Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:37 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: oh, please!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Once again, a call from the fundamentalist fringe!

Give me a break Bill, are you honestly going to compare the presidency of Clinton and Bush? First of all, the country will not be able to make the true assessment 30-40 years after they are out. Sorry to say this Bill, but unless you have the long-lived genes in you, you will be gone.

<Both young Bill and GW were hellions in their day. But Bill is a sociopathic liar, and I do not use that expression lightly. Except for the pot smoking of course; we all know he didn't inhale.... At least with GW, what you see is what you get. He admits to drinking his way through undergrad. >

Let's just agree not to argue the point of who lies the most because we both know that we could argue ad nauseum with both gentlemen. But you are correct when you say that with Dubbya, what we see is what we get. And I'll tell you, that's not too impressive. At the very least, could we have a president who haves some mastery over the English language (oh, to bring back Woodrow Wilson). Sorry, didn't mean to bring in another of those bleeding heart liberals that you hate.


<I don't fault either Bill or George for partying or being bad boys. I had my days... That's what youth is for. The question is, who grows up enough to own up to their behavior and do something about it? And if you're going to continue to be a bad boy, well why not just admit it and get over it? >

You hate Clinton because he lied to the American Public about an affair that really is none of their collective business? Who cares? Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan did far worse. We could go on with that, but why. Do you select a president for the job he'll do, or do you select a president on what his family morals are likely to be?

You don't put much faith in polls because this one doesn't fit your arguement that the majority of those polled have lost their faith in our president, and rightfully so. What do you think, that they sample only "Bleeding Heart" left when they take their data? I think the silent majority is being consulted as well.

<The big mistake Bush's enemies keep making is underestimating his intelligence and discipline. That's fine by me... >

Oh my, is there intelligence there? I thought it was all orchestrated by the guy pulling his strings (where is Mr. Chaney anyway?). Just where has our president shown this intelligence? I'm still waiting.

<And I personally don't put much faith in polls, particularly when the going gets tough. I don't want a president who is popular or liked; I want one who has the courage to follow his convictions. That's a sign of true leadership. >

I don't want a president who follows his convictions, that's like having a manager of a baseball team who constantly plays on "feeling". As the world's most superior military might, and strongest economic icon in the world, it would be nice if we based things on something a little more scientific. Being the scientist yourself, I'm kind of surprised at you for that belief. Anyway, the true sign of leadership is the person who looks at all the options first, and takes the one that is beneficial for the most. Once again, I'm still waiting on Georgie.


<quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they say time loves a hero
but only time will tell
If he's real, he's a legend from heaven
If he ain't he was sent here from hell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Here,
surrounded by the swirling nothingness of chaos,
with the indignant idiocy of haze and alientation,
I sit
where perception becomes a burden
and where the burden becomes the loss of perception.

I think my poem is a little closer to the truth. ;-)

<I'm going to live long enough to show you how right Bush's policies were, Mike. He's far from a perfect president - particularly on the spending front and the concessions he makes to the social conservatives. But other than that, he's got it right.>

If you really believe that Bill, then, no offense, but I'm glad you are choosing the president.

<Meanwhile... You should have heard the beating Clinton's legacy took today on Meet the Press. Instead of confronting the Saudis to get access to information about an Iranian terrorist attack, he solicited the Crown Prince for a donation to his library. It took until the Bush administration to get the FBI access to information that Clinton said couldn't be gotten. Imagine that!!>

I'll agree that I don't think Clinton was a great foreign policy president, but he certainly wasn't the worst. But if I had my way, I'd want the better domestic policy president first. I'm sorry to say this, but I think the welfare of me and my family outweighs those of Iraqi families who are paying five cents a gallon for gas that is being subsidized by the US government and I'm paying $2.55/gallon.

<Meanwhile, the Iranians were laughing their a$$es off with what they got away with. That kind of Clinton spinelessness led to OBL training his merry men for what came about on 9/11. >

Blame what you want on Clintons for that, but it was under Dubbya's watch that 9/11 hit. Remember that, because that is what history will rememeber.

<Little did OBL know that Bush would make him spend the rest of his life in a hole somewhere on the Pakistan border. If Slick Willie had those kinds of cahones, we wouldn't be talking about Afghanistan and Iraq today. >

Just remember that although you think that OBL is hiding in some hole somewhere, he still exerts just as much influence on his minions. So, what has really been accomplished here?

And regarding your diatribe on Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy Leagues programs, what's the point. You may have gone through it, but you don't have the same pedigree as Bush and as we are comparing, wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar? I don't think that's too shabby. BTW, when's the last time a son of an ambassador, CIA head, senator, VP, Chair of the REP. Party failed out of Harvard? And wasn't the average grade of a student at Harvard a couple of years ago was an A-? And I'm sure that there are many Harvard grads who have failed at buisness ventures. Why don't you mention them too?


mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Bill,

You should have put the rest of the article on the forum, because other than proving that Lifson is an elitest swine, it proved that our president has a severe gambling problem and that it doesn't matter what has already been proven, he and other Bush-apologists will never admit the truth.

mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Oh my... The natives are restless! :lol:

Mike wrote:
Once again, a call from the fundamentalist fringe!

Once again, someone who has a simple-mided view of politics. I've discussed this before. Perhaps some time you should look up the definition of a libertarian. If you viewed political point of view from more than one dimension, you would see the error in your statement.
Mike wrote:
Give me a break Bill, are you honestly going to compare the presidency of Clinton and Bush?

Give me a break, Mike. You were the one who started this Bush-bashing thread over a well-known practice called Google Bombing. Apparently you've never seen it before. And apparently you can dish it out but... What did you expect, Mike?

I know how you and Gene and chewy think. Your views are pretty well known. I wouldn't be making comparisons with another second term president if I didn't see a little bit of symmetry here. Comparisons, after all, have been made before. And history shows that second term in the last century or so to be one fraught with "issues." (Bimbo eruptions, arms for hostages, etc., etc.)
Mike wrote:
But you are correct when you say that with Dubbya, what we see is what we get. And I'll tell you, that's not too impressive.

And once again, the sniping comments that come so freely from you and a few others contrast drastically with the facts. It only serves to point out that you hate Bush because he doesn't think the way you want him to think.

If a cat won't fetch, does that make it unintelligent? Quite the contrary... :wink:
Mike wrote:
At the very least, could we have a president who haves some mastery over the English language

Did you know that Einstein was dyslexic?

George the silver-tongued he is not. Does that make him unintellient?

Adolph Hitler was a master orator. Does that make him a great man?

Mike wrote:
You hate Clinton because he lied to the American Public about an affair that really is none of their collective business?

News flash - I voted for Clinton. TWICE!

I don't "hate" Clinton. And I'm glad Little Willie got to get out and play.

I do find it objectionable that he was banging interns in the oral... I mean oval office. Whose office is that, anyhow? Whose watch was he doing that on? And what was happening in Afghanistan when Clinton was wagging his finger at a television camera, saying he didn't have sex with "that woman."

And do you know what they call it when you lie to a grand jury under oath?

And do you know what the definition of "is" is?

SOCIOPATH!

Meanwhile, yes - Osama was planning 9/11. Oh it's all Bush's fault, eh? It happened on BUSH's watch, eh?

This was the first attack on the WTC, right? It wasn't???

Oops!!! :oops:

Don't you love history, Mike? :wink:
Mike wrote:
You don't put much faith in polls because this one doesn't fit your arguement that the majority of those polled have lost their faith in our president, and rightfully so.

No, Mike. I happened to have read my history, and know how down the nation was during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. I know all the nasty details of those eras, because it fascinates me.

History repeats itself.

I do fault Bush, Inc. for not knowing how to sell his vision.
Mike wrote:
I don't want a president who follows his convictions, that's like having a manager of a baseball team who constantly plays on "feeling". As the world's most superior military might, and strongest economic icon in the world, it would be nice if we based things on something a little more scientific. Being the scientist yourself, I'm kind of surprised at you for that belief.

Bush does not have a science degree; he has an MBA.

Are you familiar with Harvard case history training? Bush doesn't act on "feeling."
Mike wrote:
I think my poem is a little closer to the truth.

You are entitled to your political point of view. Different strokes...

However, you will rue the day when I come to you and say "Told you so!!" about Iraq. There will be major rueage, Mike!

By the way, don't you just love that Iraqi constitution vote? :wink:

Gene

Yes, the Ivy League is just an athletic conference. Are you familiar with what distinguishes the Ivy League from other athletic conferences, and why?

Just thought I'd ask.

Also... Check out the US News and World Report Ranking of MBA Programs. Look who is number 1?

But that's just a school in a jock conference, you know... ;)

Number 14 is a pretty good school as well. 8)

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
:lol:
You beat me to it!

Come on!!!!!!!! Are we going to have this discussion again?

p.s. They were both retards.

:[img][img]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/AAAhmed46/Chart.jpg[/img][/img]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Oh, the rhetoric .....

I certainly know what a Libertarian is, but one only has to read what you are writing Bill, to see how far to the right you lean. Call yourself what you will, but "a rose by any other name..."

Oh my... The natives are restless!

<Once again, someone who has a simple-mided view of politics. I've discussed this before. Perhaps some time you should look up the definition of a libertarian. If you viewed political point of view from more than one dimension, you would see the error in your statement. >

Since you brought it up, it's not my one-dimensional look on politics that's in question here. Libertarianism opposes all government action except that which is necessary to protect life and property. They recognize the necessity of government but believe that it should be as limited as possible. Do you wish to tell us which of George's policies, foreign or domestic fall into your realm of libertarianism?

<Give me a break, Mike. You were the one who started this Bush-bashing thread over a well-known practice called Google Bombing. Apparently you've never seen it before. And apparently you can dish it out but... What did you expect, Mike? >

I was just pointing out something funny. The fact that it was a Bush-bashing bombing doesn't make it mine; therefore, who carried it to Clinton bashing???? Dish out what?;-)

<I know how you and Gene and chewy think. Your views are pretty well known. I wouldn't be making comparisons with another second term president if I didn't see a little bit of symmetry here. Comparisons, after all, have been made before. And history shows that second term in the last century or so to be one fraught with "issues." (Bimbo eruptions, arms for hostages, etc., etc.) >

You're wrong here. It doesn't matter which term we are speaking about with any president. they are all fraught with "issues." Just read the history books.

<And once again, the sniping comments that come so freely from you and a few others contrast drastically with the facts. It only serves to point out that you hate Bush because he doesn't think the way you want him to think.>

I wonder sometimes where you live if you really think this. I hate Bush because he doesn't think the way I want hime to? How about I hate Bush becuase he has put us into a war that has no end in sight for oil (whether you wish to believe that or not), under false pretenses (just where are those WMD? Found any yet?); has glorified the death of almost 2000 young men and women; has ignored the the suffering of millions of Americans while he spends over 2 billion a week on this war; has personally destroyed the economic gain of the 1990s to add to the deficit; ignored the people during the worst natural disaster in US history; ignored the warning signs of numerous terrorists; hired incompetent people to run important agencies, etc., etc. How about I hate Bush because he hasn't done the job he was put into office to do.

<If a cat won't fetch, does that make it unintelligent? Quite the contrary...>

Just makes it a useless animal. :-)


<id you know that Einstein was dyslexic? >

Did Einstein run the most powerful country in the world?

<George the silver-tongued he is not. Does that make him unintellient? >

He is a symbol of our government. As a guy who promotes programs such as "No Children Left Behind," shouldn't we expect a leader who ACTS as the example? Maybe you don't, but I do.

<Adolph Hitler was a master orator. Does that make him a great man?>

In a way yes. His demagoguery swayed millions to the Nazi cause. By 1939, Hitler was a great man in the eyes of Germans and other Europeans.


<News flash - I voted for Clinton. TWICE! >

Oh, you must be kicking yourself! :-)

<I don't "hate" Clinton. And I'm glad Little Willie got to get out and play. >

Once again, what you say and how your posts come across are two different things I guess.

<I do find it objectionable that he was banging interns in the oral... I mean oval office. Whose office is that, anyhow? Whose watch was he doing that on? And what was happening in Afghanistan when Clinton was wagging his finger at a television camera, saying he didn't have sex with "that woman." >

This is where I find it interesting. You find Clinton objectionable for what he did at in the Oval office. Does that mean you wouldn't have a problem if he were banging Monica at Camp David or anywhere else or is it just the location that bothers you? Remember your icon Thomas Jefferson was out starting his own race of people on his watch, does that bother you? I bet you could probably count the presidents on one hand who didn't have something going own. Clinton happens to be the one that got caught and then have an extremely biased majority congress go on the witch hunt, which in the end proved nothing, except that money could be wasted (although the prosses was fun to watch).

<And do you know what they call it when you lie to a grand jury under oath? >

It's called perjury

<And do you know what the definition of "is" is? >

But it's such a great catch phrase now.

<SOCIOPATH! >

I'm sorry are you speaking of Bush or Clinton, I lost track.

<Meanwhile, yes - Osama was planning 9/11. Oh it's all Bush's fault, eh?>
Yep
<It happened on BUSH's watch, eh?> Yep

<This was the first attack on the WTC, right? It wasn't???> No, but it was worst terrorist attack in the history of the US. Did you see the tape? Were you sleeping through it all on 9/11? Bush was the president spin it anyway you wish.

<Don't you love history, Mike? >

Love it!


<No, Mike. I happened to have read my history, and know how down the nation was during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. I know all the nasty details of those eras, because it fascinates me. >

Where is the correllation? If you read the history as you say, in which of those conflicts did the presdent, Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt/Truman invade a sovereign nation under the lie that he was looking for weapons of mass destruction? It doesn't matter that people were down on their president during those periods for anything because the causes were pretty well justified.

<History repeats itself. >

Not in the examples you give, but if you mean that we were stupid enough as a country to elect two Bush's to the presidency, then I guess you are right.

<I do fault Bush, Inc. for not knowing how to sell his vision. >

You sure you want to go so far out on the limb?


<Bush does not have a science degree; he has an MBA. >

So that means he doesn't have to be analytical in his problem solving? I'll have to take a few business courses and see what I'm missing. Probably starts with "Feelings 101," followed by "Your Best Guess 102."

<Are you familiar with Harvard case history training? Bush doesn't act on "feeling.">

You'll have to show me what you base this on.

<You are entitled to your political point of view. Different strokes... >

That's very left of you. ;-)

<However, you will rue the day when I come to you and say "Told you so!!" about Iraq. There will be major rueage, Mike! >

That will be quite the day. I think I will owe you quite the dinner up here in the bastion of liberalism if this comes to pass, but I won't be holding my breath :-)

<By the way, don't you just love that Iraqi constitution vote? >

Keep this in mind that the vote didn't end the Shiite/Sunni hatred. All this did was ensure that US troops will have more duties upholding the new Iraqi constitution.

mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
From what I hear, Bush's actual business accomplishments, hard earned Harvard MBA or not, leave something to be desired, especially since he was as set-up to succeed as just about anyone. Meanwhile, watching him blunder his way through even a scripted, faux interaction with the troops in Iraq was almost painful. Actually, I almost felt bad for the guy. Does he somehow compensate poor Scott McClellan for having to defend this stupidity in front of the press?

Big question for Bill: when Bush proved that he was so much more on the terror game than Bill C by getting this information from the Saudis, when was that? In particular, it would be key to know if this was AFTER half of NYC was exploded by Saudis, or something he did first week on the job. Because... well, you get my drift.

If you'll excuse me, i need to go nominate a close friend who works at burger barn for the supreme court because I'm fond of his religion. He's never been a judge, but he'll pick it up fast :)

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Well, Mike, there isn't much I can do when you want to ignore the facts.

* One FACT being that Osama Bin Laden built al qaeda and planned for 9/11 on Clinton's watch.

* One FACT being that Osama Bin Laden and his merry men started the campaign to take out the WTC under Clinton's watch, and Clinton did not retaliate. 9/11 was the second try.

* One FACT being that Clinton was offered custody of Osama Bin Laden, and he didn't act on it.

Ask 3000 Americans who died on that day if they care, Mike. Obviously you'd rather ignore facts and bash your president because your man Kerry and his ambulance-chasing VP candidate got pasted. We tried to tell you who the better candidate was months back (back when I also told you that the Red Sox would win in 2004), but you wouldn't listen.

You and Danno must be tired of the same old dinner...

Image

As for ethics, perhaps you don't find a problem with lieing to a grand jury. By the way, TJ didn't lie to a grand jury. Perhaps you don't have a problem with banging your employees in your office while working for your employer. TJ didn't do this. He wasn't even married, and if you'll look at the latest evidence, it looks like his brother Randolph and not TJ was the father of the children you want to attribute to TJ. But still, he was a single man at the time. Slick Willie was not. He had his wife go on television accusing the Republicans of a vast right wing conspiracy.

You have no problem with that, Mike? You're willing to go to your employer right now and tell them you have no problem with this kind of behavior? You are willing to tell the parents of all your students that you have no problem with this kind of behavior?

Just wondering...

We've tried to show you the two dimensional political SPECTRUM, Mike. Instead, you want to carp left wing, right wing. You're no better than Rush Limbaugh. Sad...
Mike wrote:
I hate Bush becuase he has put us into a war that has no end in sight for oil

Check the UN record, Mike. Our country went to war because of thirteen U.N. security council violations by Saddam Hussein.
Mike wrote:
has glorified the death of almost 2000 young men and women

I certainly have no problem honoring their ultimate sacrifce, Mike. Do you?
Mike wrote:
has ignored the the suffering of millions of Americans while he spends over 2 billion a week on this war

Oh puulleeeeze, Mike. What do you want, a nanny state? I certainly don't. I don't care to have the federal government do for me what I can do for myself, and don't care to have it tax me when I have better use for my money.
Mike wrote:
has personally destroyed the economic gain of the 1990s

Joke, right? Clinton's "peace dividend", right?

That bought us a pair of planes in the WTC. And yes, Mike, that plan was hatched under Clinton's watch (as I explained above). If Clinton had taken care of business, we wouldn't have needed to go to war and waste all that "peace dividend."

Instead, he was too busy defending himself from his oral office business.

Mike wrote:
ignored the people during the worst natural disaster in US history

It was Bush who let all those evacuation buses get flooded, right? It was Bush who approved the faulty construction of the levees in NO, right? It was Bush who failed to mobilize the Louisiana national guard, right?

Meanwhile, Mississippi - ground zero for Katrina - did not have the problems they experienced in Louisianna, which only got a glancing blow. They went from zero power to full power in nine days.

But you can blame it all on the nanny government of your vision if you wish, Mike.

There's plenty of blame to go around for New Orleans. Bush is your scapegoat because Kerry lost, and you know it.
Mike wrote:
ignored the warning signs of numerous terrorists

Joke, right? This is the man you criticize for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, right?

This is funny, Mike!
Mike wrote:
hired incompetent people to run important agencies

It's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. What do you expect?

You're the guy who loves government, remember?
Mike wrote:
How about I hate Bush because he hasn't done the job he was put into office to do

If it means being your kind of president, Mike, well you're right. And thank God! :lol:
Mike wrote:
I'll have to take a few business courses and see what I'm missing.

Sure, Mike. But first you have to get into Harvard's MBA program. That should be no problem. After all, GW got in. ;)

Be nice to your president, Mike. He's our commander in chief. And one day your kids will be reading about his accomplishments in their history classes. ;)

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
This is the president who had nothing to do with 9/11, Mike.
Quote:
MR. RUSSERT: The former director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, his new book, "My FBI," after this station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back with the former director of the FBI, Louis Freeh.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. LOUIS FREEH: Morning, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Your new book, "My FBI," has created a lot of debate with some of the comments you've made about the investigation regarding Khobar Towers. Let me remind our viewers, Khobar Towers, June 25, 1996, tragic scene, 19 Americans killed when car bombers blew up a facility where American servicemen were staying.

On September 24, President Clinton met with then Crown Prince, now King Abdullah--there there are in the Rose Garden--and at that meeting, President Clinton insists that he asked the crown prince for cooperation in terms of the investigation you were conducting on who did Khobar Towers and why. And you write: "The story that came back to me from `usually reliable sources'"--in quotes--"as they say in Washington, was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he certainly understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library."

What a guy! I'm sure the Saudis love him!
Quote:
MR. FREEH: Look, the president's entitled to his denials. This is a president that makes public denials from time to time. We know that. Let me just give you what we would call corroborating evidence, which is what investigators and prosecutors talk about.

For over two years--over two years--I pressed the president, his national security advisor, to pursue one simple request with the crown prince. And the request was to get FBI agents into prison cells in Saudi Arabia, where three of the detainees who had actually performed the bombing--these are members of the Saudi Hezbollah, which is an agent of the Iranian government. An extraordinary request. FBI agents had never been in Saudi Arabia, Tim, let alone in a prison debriefing Saudi nationals. For two and a half years, we got no movement on that request. We would write the talking points for the president. The Saudis would tell us they didn't raise it. They didn't raise it seriously. And nothing happened for two and a half years.

Then on September 26, at my request, former President Bush, with the same set of talking points, met with the crown prince in the Saudi residence out in McLean, Virginia, and made the simple request. FBI agents need to get into that prison. President Bush called me after the meeting, and he said, "I think you'll be hearing from the Saudis." The following Tuesday at 1:00, myself, our ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler, and Dale Watson, the head of my counterterrorism division, who, by the way, will confirm the information about the source, were summoned out to the crown prince's residence. And the crown prince, referencing his meeting with President Bush, not with President Clinton, said, "I approve your request." Turned to his ambassador and said, "Direct my brother, the interior minister, to get the FBI agents in there." Within four weeks...

MR. RUSSERT: But...

MR. FREEH: ...excuse me, within eight weeks, FBI agents were in that prison.

MR. RUSSERT: But President Clinton met with the crown prince on the 24th. Vice President Gore met with him on the 24th. Former President Bush on the 26th. They all could have been effective in help bringing about that result.

MR. FREEH: Well, look, it's what we would call circumstantial evidence. I think it's very powerful circumstantial evidence. But there are a lot of other things going on here, too. What do you say about a president and a national security advisor who, for two and a half years while the Khobar investigation is going on, which the president tells the American people is a critical investigation, no stone will be left unturned. What do you say about a president who never asked me for a status on the case? They never asked me, "Louis, what's going on? Any progress by the FBI?" Absolutely no interest in the case.

When I finally came back to Sandy Berger and told him we now had evidence that the Iranian government had murdered 19 Americans--killed, wounded over 300, his first reaction was, "Who knows about this?" And his second reaction was "Well, that's hearsay." This was an administration that was not interested in finding out that the Iranian government had blowed up--had blown up Khobar Towers.

So you tell me who has blood on their hands here, Mike.

You tell me who ignored the actions of terrorist groups.

You tell me who was more interested in his country than his personal gains.

And I'm sure you will.

:sleeping:

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 1688
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Tell me who let prominent Saudi's the country in charter airplane flights after 9/11?

Gene


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I presume you meant let prominent Saudis OUT of the country after 9/11. That responsibility ultimately would rest with Bush et al.

It's a worthy topic, Gene, and I frankly don't know if the process was fair or right-minded. However it appears that - at the end of the day - no harm was done, and no post-9/11 commissions have found fault with their exits.

Can you imagine being a bin Laden (there are oodles of them) floating around this country after 9/11? The vast majority of them are upstanding citizens, albeit dirty, filthy rich. But wealth isn't a crime, except in socialist and communist countries. Osama was the black sheep, and his daddy's money has done much harm. But is it legally or ethically fair to hold any other family member hostage? That would reduce us to the level of al Zarqawi and his sociopathic whackos. Would it be fair to retain them as "persons of interest" when they weren't American citizens? That would be repeating many of the mistakes of WWII such as our treatment of the Japanese.

I'm not 100% happy with our relationship with the Saudis. The money corrupts, as I have implied above with Clinton.

That's why I feel so strongly about SUVs, Gene. But there are other strategies as well. If we can get the Saudis to pump as much oil as cheaply as possible and as soon as possible, IMO it will reduce our window of vulnerability. Once the money dries up, their influence (positive and negative) will wane. At least that's how the theory goes.

If you've got a good alternative energy idea, now's the time to speak up. Until then, the black gold can corrupt mightily and do much harm. And with the Indian and Chinese economies on fire, it's only going to get worse before it gets better. We've already seen after the fall of Saddam how his oil money corrupted many people in many nations. It's sad, no matter what perspective you view it from.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 1688
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Yes, I was to write: "Tell me who let prominent Saudi's flee the country in charter airplane flights after 9/11?" The keyboard that came with the computer leads a lot to be desired. Making more typos than before....

Quote:
Would it be fair to retain them as "persons of interest" when they weren't American citizens?


Yes. Treaty requirements aside, if it's fair that we can detain US citizens who refuse to testify to a grand jury, and if it's fair that we can label US citizens "persons of interest", if it's fair that we can detain US citizens on "material witness" warrants and if it's fair that we can detain US citizens indefinately and incommunicado as "enemy combatants" without access to counsel, then it's fair to be able to do so to non-US citizens as well. That's just me. The larger question is whether we ough to be able to do those this to US citizens. Maybe yes and maybe no.

Gene's energy policy? Nuclear power plants, massive banks of solar cells any- and everywhere they are practical, coal gassification, wind power off-shore (like the proposed Cape Wind) and put the tobacco growers to work growing corn (or whatever) for ethanol. Save petroleum for uses that truly need to be portable. That should help stretch it out longer. Stationary energy needs (like heating the home in the winter) willn eed to be met by stationary energy producers (read: electricity from power plants). That means no more natural gas pumped to peoples homes and no more home heating oil. Notice that my energy policy looks a bit like Bills. Lots and lots of upfront costs to be sure. But since you asked....

Gene


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Bill, your thesis here seems to be that Clinton failed to act on the terror warning signs and therefore is to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile Bush is to take credit for taking decisive action (in afghanistan, an eaasy decision where almost everyone agrees it was warranted, and in Iraq, where the connection to 9/11 was nil, and in this particular matter of getting FBI people into Saudi jails). I haven't seen this remarkable accusation fleshed out yet. For example:

Was there a clamor from anyone for decisive action during BC's term? For example, what was the republican party saying about foreign military campaigns or OBL? Was there a clamor for strikes after the first WTC attack that I missed? Was counterterrorism a part of Bush's election campaign that I napped through? In that show I recently watched on the events leading up to 9/11, a lot of islamofascists were making calls for jihad against America in full view of everyone, including at our convention centers, and few noticed, and the FBI, when notified, wasn't interested. It appears to me that AMERICA, not a single individual, ignored the warning signs.

Most importantly, what did Bush do about this threat before the actual strike occured? Did he take office, and spend about a week planning a counter strike, and then wipe out OBL's known camps or something? Did he... predict probable sites and methods of attack and notify the right people of how to respond and what to look out for? Wasn't there... some kind of a memo... mentioning an attack and commercial planes that got circulated in his administration shortly before the attacks?? And what was done about that?

Hindsight is 20/20... the look on everyone's face that I saw on 9/11/01 was shock, from coworkers to new yorkers to the mirror to Bush's, sitting there reading to children. Which is why I don't fault Clinton, or Bush, for not foreseeing all the bad that could have occured. I mean, Clinton sure missed a lot of signals... and Bush... well, what did he predict? That Saddam had WMD. That we would be welcomed as liberators. That Iraqis could take over their own defense quickly. That major conflict had ended--that we were in a conventional war and the territory had been controlled. Somehow, you look at thise record (a decisive man of action in a time when decisive action was virtually the only possible response to a shocking attack on our soil, with limited success at difficult predictions) and conclude he would've stopped 9/11 from happening??? Wha?

There are a lot of f' ups to go around, and a LOT of individuals could have done better. I find it rather absurd to lay 9/11 at Clinton's feet.

Also: the thing on the FBI in Saudi jails... let's be clear that was FORMER president Bush--you know, the guy from gulf war 1, and the oil buddies from house of bush, house of saud? Should we be surprised he had influence?

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
A few tidbits about Clinton and counterterrorism:

"A month before clinton left office, his administration was praised by two former Reagan counterterrorism officials. "Overall I give them very high marks," [said] robert oakley, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism (snip). "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger." (snip). Oakley's successor .... Paul Bremer [said] the Clinton administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden."

taking things back a little farther:

"reagans antiterror record was a disaster.... islamic terrorists killed more americans during his administration than during any before, and more than would die under bush sr and clinton combined. between the 1983 embassyand marine barracks bombing in beirut and the destruction of pan am flight 103, nearly 500 americans llives were lost. Reagan's only direct response was a single bombing run against libya in 1986.... [he then supplied] arms to violent muslim extremists among the afghani mujahedeen, as well as to his friends in iran and iraq."

The author goes on to remind us that while some (bill?) wold blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks that followed BC's term, no one has implicated republican policy in the original WTC attack even though it followed Bush Sr's term.

He cites 11 thwarted terrorist attacks during the Clinton terms... and the efforts he made to fight terror:
--doubling the coutnerterrorism budget
--creating a national post to coordinate federal counterterrorism
--encouraged foreign leaders to step up their efforts
--stockpiled small pox vaccine
--ran simulations to improve disaster response

From a 4 part series in the Washington Post: "by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him... the first administration to undertake a systematic antiterrorist effort."

"immediately after the embassy bombings, clinton issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of OBL... [after the 10/12/00 Cole attack] he put richard clarke, the legendary bulldog whom he had appointed as the first national antiterrorism coordinator, in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out al qaeda.... clarke produced a strategy paper that he presented to sandy berger and other national security principals on 12/20/00. The plan was: ... break up al qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities, freeze its assets, stop its funding through fake charities, give aid to governments having trouble with AQ, .... scale up covert action in afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach OBL himself. Clarke proposed bulking up support for the northen alliance and putting special forces on the ground in afghanistan. as a sentio bush administration official told TIME, clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

10 meetings were then arranged between clinton administration officials and Condi Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadly. Berger told Dr. Rice, "I believe that the bush administraation will spend more time on terrorism in general and on AQ specifically, than any other subject."

Here's the Bush Administration's early work in counter terrorism:

By 2/15/01 a national security commission had warned that a "mass casualty terrorism directed against the US homeland was of serious and growing concern" and suggested the creation of a homeland security agency.

Clarke and CIA director George Tenet continued to repeat their warnings... on 4/30 Clarke's plan was reviewed and 4 meetings were scheduled to further consider it.... 7/10/01 was when the FBI agent from AZ warned of middle eastern students at a flight school... "on 8/6/01 Tenet delivered a report to Bush entitled, "BL determined to strike in US." the report warned that AQ might be planning to hijack airplanes. .... on 8/16 the INS arrested Z. Moussaoui .... the arresting agent wrote [he] seemed like "the kind of person who could fly something into the WTC." On 9/10/01 acting FBI director TJ Pickard's request for 58 million from the justice dept to assist with dealing with foreign terror threats was turned down by John Ashcroft.

Excerpted from Al Franken's "Lies." An aside: yes, we all know Al Franken is a total hack and is totally full of it. Except, his books have not been found to contain any errors, so we should focus on the content and not the author (I've deleted all his humor). So my point here is not to say that Clinton was specially gifted with counter terrorism or that the Bush administration systematically did nothing before 9/11; again, hindsight is 20/20. My point is that blaming the Clinton administration is completely wacky and there is no great evidence that Bush saw 9/11 coming or did anything unusual to stop it, either.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: You know me so well?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:37 pm
Posts: 237
Bill Glasheen wrote:
I know how you and Gene and chewy think. Your views are pretty well known.


Really? You are a quick learn Bill. What is my basic political philosophy? Particularly I would love to hear where I stand on:

- Abortion
- Civil Rights
- Gun Ownership
- Capital Punishment
- Military Spending and Use of Force
- Cronyism
- Social Security
- Public Health Care


Let me know.

cheers

chewy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
<Well, Mike, there isn't much I can do when you want to ignore the facts. >

Ignore the facts???? Do you even read some of the stuff before commenting or do you just spit out the same dribble? THE fact that is certain that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Do you wish to deny that? I suggest you ask any Middle School student to ask them who was president during 9/11 and they'll tell you. But because you wish to continue to be a Bush apologist and stick your head in the sand, doens't change THIS fact. Who cares when he planned it. Maybe OBL planned it back in the 60s or 70s and it just came together under Clinton's regime. Once again, who cares? When did he carry it out? Under GEORGE W! Spin it any way you want Bill.


<Ask 3000 Americans who died on that day if they care, Mike. Obviously you'd rather ignore facts and bash your president because your man Kerry and his ambulance-chasing VP candidate got pasted. We tried to tell you who the better candidate was months back (back when I also told you that the Red Sox would win in 2004), but you wouldn't listen. >

At least my man Kerry, as you put it, wasn't the guy who ignored all the signs and let it happen. I suppose if those 3000 Americans who died knew what Bush knew, maybe they wouldn't have gone to work that day too? Who knows.


<You and Danno must be tired of the same old dinner... > Not yet


<As for ethics, perhaps you don't find a problem with lieing to a grand jury. By the way, TJ didn't lie to a grand jury. Perhaps you don't have a problem with banging your employees in your office while working for your employer. TJ didn't do this. He wasn't even married, and if you'll look at the latest evidence, it looks like his brother Randolph and not TJ was the father of the children you want to attribute to TJ. But still, he was a single man at the time. Slick Willie was not. He had his wife go on television accusing the Republicans of a vast right wing conspiracy. >

I find problems with lying to anyone anywhere. I don't separate lying to a Grand Jury or looking in the camera to the American Public saying things like we are there because of WMD, oh, but now where there to Nation Build since we didn't find the WMD. Either way you dress in up, it's lying. And you are right, TJ didn't lie to Grand Juries, but as for HIS discretion... Right now the evidence is that TJ is the man. So what if he were married, he took advantage of people who had no say in what happened to them. Do you need a lesson in American slavery? What was the slave to say?. "No thank you masser Jefferson, I've got a headache." He's no better than a pedaphile in my book, regardless of his politics.

<You have no problem with that, Mike? You're willing to go to your employer right now and tell them you have no problem with this kind of behavior? You are willing to tell the parents of all your students that you have no problem with this kind of behavior? >

Once again, I don't vote for a president for his moral convictions, but to lead the nation. BTW, this discretion of BC was technically done in his home, so your comparison to me and my work or you at yours is moot. I would say to the parents of my students that BC did wrong to lie to the grand jury, but that it is not up to me to make judgment on a guys marriage. Maybe if more people took that approach we wouldn't be so ass backwards in the political world and vote in people for their political experience.


<We've tried to show you the two dimensional political SPECTRUM, Mike. Instead, you want to carp left wing, right wing. You're no better than Rush Limbaugh. Sad... >

And you, I guess are the voice of reason sitting in the wonderful world of the moderates. It doens't come out that way.


<Check the UN record, Mike. Our country went to war because of thirteen U.N. security council violations by Saddam Hussein. >

And check it out yourself and see that the UN DIDN'T go to war, the US did.


<I certainly have no problem honoring their ultimate sacrifce, Mike. Do you? >

It sounds so patriotic doesn't it? No, I honor those who died because they were doing their job, obeying their commander-in-chief regardless of how wrong he is, and continues to be. But I feel more sorry for them and their families. How about you Bill?

<Oh puulleeeeze, Mike. What do you want, a nanny state? I certainly don't. I don't care to have the federal government do for me what I can do for myself, and don't care to have it tax me when I have better use for my money. >

I think that's the real issue, you don't care enough to question how your taxes are spent. Just open up and shove it in because the president says so.

<Joke, right? Clinton's "peace dividend", right? >

Nope, just lookat the deficit numbers.

<That bought us a pair of planes in the WTC. And yes, Mike, that plan was hatched under Clinton's watch (as I explained above). If Clinton had taken care of business, we wouldn't have needed to go to war and waste all that "peace dividend." >

No Bill, terrorists walked over the border under W's watch and bought tickets under W's watch and crashed them into the three buildings. Get the facts straight.

<It was Bush who let all those evacuation buses get flooded, right? It was Bush who approved the faulty construction of the levees in NO, right? It was Bush who failed to mobilize the Louisiana national guard, right? >

It was Bush who hired the head of FEMA, right?, It was Bush who reacted with a case of the slows, right?

<There's plenty of blame to go around for New Orleans. Bush is your scapegoat because Kerry lost, and you know it. >

HAHAHAHA, yeah you hit it right on the head, give me a break!

<It's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. What do you expect? >

Oh, I dunno, maybe a little professionalism and experience.

<You're the guy who loves government, remember? >

Wait a minute, YOU love this government. I'll wait for 2008.



<Sure, Mike. But first you have to get into Harvard's MBA program. That should be no problem. After all, GW got in. >

I have the grades, but not the money.

<Be nice to your president, Mike. He's our commander in chief. And one day your kids will be reading about his accomplishments in their history classes. >

That ought to take as much space as James Buchanan bio in any High School History Book.


mike


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group