criminal compensation is when they were involved in pre-arranged, offensive operations directly targeting insurgents.
But most casualties in Iraq have received their wounds through car bombings, sniping and rocket attacks — circumstances not dissimilar to most attacks sustained in Ulster. Defence sources say the ruling reflects the changing nature of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although both theatres of conflict are described frequently as war zones, in strict legal terms British troops are not at war.
The revelation of the Government decision follows demands from MPs, military chiefs and the public, as well as a campaign by The Sunday Telegraph, for the Government to provide the Armed Forces with better pay, accommodation and medical care.
Defences sources have admitted that the awarding of compensation will be “complex and difficult”, with evidence being presented to the panel by the serviceman’s commanding officer.
Under the revised MoD compensation scheme, all wounded troops will be given legal advice from government lawyers as to whether their injury was as a result of a crime or of war. Those deemed to have been injured through “criminal acts” will be able to lodge compensation claims that will be assessed by a panel comprising a senior military officer, civil servants and a civilian.
The scheme will be open to troops who stay in the forces. Those who are medically discharge will receive war pensions, as is already the case.
It is understood that Major David Bradley, who was severely injured in August 2004 in an ambush in Basra, southern Iraq, is one of those about to receive compensation.
Major Bradley, who was the commander of B company, the 1st Bn the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, almost died as he took the full blast of a rocket-propelled grenade during an operation to rescue nine comrades.
An MoD spokesman said: “Ensuring that we obtain the best for our soldiers has meant that the criteria under which normal claims are submitted have had to be better defined. It is anticipated by early spring claims will be paid.”
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk