re: continuation from "Cheers for our troops"

[pedalinbob]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash said:
Lying about a private consensual affair pales in its effect upon our nation compared to the continuous flow of lies we've endured since G.W. was appointed to the presidency.

Don't paint me as a blind Democrat because I've plenty of criticism for them too, and since 1984 voted for a major party president only once.

[/ QUOTE ]

the difference is that nobody has proven that Bush lied.
if you or anyone else can prove it, he will be impeached--and i will support it.
Clinton lied, plain and simple. Hillary didnt state that the affair occured with her consent. i doubt that Chelsea consented.

i did not intend to paint you as a democrat.

we can agree to disagree!

Bob

 

[hideo]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

text of the Rice testimony is here (courtesy NY Times) ...

hideo

 

[pedalinbob]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

hideo: sorry, i didnt mean to pull your thread off topic!

Bob

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
hideo:
my sincere belief is that our freedoms have seldom been more dodgy than they are under our current administration and attorney general

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a great example of reducing a very serious issue to a drive-by partisan sound bite. I hear statements like that all the time and it really bothers me.

I am very concerned about my privacy and my constitutional rights in the post 911 era. You will never know how concerned.

The Patriot Act and other post 911 era changes which you allude to in your sound bite do not exist in a vacuum. They do not stand by themselves in a void with nothing to compare them to, but you do not go into any useful comparisons to lend credibility to your statement.

I will. The only event in the history of the States that compares with the roughly 3000 deaths which are attributed to 911 would be the attack on Pearl Harbor. Asside from making the assertion that the 911 attack was worse because it was a vicious assualt on the citizenry instead of the military, I think the two events are all that we have in our history that are on the same scale.

While I do not assert that George Bush is a conservative, I will admit that FDR was by far the more liberal of the two. When confronted with the attack on Pearl Harbor FDR reacted very differently than Bush43.

FDR and his extremely liberal cronies decided that the best thing to do in response to the deaths of 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor was to lock up more than 100,000 Japanese residents and citizens in concentration camps. This happened here in the United States. Thousands were American citizens. They were not charged with anything. They did not get their day in court. They were denied all due process. Another legendary liberal icon, Earl Warren, was right at FDR's side and marched in lock-step with him on this great decision.

In fact, the only major player in the entire FDR administration to take the unpopular view that mass internment was an insanely bad idea was J Edgar Hoover. Hoover has long been the liberal whipping-boy that is still accused of being a power mad facist monster who would have taken away all of our rights had he not been held in check by the noble liberals. (SEE previous paragraph about noble liberals)

Now you assert that:

[ QUOTE ]
...our freedoms have seldom been more dodgy than they are under our current administration and attorney general

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So 911 happens. In the aftermath, Bush43, under tremendous pressure to take action locks up NO citizens. Instead he has 1200 illegal aliens incarcerated, not in concentration camps for the duration of the war, but in prisons where they are released as they are cleared of any complicity. As of 911 + 2.5 years, the cases of the majority of these illegal aliens have been resolved. How many American citizens who had neither broken any laws or been charged with any crime were still being detained in concentration camps as of Pearl Harbor + 2.5 years? They would not get their day in court for fifty years. Cold comfort, that.

But this administration and attorney general are really frightening you. Do you honestly believe that Bush43 has some diabolical plan whereby he postponed his best chance to fulfill his dreams of being dictator? That somehow, unlike FDR under similar circumstances Bush43 is waiting for a better moment -- a better opportunity to destroy your rights?

The American people need to get these sound-bite attacks out of the vacuum and really look at these cavalier assertions in the context of history in the real world.

Cheers for our troops

 

[hideo]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

We're in 100% agreement with the history books that the incarceration of the Japanese wasn't a bright spot in our history ...

sorry about my "sound bite"--as you know, hanging out our dirty laundry is time-consuming /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I was wandering all over the place ... let me tell you that a bad habit I picked up after 5 years of competitive debate and forensics is that I rarely make assertions unless I can back them up ... feel free to call me on any of them and I better be able to provide at least one major news outlet source to back it up. Ain't the Web wonderful!

read the text and some analysis of the Patriot Act 2:
here

or if you'd rather just type it into any search engine (I just grabbed the Electronic Freedom Foundation site)... if you do a search, there is gobs of commentary from the "liberals" and a strange quiet from the other side

you'll note that under that draft, if US citizens are suspected of terrorism (or just sluuming with terroriststs), they could wind up in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo--the Administration has been very, very suspicious, so I'd say the chances are high that i'd be there right now /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ashcroft scurried back from this smoking potato once the document was leaked to Congress and the press (presumably from a true patriot inside the Justice Dept.) "just something we were tossing around" ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

Sub, I hope you're not asserting that depriving 1200 persons of their civil rights is OK just as long as we do it outside of the United States? These folks are citizens, just not our citizens. "Illegal aliens" don't apply here ... remember why they're incarcerated down there and not here?

As of 911 + 2.5 years, the cases of the majority of these illegal aliens have been resolved.

that is incorrect-- according to the sources I've seen, the majority have not had any judicial process at all ... here's just one
web page

you might find this (United Press International) of interest:

web page

the site notes that the vast majority, nearly one fourth of the 65o detainees "acknowledged" by the Pentagon (you have access to better numbers than me) are Saudis ...that certainly bolsters the case for the invasion of Iraq ...

here is the story of one detainee, a 22 year old web designer who finally got sent back to England, where the Crown "declined to prosecute"
web page

Do you honestly believe that Bush43 has some diabolical plan whereby he postponed his best chance to fulfill his dreams of being dictator?

Now you're yanking my chain-- of course not --given the size and prosperity of this country and still having the right to bear arms (as do the Iraqis--think they'll let their "right to bear arms" loose after this? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif)

any would-be tyrant would have a hard time trying to seize power--you and I and CPF would be giving them hell /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif along with the rest of the civillian population AND the armed forces. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whoopin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whoopin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whoopin.gif

erosion of freedoms is usually a gradual process, not a sudden government edict--ask the European countries that turned their heads, while the Fascists rose to power.

But this administration and attorney general are really frightening you?

Sub, they are ... and if you knew me better, you'd know I don't frighten easily /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

hideo


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

BTW, I'd sincerely like to hear your (and others) take(s) on the Saudi thing since you've obviously spent some time getting informed--GWB couldn't have invaded the wrong country, could he? LOL /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/poke2.gif

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

www.hrw.org, www.upi.com, news.bbc.co.uk? Hardly a fair and balance group of sources. Might as well get your news from Al-Qaeda TV.

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

It appears to me that you would rather believe people OUTSIDE our country then to believe the leaders of our country. That is truly sad. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[jayflash]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Isn't it a shame that we can't be more certain of our government's real motives and what is factual? It seems that no matter who's at the helm the truth becomes convoluted - it gets spun left and then right.

The Saudis are too (oil) well connected and better neighbors in the mid-east than Iraq was, so they're probably immune at this point.

This country needs more than only two major parties.

 

[hideo]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Nitro, /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif these are major news outlets ... I don't think Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly have anywhere near the staff or coverage that the BBC or United Press International can claim /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Seriously, punch in any of these keywords into Google and just start reading ... you'll see Reuters, CNN, even Bush, oops Fox News (sorry) ... with very similar content. Patriot Act 2 draft is scattered all over the place on the Web--did you read it??

I AM glad you're questioning my sources though 'cuz it's the first thing they teach reporters ...

now do a little more homework and research which huge corporations own the major TV networks in this country ... and how many of those large corporations happen to be military contractors (give you a hint ... two that I know of)

then look around a little and find out how many millions they hand over in campaign contributions to both parties every year--hopefully, that will make you as skeptical of them as of me /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

me, I'm not getting a penny and need to get back to work so hopefully we'll see some more opinions

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif for your input

hideo

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

jayflash: So what exactly do you think our current administration's motive is for going into Iraq? Do tell.

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Hideo: Those are major news outlets for people who hate(envy) the US.

Example of Headline:
"One of the five Britons released from Guantanamo Bay claims US guards at the camp in Cuba tortured and abused him."

CLAIMS US guards tortured him? CLAIMS? You got to be kidding. Who are you going to believe him, or OUR OWN military, who BTW, are trying to protect you? That's the biggest slap in the face if I ever seen one.

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Another quote:
"The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological torture - bruises heal after a week but the other stuff stays with you."

What other stuff?

He claims water to the cells was often cut off before prayers so Muslim prisoners could not wash themselves as their religion instructs them to.

Is that the "psychological torture"?

"They actually said: 'You have no rights here'. After a while, we stopped asking for human rights - we wanted animal rights."

Do you think Saddam, gave his own citizens more rights then the US gave Udeen?

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
now do a little more homework and research which huge corporations own the major TV networks in this country ... and how many of those large corporations happen to be military contractors (give you a hint ... two that I know of)

then look around a little and find out how many millions they hand over in campaign contributions to both parties every year--hopefully, that will make you as skeptical of them as of me

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Do you have something against our military?

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
hideo:

read the text and some analysis of the Patriot Act 2:

[/ QUOTE ]

So, that's al you've got? links? Am I to infer from what you've said (or not said) that you put Bush43's actions on a par with FDR in a similar stuation? Don't give me links. It's been 2.5 years since 911. Back up uour assertions. Tell me Bush has illegally locked up a bazillion Americans and I'll read it. Tell me Bush has singled out people of Middle Eastern decent throughout America and locked them up in concentration camps like FDR did to the Japanese Americans in THIS country -- I'll read that link.

How does the Patriot Act 2 relate to your inability to identify tyranical behavior?

Since you brought up the Patriot Act 2 in some effort to support a position for which you have given no other arguments for, let me ask you a few questions about it.

Is Patriot Act 2 the law of the land?
If so, was it voted on in the House and the Senate and signed into law like any other bill that goes through the system?
Did Bush surround the capital with the Montana Militia and force the hand of the legeslators by unconstitutional means?
If Patriot Act 2 is not the law of the land, why not?
Did it get voted down by our lawfully elected legislators?

Patriot 2 does not support your previous allegations in any way. If the legislator you elected were stupid enough to vote for it, that's your fault for electing them. Not Bush's fault for supporting it. Get a grip. With the exception of within your own mind there has been no coup. Whether they vote for it or against it, the system is working the way it is supposed to.

Let me get this straight. You have nothing to tell me in answer to any of the points I've already asked you in the other post. Instead you throw out another sound bite about a BILL that you don't like. You make no assertion that the President has used any extra constitutional means to ram it through and you want me to read these links and then agree that Bush is a tyrant.

[ QUOTE ]
hideo:
I hope you're not asserting that depriving 1200 persons of their civil rights is OK just as long as we do it outside of the United States? These folks are citizens, just not our citizens. "Illegal aliens" is a loaded phrase ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Illegal aliens is a loaded phrase. I used it in a wasted attempt to get your attention. I used it to try to get you to understand that because they were in violation of the law, the administration had not only every right, but an obligation to hold them while they were investigated. It was legal.

I was making a comparison to the actions of FDR and it went right over your head. I'll make it simple. After 911, Bush held 1200 legally. After Pearl Harbor, FDR held over 100,000 illegally. Refute those facts. You can't. That is the way it happened. Don't give me unrelated links. Tell everyone reading this thread why Bush43's actions after 911 were so horrible and why we should be afraid of him and his minions -- I've given you, in very plain terms, a concrete example of much more reprehensible behavior by an executive.

I have given you a rock solid example of what FDR did that usurped the lawfull rights of over 100,000 people, in blatent violation of the constitution he swore an oath to protect. While you have attempted to add new sound bites, you have rebutted not one argument that I have posted. You have not given me one bit of evidence to show that Bush is getting ready for a tyranical power grab the likes of which he could have certainly attempted, were he so inclined, in the weeks after 911. But then, I've already said that.

It would probably suprise you to no end to find out that I am not a Bush supporter. I do support the war, however. Those are two different things.
I believe making unsubstantiated charges about the President is not helping the war effort.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash:

This country needs more than only two major parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the truth.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

[ QUOTE ]
Nitro:

Do you think Saddam, gave his own citizens more rights then the US gave Udeen?

[/ QUOTE ]

For a few months I've been wondering about all of Saddam's mass graves: Did they bother to orient the bodies toward Mecca, in accordance with Islamic doctrine, before the bulldozers covered them with sand?

 

[keithhr]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

to the people that believe that if we didn't go over there, they would come over here, they were already here first and we went to a place that wasn't involved directly or indirectly with 9/11, there was no intelligence or flawed,same difference
Powell admits flawed intelligence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46440-2004Apr2.html\
more flawed intelligence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46508-2004Apr2.html
Richard Clark also testified that the CIA, FBI and his own counter terrorism unit came up with no links to Iraq as having anything to do with 9/11, so how could there be flawed intelligence when there is no intelligence to be referenced, but only in a vague way. I'm confused as to what the big deal with Rice's testimony is when we were drawn into a war with another country on info that can't be substantiated nor has anyone come up with what intel could have been flawed.
I wanted to make one more point, how many married men who have committed a sexual indiscretion would cop to the truth when confronted with that question before they have admitted same with their wives. Well probably not many. To the people that are still concerned with whether slick Willie lied under oath about Monica, but aren't bothered by this administration lying to the American people about reasons to go to war with Iraq, I'm ashamed. I only want the truth and expect our leaders to have some bit of integrity.

 

[Nitro]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

Are you suggesting that there were/are no terrorists being harbored in Iraq?

One more question. How often do you lie about cheating on your spouse/partner?

 

[pedalinbob]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

so, flawed intelligence = lie?
acting on intelligence that everyone believes is true, is the same as telling a lie?

as far as i know, Bush never stated Iraq was involved with 9-11, that must have been something you dreamed. what he did say, was that Iraq harbored and supported terrorists.

regarding Clinton, it wasnt about copping to the truth when busted: Clinton CHOSE to be a dishonest cheater, and flatly lied about it. interesting that you label it a "sexual indescretion", which softens the reality of his action. it amazes me when people make excuses for bad behavior.

this is an excerpt from Ann Coulter:
"Hannity says we face moral choices between good and evil every day. If we make excuses for evil – Hitler was a "madman," a pedophile priest was "weak" or, as philandering actor Ethan Hawke recently advised us, Bill Clinton "suffered from" infidelity – soon we cease being able to distinguish good from evil at all. (I would add to the excuses for evil, "It's just about sex.") With each choice we make, large and small, we take a step closer to the devil or a step closer to God."

i choose to call Clinton's behavior what it is: bad, evil, wrong. i choose to call Saddam's behavior what it is: bad, evil, wrong.

you still didnt prove that Bush lied. nice try, though.
to prove it, you will need to show that he KNEW the intelligence was wrong. sorry, but nobody has proven that yet. not even you.

you infer that the info that brought us to war cannot be substantiated. i disagree. though some of the info may have been flawed, there is a lot of info showing that Saddam was heavily involved with terrorists, ignoring 12 years of UN resolutions and he was a dangerous threat--directly and indirectly.
heck, it doesnt even take an actual NBC weapon: it only takes Saddam selling plans to create NBC weapons to a terrorist. there sure were a lot of terroists hanging around Iraq.

i suppose we can agree to disagree!

Bob

 

[JonSidneyB]

Re: re: continuation from \"Cheers for our troops\"

I think the right thing to do is sometimes a huge challenge. If I remember correctly, most people who spoke on the subject during Clintons administration thought he had WMD's. I think Bill also said he had them.

These types of things demand huge responcibility, more than most could muster. No matter what one does I think they would be attacked no matter how right or how wrong the decision.