Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 07:59:44 PM

Title: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 07:59:44 PM
well...did clinton lie to his wife or did he lie to the american people?

that smokescreen was bought to u by the people who are in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal."
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: lawstudent3 on November 01, 2005, 08:06:33 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 08:55:35 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 01, 2005, 08:59:01 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Paikea on November 01, 2005, 09:19:17 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?



Well, with Bush's approval ratings sitting at the bottom of the ocean, the republicans are pretty much shaking in their boots with the 2006 elections coming up.  you can pretty much bet that when the Dems take control of Congress, Bush will be walking the impeachment plank.  And now with Libby being indicted with future trials coming up, along with Delay's trial, the Hariet Meirs debacle, Cheney most likely to be investigated, no solution to Iraq anywhere in sight etc, it doesn't look too good for the neocons.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 01, 2005, 09:24:24 PM
i'm starting to think bw is a very brilliant form of troll.

he's performance art!
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 09:48:52 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?



Well, with Bush's approval ratings sitting at the bottom of the ocean, the republicans are pretty much shaking in their boots with the 2006 elections coming up.  you can pretty much bet that when the Dems take control of Congress, Bush will be walking the impeachment plank.  And now with Libby being indicted with future trials coming up, along with Delay's trial, the Hariet Meirs debacle, Cheney most likely to be investigated, no solution to Iraq anywhere in sight etc, it doesn't look too good for the neocons.

well the approval ratings don't really mean anything until after the president is out of office...it is a facet of corporate media trying to keep a score...

if you really want to keep a small score...follow the market...

aye don't think the republican machine is shaking...not when the one guy we can all agree is a bit of a "slim customer" himself  ;D(after the deposed "former president of iraq"...of course)...just got the presiding judge over his criminal trial removed. ;)

aye like the label, "grass-roots conservative." to describe my staunchly conservative friends...they are a little misguided...a little too stuck in their ways...but they will manage to get their 2 judges into the supreme court.

and aye think it is the "barbara boxer types" who are shaking in their boots.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: DodgerLaw on November 01, 2005, 10:00:01 PM
You lefties are cracking me up.

Caveat: I remain deeply disappointed in Bush's Katrina response.

The Mier's debacle is working out just fine.

In case you didn't notice -- and why would you since the media has buried its collective head in the sand about it -- Iraq has now had a succesful election of representatives, a succesful constitutional convention, and a succesful election to adopt that constitution.

The Plamegate thing, while no beauty, has not been anything like what Dems hoped for. Sorry.

Everybody says last week was Bush's worst week. Maybe so. If so, it really wasn't all that bad.

Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Paikea on November 01, 2005, 10:02:36 PM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 10:04:17 PM
i'm starting to think bw is a very brilliant form of troll.

he's performance art!

just say no to:

michael moore...barbara boxer..."overly liberal pussies"...aye mean..."overtly liberal donkees"..."fundamental conservative elephants"...fundamental islamic "crescenting" clerics..."global crescenting guerrillas"..."crescenting fundraisers"...and those jealous of the new york yankees.

...for performance art against performance torts.

Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Paikea on November 01, 2005, 10:17:40 PM
You lefties are cracking me up.

Caveat: I remain deeply disappointed in Bush's Katrina response.

The Mier's debacle is working out just fine.

In case you didn't notice -- and why would you since the media has buried its collective head in the sand about it -- Iraq has now had a succesful election of representatives, a succesful constitutional convention, and a succesful election to adopt that constitution.

The Plamegate thing, while no beauty, has not been anything like what Dems hoped for. Sorry.

Everybody says last week was Bush's worst week. Maybe so. If so, it really wasn't all that bad.




The Miers debacle is working out just fine?  Hmmm.  Something seems quite amiss by that statement.  Total backlash by your own party is never fine.

Also, there is nothing "successful" going on in Iraq.  Let's not be naive.  A piece of paper cannot overcome the massive bloodshed that is happening, as well as the civil war that is soon to unfold.  Throw in the fact that there is now an Al Queida network in Iraq, alone, that is larger than the entire pre 9-11 Al Queida network that was world wide.

And yeah, Plamegate hasn't unfolded like the Dems wanted it too. lol.  The Dems have seen this coming for two years.  Libby out, Rove on his way out, Cheney to be investigated (or probably already is).  The beauty of it all is that Rove is still being investigated.  The worst thing that could have happened was that Libby and Rove would have been ousted right now.  That would have given the neocons ample to wash their hands of it and recover.  But now, Rove's indictment will happen closer to the 2006 elections, which is exactly what the Dems want.  The best thing as far as the left is concerned is to have this mess toil in the wind that much longer.

Sorry to say, but it's pretty bleak right now for the neocons. 
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 01, 2005, 10:27:57 PM
You lefties are cracking me up.

Caveat: I remain deeply disappointed in Bush's Katrina response.

The Mier's debacle is working out just fine.

In case you didn't notice -- and why would you since the media has buried its collective head in the sand about it -- Iraq has now had a succesful election of representatives, a succesful constitutional convention, and a succesful election to adopt that constitution.

The Plamegate thing, while no beauty, has not been anything like what Dems hoped for. Sorry.

Everybody says last week was Bush's worst week. Maybe so. If so, it really wasn't all that bad.



All Meirs proves is that Bush only knows to appoint cronies. See Brownie for confirmation.

How do you compare the Katrina response and the Iraq post-war planning?  Same people, same debacle.

Hurray, Iraq has a constitution! Now everythign will be great, and the US can pull out AND the insurgents will stop insurging, AND ALL Iraqis will live in peace and harmony.  NOTE: It is hard NOT to pass a constitution if 2/3s have to vote against it to defeat it.

Plamegate will cement Bush as the WORST Pres in the history of the US and is emblematic of everything that is wrong with this administration.

BTW, Donald Rumsfeld knows EXACTLY where the WMD are: North South East and West of Badhdad!

 :D :D :D
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: DodgerLaw on November 01, 2005, 10:35:42 PM
You lefties are cracking me up.

Caveat: I remain deeply disappointed in Bush's Katrina response.

The Mier's debacle is working out just fine.

In case you didn't notice -- and why would you since the media has buried its collective head in the sand about it -- Iraq has now had a succesful election of representatives, a succesful constitutional convention, and a succesful election to adopt that constitution.

The Plamegate thing, while no beauty, has not been anything like what Dems hoped for. Sorry.

Everybody says last week was Bush's worst week. Maybe so. If so, it really wasn't all that bad.




The Miers debacle is working out just fine?  Hmmm.  Something seems quite amiss by that statement.  Total backlash by your own party is never fine. It's worked out fine. We'll end up with Sam Alito instead of Miers, clearly much better for the Right.

Also, there is nothing "successful" going on in Iraq.  Let's not be naive.  A piece of paper cannot overcome the massive bloodshed that is happening, as well as the civil war that is soon to unfold.  Throw in the fact that there is now an Al Queida network in Iraq, alone, that is larger than the entire pre 9-11 Al Queida network that was world wide. Maybe not you personally, but most on the Left said these things, a constitution and an election would never happen. Not unlike those who thought that we should appease the Soviet Union, these people are proven wrong again.

And yeah, Plamegate hasn't unfolded like the Dems wanted it too. lol.  The Dems have seen this coming for two years.  Libby out, Rove on his way out, Cheney to be investigated (or probably already is).  The beauty of it all is that Rove is still being investigated.  The worst thing that could have happened was that Libby and Rove would have been ousted right now.  That would have given the neocons ample to wash their hands of it and recover.  But now, Rove's indictment will happen closer to the 2006 elections, which is exactly what the Dems want.  The best thing as far as the left is concerned is to have this mess toil in the wind that much longer.Yes. Good strategy. When things don't pan out the way you hope. Just make up a new hope.  ::) ::) ::)



Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: DodgerLaw on November 01, 2005, 10:40:32 PM

Hurray, Iraq has a constitution! Now everythign will be great, and the US can pull out AND the insurgents will stop insurging, AND ALL Iraqis will live in peace and harmony.  NOTE: It is hard NOT to pass a constitution if 2/3s have to vote against it to defeat it.


Overall, 78.59 percent of voters approved the document, the Independent Electoral Commission said.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 11:04:15 PM
You lefties are cracking me up.

Caveat: I remain deeply disappointed in Bush's Katrina response.

The Mier's debacle is working out just fine.

In case you didn't notice -- and why would you since the media has buried its collective head in the sand about it -- Iraq has now had a succesful election of representatives, a succesful constitutional convention, and a succesful election to adopt that constitution.

The Plamegate thing, while no beauty, has not been anything like what Dems hoped for. Sorry.

Everybody says last week was Bush's worst week. Maybe so. If so, it really wasn't all that bad.



All Meirs proves is that Bush only knows to appoint cronies. See Brownie for confirmation.

How do you compare the Katrina response and the Iraq post-war planning?  Same people, same debacle.

Hurray, Iraq has a constitution! Now everythign will be great, and the US can pull out AND the insurgents will stop insurging, AND ALL Iraqis will live in peace and harmony.  NOTE: It is hard NOT to pass a constitution if 2/3s have to vote against it to defeat it.

Plamegate will cement Bush as the WORST Pres in the history of the US and is emblematic of everything that is wrong with this administration.

BTW, Donald Rumsfeld knows EXACTLY where the WMD are: North South East and West of Badhdad!

 :D :D :D

this is where we differ...aye do not buy the hype...of either party...and polls and approval ratings and grandiose speeches and statements of politicians.

aye do believe that hussein and regime and his sons should have been demonstratively removed from iraq...once hussein invaded quwait...

Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 11:15:18 PM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...


"grass-roots conservatives"...don't give a rats ass in hell about the soon to be scarce...boxer.

boxer is shaking because she is powerless to stop the conservative judges going to preside over the supreme court...

delay...is a separate issue and "guilty until proven innocent"...that may help him slide out of this one, as well...he really had to go...and he is gone.

bush approval rating is "bwackwards" (aye like that new word)... "bunk" and "bull"...even if the approval rating were 80% in his favor...aye would not buy it...that is a load of corporate media zshite.

my head has been measuring the situation by what is happening on wall street...
my resolve sees the dems "swirling" and the water pretty still in the republican camp.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Paikea on November 01, 2005, 11:29:23 PM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...



"grass-roots conservatives"...don't give a rats ass in hell about the soon to be scarce...boxer.

boxer is shaking because she is powerless to stop the conservative judges going to preside over the supreme court...

delay...is a separate issue and "guilty until proven innocent"...that may help him slide out of this one, as well...he really had to go...and he is gone.

bush approval rating is "bwackwards" (aye like that new word)... "bunk" and "bull"...even if the approval rating were 80% in his favor...aye would not buy it...that is a load of corporate media darn.

my head has been measuring the situation by what is happening on wall street...
my resolve sees the dems "swirling" and the water pretty still in the republican camp.






The only thing that was swirling were the thousands of poor african americans left for dead by the administration down in New Orleans.  That atrocity pretty much sank the neocons within the african american community.

And instead of watching wall street (which really is pretty stagnant)you should keep your eyes on gas and heating.  This is what is killing the neocons domestically.  Unless they can do something about these, they are going to suffer more than they know.

And Boxer doesn't have to stop Bush's nominees.  The republican party is doing a pretty good at it themselves.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 11:50:22 PM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...



"grass-roots conservatives"...don't give a rats ass in hell about the soon to be scarce...boxer.

boxer is shaking because she is powerless to stop the conservative judges going to preside over the supreme court...

delay...is a separate issue and "guilty until proven innocent"...that may help him slide out of this one, as well...he really had to go...and he is gone.

bush approval rating is "bwackwards" (aye like that new word)... "bunk" and "bull"...even if the approval rating were 80% in his favor...aye would not buy it...that is a load of corporate media darn.

my head has been measuring the situation by what is happening on wall street...
my resolve sees the dems "swirling" and the water pretty still in the republican camp.






The only thing that was swirling were the thousands of poor african americans left for dead by the administration down in New Orleans.  That atrocity pretty much sank the neocons within the african american community.

And instead of watching wall street (which really is pretty stagnant)you should keep your eyes on gas and heating.  This is what is killing the neocons domestically.  Unless they can do something about these, they are going to suffer more than they know.

And Boxer doesn't have to stop Bush's nominees.  The republican party is doing a pretty good at it themselves.

the "grass-roots conservatives" will have added 2 brand new justices.

boxer has been side stepped...that is good...that helps this independent.
aye don't care about what the "grass-roots conservatives" think or how they do it...as long as their efforts thwart the efforts of barbara boxer...


ah...a hurricane sunk new orleans residents...the city and state government failed new orleans primarily...the bush administration called the state of louisiana a "disaster area" before the hurricane even touched down...pre-emptively, one might suggest. don't think the "grass-roots conservatives" had anything to do with that one...

republicans do not even need african american vote to win offices...that pissses me off...but the democrats pretense that they automatically get the african american vote REALLY pissses me off.

my eye on wall street has to do with the price of oil and gas...with the vote on the constitution in iraq...the market is status quo...and looks promising!


Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 02, 2005, 03:56:10 AM
i'm starting to think bw is a very brilliant form of troll.

he's performance art!

no, he electric blender with eyes.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 02, 2005, 07:00:58 AM
As far as Katrina, imagine what the POTUS' response would been if the hurricane was going to touch down in a rish neighborhood?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: _BP_ on November 02, 2005, 07:06:17 AM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...



"grass-roots conservatives"...don't give a rats ass in hell about the soon to be scarce...boxer.

boxer is shaking because she is powerless to stop the conservative judges going to preside over the supreme court...

delay...is a separate issue and "guilty until proven innocent"...that may help him slide out of this one, as well...he really had to go...and he is gone.

bush approval rating is "bwackwards" (aye like that new word)... "bunk" and "bull"...even if the approval rating were 80% in his favor...aye would not buy it...that is a load of corporate media darn.

my head has been measuring the situation by what is happening on wall street...
my resolve sees the dems "swirling" and the water pretty still in the republican camp.






The only thing that was swirling were the thousands of poor african americans left for dead by the administration down in New Orleans.  That atrocity pretty much sank the neocons within the african american community.

And instead of watching wall street (which really is pretty stagnant)you should keep your eyes on gas and heating.  This is what is killing the neocons domestically.  Unless they can do something about these, they are going to suffer more than they know.

And Boxer doesn't have to stop Bush's nominees.  The republican party is doing a pretty good at it themselves.

Who is this Paikea person? Great posts!
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: _BP_ on November 02, 2005, 07:22:02 AM
USA or USSR?

Report: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons
NEW YORK (AP) -- The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement, the Washington Post reported.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the paper said Tuesday.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism, the Post said.

It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country, it said.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.

Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites.

To do so, officials familiar with the program told the Post, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.

Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post said it is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.

They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission, the Post said.


Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 02, 2005, 09:31:14 AM
you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Paikea on November 02, 2005, 10:42:58 AM
grass-roots conservatives


lmao...I was actually listening to neocon talk radio the other day just to see what type of hate and lies were being spewed that week.  There were all these callers who were saying that they were no longer "Rebublicans" but "grass roots conservatives." 

Looks like the neocons have found a new catch phrase to distance themselves from the sinking ship known as the Republican Party.

I'm sure in the coming weeks Scott McClellan will be using the same terminololy.

   
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 02, 2005, 12:05:27 PM
not to mention "recently unemployed."
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 03, 2005, 12:20:30 AM
you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!

on the contrary...it be the same shite coming out of the left side of the ass rather than the right side of the elephant.

just reminding you of the former republican smokescreen...ken starr
now we merely have the democratic smokescreen...fitzgerald

"doubizzle doubizzle tizzle and trizzle, mon...
bush unburned...democrats bububzzle"

aye can't subscribe to the whole conservative zshite...but aye think it is funny to see people like janine garafalo get their feathers ruffled when they hear..."grassroots conservative" its like a "biatch slap".
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 03, 2005, 12:30:27 AM
USA or USSR?

Report: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons
NEW YORK (AP) -- The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement, the Washington Post reported.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the paper said Tuesday.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism, the Post said.

It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country, it said.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.

Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites.

To do so, officials familiar with the program told the Post, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.

Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post said it is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.

They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission, the Post said.




the washington post will go to great extents to pound home the treatment of prisoners as their mantra...with newsweek adding the color photography.

and aye thought that the prisoners in northern china had it bad...the washington post should just do an exclusive expose on world prisons...aye might read that.

speaking of the cia creating "safety-houses" (internment network) and "clandestine prisons" (covert prison systems)...

when is the washington post's article about clinton, bush and "new member", cheney being members in the "illuminati" coming out.

Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 07, 2005, 07:05:53 PM
iran-contra affair...that was an excellent smokescreen scandal...

remember good old ronny reagan?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 08, 2005, 01:20:19 PM
come on people...how many times has the congress been duped...by a cowboy.
were they even duped by a cowboy? that was primarily a democrat-load of beurocratic bull then.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 17, 2005, 02:23:20 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?



Well, with Bush's approval ratings sitting at the bottom of the ocean, the republicans are pretty much shaking in their boots with the 2006 elections coming up.  you can pretty much bet that when the Dems take control of Congress, Bush will be walking the impeachment plank.  And now with Libby being indicted with future trials coming up, along with Delay's trial, the Hariet Meirs debacle, Cheney most likely to be investigated, no solution to Iraq anywhere in sight etc, it doesn't look too good for the neocons.

I saw this as early as 2004, when the Dems lost. They are bent on destroying the Bush presidency, so much so that it's now mirroring the Republicans' hatred for Clinton.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 17, 2005, 02:26:49 PM
you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!

And you know that left-wing extremists are in trouble when they bring up dead issues, like how we got into the war in Iraq. That's when you know they're out of ideas.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 17, 2005, 02:47:55 PM
USA or USSR?

Report: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons
NEW YORK (AP) -- The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement, the Washington Post reported.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the paper said Tuesday.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism, the Post said.

It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country, it said.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.

Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites.

To do so, officials familiar with the program told the Post, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.

Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post said it is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.

They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission, the Post said.



Your comaprison with the USSR is ridiculous, unless you are including the fact the government is restricting freedom of religious (esp. Christian) expression.


I'm not surprised, actually I am heartened that we are actually dealing with terrorists the way they should be dealt with: brute force. They are not a bunch of misguided people that would declare their love for America and Israel in a heartbeat. They are hardened Islamists, that's why they are either fighting directly or plotting to kill Americans. This should not be forgotten.

I'm also happy with the fact that the CIA is finally doing something to aid in the war against Islamic terrorism. As far as I'm concerned the agency can do whatever it wants with them. Islamic terrorist do not recognize the Geneva Convention, and they act as civilians intentionally to defy it. If we are talikng about soldiers of another country, then it's a different story. But the Islamic terrorists owe their allegiance to no nation, only to the "coming Islamic Caliphate".

I'm not surprised that the media would bring this out. They want us to adopt the Reno model where we bring them to trial, and our legal system gets tied up, while terrorists send coded messages and more Americans die. They complained when we detained terrorists in Afghanistan (the supposed "good war" in the eyes of liberals). They complained when we sent them to other countries putting them under their responsibility, saying that we should retain custody of such dangerous people. Now, they complain when we have prisons in other countries. There's no pleasing such a set of people.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 17, 2005, 02:55:23 PM
Look at the way the gov't treated John Walker.  He was an American and was tortured even though he never fired a shot at US forces and had nothign to do with Al-Qaeda.  Months before 9-11, he joined the Taliban (a bad organization) to fight the Northern Alliance (a much worse organization), not to fight against the US.

Isnt the fact that we dont torture part of what makes us the good guys, what elevates our global image?  What ever happened to no cruel or unusual punishment.

If we want to win this, we need to take th moral high ground.  The next thing you will be saying is that they should be allowed to rape the females that they capture.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 17, 2005, 06:16:46 PM
No, what makes us the good guys is that we don't send planes into office buildings during rush hour, knowing that many people are there. What makes us the good guys is that we dont plan the wole scale slaughter of a people just to advance a religion. What makes us the good guys is that we actually respect the rights of women and children, even those of the jihadis that are caught fighting against us.

As for raping women, ewww, get your mind out of the gutter. The problem is that we by default have the moral high ground because the object of terrorism is kill civilians and scare others into submission. We are not out to kill civillians (if we did, we'd never get support for a military action again).

As for John Walker Lindh, he was caught on the battlefield, fighting Americans. He was an American, fighting against American troops. Even if he did not intend on killing Americans initially, that still doesn't remove that fact. He was fighting his own country. That carries the death penalty (in military and civilian courts) in the United States. He should have been tried and executed.

I agree that the Northern Allaiance was a rotten grouping of anti-Taliban elements, but what alternative did we have? Direct invasion and occupation not an option because of the Soviet experience. But the Taliban was also a group of warring factions that were only unified by their leaders paying allegiance to Islamic fundamentalism. Even the "elimination" of heroin under the Taliban was at best, modest. The Taliban went after those drug growers who were against Taliban rule; there were many so it seemed like a total crackdown. But the Taliban looked the other way when it came to growers that supported their cause.

But, even the worst of the Northern Alliance could not compare with the Taliban. Women were forced to drop out of school once they reached puberty. Even in Saudi Arabia (where women can not drive) women are allowed to go to school up to the university level. The Taliban blew up the Baimiyan statues after international outcry, despite admonitions to the contrary even from Iran and Pakistan. The Taliban even made Hindus wear a special patch replicating the Star of David patch that the Nazis made Jews wear. The fact that you state that the Northern Allaiance was worse than the Taliban (which implies that the Taliban was better than the Northern Alliance) is astounding.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 17, 2005, 06:34:31 PM

As for John Walker Lindh, he was caught on the battlefield, fighting Americans. He was an American, fighting against American troops. Even if he did not intend on killing Americans initially, that still doesn't remove that fact. He was fighting his own country. That carries the death penalty (in military and civilian courts) in the United States. He should have been tried and executed.



Wrong.  JWL never fought Americans. JWL was fighting with a taliban group that was trying to escape to Iran and made a deal with a warlord in Afghanistan to transport them to the border. Instead, JWL and his group was taken to prison.  JWL never fired a shot at an American.
In prison, the NA tortured and committed war crimes against JWL and his group who decided that their best bet was to rise up against the NA and try and take the weapons cache located nearby.  The NA were known for their war crimes and attrocities and for always executing all prisoners.  It just so happens that while JWL was being interrogated by the CIA, the uprising began and someone shot one of the CIA officers.  JWL had his hands tied beind his back the whole time and didnt know that the men were CIA, but the gov't tried to pin the murder on him. 
After the uprising began, the US intervened with troops and it was discovered the JWL was an American.  JWL was tortured without cause or reason.

Is that your idea of justice?

JWL was araigned for fighting with the enemy and the judge scheduled the first day of trial for the aniversary of 9-11.  Even though the US had no legitimate case, ie, JWL did not have the requisite mens rea for the crime, it still brought the charges against him.  Ask yourself, if the US had a case, why didnt they try the case and seek the death penalty?

The only reason JWL settled the case was becasue he could not get a fair trial in the US because the media had already convicted him of treason WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS.  Sound familiar?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 17, 2005, 07:48:11 PM
I have my facts right, John Walker Lindh was trying leave to Iran not because he didn't wan't to hurt Americans. He was trying to avoid capture by Americans soldiers.

The fact that he was trying escape to Iran is interesting. That he didn't escape to Pakistan, where most who were trying to escape initially went.

He knew he was guilty of treason; his running to Iran was because it would have ensured that he would not be captured. Most peole who weren't afraid to die in the Taliban either stayed put, or went to Pakistan. Whether he was involved in the murder of the CIA officer interrogating him is out of the question. He was in Afghanistan, fighting for the Taliban. The Taliban was fighting against the United States. He did not give the Americans or their allies any assistance that would have exonerated him for joining such a dispicable group. If you are fighting for a group that is fighting against the United States, and you are an American, you are guilty of treason.

I never said that the Norther Alliance was a group of savory characters; and you're right in stating that they were guilty of many atrocities. But in your claims, you don't eve try to even acknowledge what the Taliban did. Are you still making then claim that the Taliban was better than the Northern Alliance?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 17, 2005, 08:10:42 PM
I have my facts right, John Walker Lindh was trying leave to Iran not because he didn't wan't to hurt Americans. He was trying to avoid capture by Americans soldiers.

The fact that he was trying escape to Iran is interesting. That he didn't escape to Pakistan, where most who were trying to escape initially went.

He knew he was guilty of treason; his running to Iran was because it would have ensured that he would not be captured. Most peole who weren't afraid to die in the Taliban either stayed put, or went to Pakistan. Whether he was involved in the murder of the CIA officer interrogating him is out of the question. He was in Afghanistan, fighting for the Taliban. The Taliban was fighting against the United States. He did not give the Americans or their allies any assistance that would have exonerated him for joining such a dispicable group. If you are fighting for a group that is fighting against the United States, and you are an American, you are guilty of treason.

I never said that the Norther Alliance was a group of savory characters; and you're right in stating that they were guilty of many atrocities. But in your claims, you don't eve try to even acknowledge what the Taliban did. Are you still making then claim that the Taliban was better than the Northern Alliance?

They were the moral equivalent.  Both were terrible, but JWL was not a bad guy.  He joinded the Taliban to fight the NA. Then 9-11 happened and he was caugh in the mix without a way to surrender because the NA was executing all prisoners. 

And your facts are wrong.  JWL never fired a shot at American forces.  In fact, there was nothing to suggest that he even knew 9-11 happened or that the US was no fighting the Taliban. 
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 08:25:45 PM
You don't have to fire a shot to be convicted of treason. All that's required is that two credible witnesses testify that you knowingly aided or abetted an enemy of the US.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 17, 2005, 08:34:50 PM
Which doesnt explain why he wasnt tried for treason if he was a traitor.

Maybe it was because he didnt know the US had declared war on the Taliban and wasnt actually fighting against the US.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 18, 2005, 04:36:56 AM
you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!

And you know that left-wing extremists are in trouble when they bring up dead issues, like how we got into the war in Iraq. That's when you know they're out of ideas.

dead issue?  you wish, sucka.

it quite relevant, as it point out that bush 0 & co. lied through teeth then and are lying through teeth now.

actually, bush 0 administration habitually lies.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: _BP_ on November 18, 2005, 08:55:39 AM
You know the neo-cons are in trouble when they think that how we got into the war in Iraq is a dead-issue. Are you kidding me? Are you saying it's a dead issue cause the soldiers are already dead? Oh, I forgot, "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS".

US deaths since July 2, 2003, when Bush announces, "Bring Them On": 1,878
WOUNDED IN ACTION: 15,568

you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!

And you know that left-wing extremists are in trouble when they bring up dead issues, like how we got into the war in Iraq. That's when you know they're out of ideas.

Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Freak on November 18, 2005, 10:15:08 AM
Which doesnt explain why he wasnt tried for treason if he was a traitor.

Maybe it was because he didnt know the US had declared war on the Taliban and wasnt actually fighting against the US.

Who knows, my guess is that politics had something to do with it, but then that's always a good guess... :-\
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ImVinny! on November 18, 2005, 11:26:30 AM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?

Heck I don't think if you died they'd be impeached. You're not worth THAT much. They are fine. What happened to respect for our Pres in this country? Morals have gone down the tube and so has respect.

Stupid individualists.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ImVinny! on November 18, 2005, 11:28:43 AM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...


I believe you mean "when democrats LOSE more seats" that would be the correction there.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ImVinny! on November 18, 2005, 11:31:08 AM
You lefties are cracking me up.

Caveat: I remain deeply disappointed in Bush's Katrina response.

The Mier's debacle is working out just fine.

In case you didn't notice -- and why would you since the media has buried its collective head in the sand about it -- Iraq has now had a succesful election of representatives, a succesful constitutional convention, and a succesful election to adopt that constitution.

The Plamegate thing, while no beauty, has not been anything like what Dems hoped for. Sorry.

Everybody says last week was Bush's worst week. Maybe so. If so, it really wasn't all that bad.



All Meirs proves is that Bush only knows to appoint cronies. See Brownie for confirmation.

How do you compare the Katrina response and the Iraq post-war planning?  Same people, same debacle.

Hurray, Iraq has a constitution! Now everythign will be great, and the US can pull out AND the insurgents will stop insurging, AND ALL Iraqis will live in peace and harmony.  NOTE: It is hard NOT to pass a constitution if 2/3s have to vote against it to defeat it.

Plamegate will cement Bush as the WORST Pres in the history of the US and is emblematic of everything that is wrong with this administration.

BTW, Donald Rumsfeld knows EXACTLY where the WMD are: North South East and West of Badhdad!

 :D :D :D


Considering nobody cares about Plame anymore...
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ImVinny! on November 18, 2005, 11:34:14 AM
If you do not think that Bush's numbers being in the toilet (lower than Nixon's) have the GOP worried, then I would say you have your head in that same toilet as well.  It's pretty much writing on the wall that if (or more accurately when) the Dems take Congress in 2006, Bush will find himself being impeached.  And this time the neocons wont have Delay around to re-district.

And speaking of Delay, I don't think it matters if Scalia himself were presiding over his case.  Delay's dead in the water, and the neo-cons don't want anything more to do with him.  Same can be said with Libby, with Rove and Frist standing in the on deck circle.

And B. Boxer doesn't shake, unless she's got her hands around the neck of some neocon.  Lieberman on the other hand...



"grass-roots conservatives"...don't give a rats ass in hell about the soon to be scarce...boxer.

boxer is shaking because she is powerless to stop the conservative judges going to preside over the supreme court...

delay...is a separate issue and "guilty until proven innocent"...that may help him slide out of this one, as well...he really had to go...and he is gone.

bush approval rating is "bwackwards" (aye like that new word)... "bunk" and "bull"...even if the approval rating were 80% in his favor...aye would not buy it...that is a load of corporate media darn.

my head has been measuring the situation by what is happening on wall street...
my resolve sees the dems "swirling" and the water pretty still in the republican camp.






The only thing that was swirling were the thousands of poor african americans left for dead by the administration down in New Orleans.  That atrocity pretty much sank the neocons within the african american community.

And instead of watching wall street (which really is pretty stagnant)you should keep your eyes on gas and heating.  This is what is killing the neocons domestically.  Unless they can do something about these, they are going to suffer more than they know.

And Boxer doesn't have to stop Bush's nominees.  The republican party is doing a pretty good at it themselves.

Bush didn't leave anybody swimming in the ocean, they did it themselves. They knew where they were living that they get hurricanes and that was a possibility. People REALLY need to start taking responsibility for their actions and stop blaming everything on the Pres et cetera.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ImVinny! on November 18, 2005, 11:35:21 AM
As far as Katrina, imagine what the POTUS' response would been if the hurricane was going to touch down in a rish neighborhood?



First of all it would not have been in the news, and second it would have been the same if less because the rich people know they can handle things themselves and not to take gov handouts. 
BTW, spelled RICH
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 18, 2005, 12:21:05 PM
As far as Katrina, imagine what the POTUS' response would been if the hurricane was going to touch down in a rish neighborhood?



First of all it would not have been in the news, and second it would have been the same if less because the rich people know they can handle things themselves and not to take gov handouts. 
BTW, spelled RICH

Exactly.

The only people I feel sorry for in that whole mess were those in nursing homes and the handicapped, the local governments had failed them. But even at that, I have to ask these questions:

Where were their families? Why didn't go there and pick them up? There was a week's notice that a hurricane was to hit the area, and they did nothing? It's bad enough that one has to put his/her parents in a nursing home, it's even worse when one doesn't take them in the midst of danger.

This was a perfect example of the effects of big-government reliance (as advanced by Clinton and now, depressingly, President Bush. When are Americans going to stop relying on the Federal goverment for everything?

As for the rest,
they had ample time to get out (as I said, a week's notice) and they decided to stay. They shouldn't blame the Federal government government for their idiotic choices.  When hurricane Andrew hit south Florida, 5 DAYS before they even showed up. They're lucky that the Federal government showed up in three.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 21, 2005, 02:47:17 PM
Which doesnt explain why he wasnt tried for treason if he was a traitor.

Maybe it was because he didnt know the US had declared war on the Taliban and wasnt actually fighting against the US.

Who knows, my guess is that politics had something to do with it, but then that's always a good guess... :-\
Wait, what politician was on the side of JWL?  None. 
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 21, 2005, 02:48:02 PM
As far as Katrina, imagine what the POTUS' response would been if the hurricane was going to touch down in a rish neighborhood?



First of all it would not have been in the news, and second it would have been the same if less because the rich people know they can handle things themselves and not to take gov handouts. 
BTW, spelled RICH

Oh, thanks Vinny.  How is that dishwasher career going? 
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 05:33:54 AM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?

Heck I don't think if you died they'd be impeached. You're not worth THAT much. They are fine. What happened to respect for our Pres in this country? Morals have gone down the tube and so has respect.

Stupid individualists.

sorry to be individualist, you little nazi.  that seem to be your buzzword for week.  apparently, you take it to mean that most americans are expected to march to their slaughter in order to please your repuiblican masters.  good luck with that.

you figure bush 0 has improved respect for presidency?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 05:35:14 AM

Considering nobody cares about Plame anymore...

yes, especially that special prosecutor.

whistle all you like as darkness descend.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 06:59:31 AM
Bush didn't leave anybody swimming in the ocean, they did it themselves. They knew where they were living that they get hurricanes and that was a possibility. People REALLY need to start taking responsibility for their actions and stop blaming everything on the Pres et cetera.

gee, for someone who advocate individual responsibility, you sure seem to blame country's moral problems on clinton

and, by way:  ollie north--you know, big fat liar under oath--one of your heroes, right?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 07:03:03 AM
you people are hillarious with your impeachment talk and your vile spewing. BOTH SIDES ARE!!!!!!!

f-ing A, in three years there's gonna be an election, the sun will rise and set, the world will not end, I promise, whichever side wins. I wish both sides would chill with the rhetoric and we could, oh I don't know, maybe agree to disagree and somehow come together and make this place better for @#!*'s sake.

let julie take wild guess:  that coming together would pretty much amount to agreeing with your view of things?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 07:36:43 AM
aha, julie see that she accurate.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 07:42:00 AM
julie call them as she see them, and she tired of liars and idiots.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Freak on November 22, 2005, 10:14:48 AM
Which doesnt explain why he wasnt tried for treason if he was a traitor.

Maybe it was because he didnt know the US had declared war on the Taliban and wasnt actually fighting against the US.

Who knows, my guess is that politics had something to do with it, but then that's always a good guess... :-\
Wait, what politician was on the side of JWL?  None. 

Politicians aren't the only ones involved in politics...
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 22, 2005, 01:46:53 PM
now you are just being silly.  if policitians were going to intervene, they would do so against JWL because that is a stance that would be supported by 95+% of the voters.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ImVinny! on November 22, 2005, 02:55:32 PM
As far as Katrina, imagine what the POTUS' response would been if the hurricane was going to touch down in a rish neighborhood?



First of all it would not have been in the news, and second it would have been the same if less because the rich people know they can handle things themselves and not to take gov handouts. 
BTW, spelled RICH

Oh, thanks Vinny.  How is that dishwasher career going? 

It's actually not dishwasher, it's clothes ironer. Well, that's what my mother says anyways. ;)
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 22, 2005, 03:26:54 PM
always listen to your mommy.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 23, 2005, 09:51:07 AM
now you are just being silly.  if policitians were going to intervene, they would do so against JWL because that is a stance that would be supported by 95+% of the voters.
???
 A traitor, supported by 95% of the voters...where is this? Iran?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 23, 2005, 09:56:29 AM
He wasnt a traitor, the general public was misinformed, including you.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 23, 2005, 10:33:31 AM
He was fighting with the Taliban! If he wasn't guilty, then why did he try to flee? That story about his captivity doesn't exonerate him. He wasn't in captivity from the moment he was in Afghanistan.

If he wasn't a member of the Taliban, then he wouldn' t have been in Afghanistan. He may not have been a die-hard member of the Talinban, but treason is treason.

If you're not guilty of a crime, you would not run away.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 23, 2005, 12:08:57 PM
He was fighting with the Taliban! If he wasn't guilty, then why did he try to flee? That story about his captivity doesn't exonerate him. He wasn't in captivity from the moment he was in Afghanistan.

If he wasn't a member of the Taliban, then he wouldn' t have been in Afghanistan. He may not have been a die-hard member of the Talinban, but treason is treason.

If you're not guilty of a crime, you would not run away.
Vinny is that you?

He was fighting with the Taliban before the US and Taliban were at war BECUASE HE WAS FIGHTING THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE.  In that area, the Taliban are the good guys because they dont blow up towns of civilians

JWL was at war, but you dont understand why he and his company were trying to flee?  They fled because they were losing, not because they thought they were betraying the US.

are you thick or what?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 23, 2005, 01:00:56 PM
is that trick question?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 23, 2005, 07:34:01 PM
Both, and nobody is denying that.  There is a such thing as "magnitude," though.


well...at least one can't get impeached for that...

now...is there magnitude in "heavy construction" and "murderous despot removal?"
I think Bush should get impeached and I KNOW Libby is going to get impeached if he takes the stand.  I would give my left leg to impeach Cheney, Rummy, Bush and Rove.

Does anyone want to pretend to be anyone of those people and let me impeach you?

Heck I don't think if you died they'd be impeached. You're not worth THAT much. They are fine. What happened to respect for our Pres in this country? Morals have gone down the tube and so has respect.

Stupid individualists.

sorry to be individualist, you little nazi.  that seem to be your buzzword for week.  apparently, you take it to mean that most americans are expected to march to their slaughter in order to please your repuiblican masters.  good luck with that.

you figure bush 0 has improved respect for presidency?

you really got your facts out of wack...the congress supported the war in iraq...democrats and republicans...dude read a book about the history of hussein the baath party and the arab newspapers before the invasion of quwait.

the invasion of quwait was the beginning of the war which we are in today...check the timeline.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 24, 2005, 07:03:18 AM
hey, you not mention kurds.  you losing touch.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 25, 2005, 07:51:29 AM
julie just love their cheese.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 27, 2005, 11:22:22 PM
hey, you not mention kurds.  you losing touch.


thank you...the kurds...good point...

they will be the leaders of their new-old nation...

you are learning, mr. fern.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 28, 2005, 06:01:17 AM
kurds will become turkish sex slaves.

then you'll want u.s. to invade turkey.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 28, 2005, 08:51:55 PM
The answer:

Free Kurdistan!
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 06:30:03 AM
and who going to do that?  you?  gee, julie thought iraqi kurds already "freed" by bnush 0.  are you rewriting history or something?

you and your kind would keep others fighting your wars in middle east until end of time.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 29, 2005, 12:25:02 PM
...and who going to do that?  you?  gee, julie thought iraqi kurds already "freed" by bnush 0.  are you rewriting history or something?

you and your kind would keep others fighting your wars in middle east until end of time.

and when are you signing up? You and your kind would rather convert to islam rather than defend yourselves.

If what you call imperialism is defending our way of life (which includes allowing those on the Left to humor us with their lunatic ideas) that I am a imperialist. If your nonessential interference is freeing people from tyranny, then I am for it.

Those of your kind would rather let Saddam invade Kuwait, have another go at Iran, and nuke Israel. Those of your kind would rather see us leave, knowing full well that it would be more costly for us to pick up the pieces later. If we left, there would nothing stopping the Islamists from taking over goverments (they have the arms to do it) and driving Israel into war. Were it not for the US, there would be nothing stopping the Israelis from expelling all Palestinians (they have the power to, and the Palestinians lost), triggering a wider war which may include nuclear weapons. Then again, your kind sees that as "win-win" situation, more propaganda, and burdening the United States in the long run. Your kind would rather let China destroy Taiwan (it allows for lower prices).

Your kind of lassez-faire foreign policy is something from the Nixon administration, a man who many on your side considers a racist. It would mean ignoring human rights for the sake of "stability". Even the failed president Jimmy Carter didn't suscribe to that policy.

Your kind's "internationalism" is kowtowing to the Europeans; the same Europeans that made the world into a mess and don't know how to fix it ( and yet they blame us fo all this). May I ask what good have the Europeans done within the last ten years? or Twenty? What about that organization that you kind idolizes, the UN? The organization is so mired in corruption and ineffectuality that is resembles the Third World nations that have hijacked it.

Your kind would rather see our military reduced to a police force, yet at the same time, your kind would love to see the Second Amendment repealed (thereby making us incapable to defend ourselves). Your kind cries about the balloning defecits, yet would have no problem bringing dead policies from the past that would bankrupt our economy. Your kind claims that they want the US to not be as involed in world affairs, forgetting that such a policy facilitated the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocides. After all of your failed ideologies, what would make those of your kind "experts" on policy making?

The problem in regards to our [inconsistentcy in] foreign policy is due to the people that populate the bureaucracy in Washington. There are people in the State Department, the CIA, and even in the Defense Department that suscribe to your kind's virulent posion. Whatever the President would do would be undermined by these people. Unfortunately, our President Bush doesn't have the power to remove them. If he did, our foriegn policy would be more consistent.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 01:18:53 PM
it your war and your imperialism, so you fight it--which, of course, you not because you too busy enjoying "our way of life."

julie will fight you and your kind.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 29, 2005, 01:55:54 PM
How about acting in the US' interests rather than fighting wars that have nothing to do with us?  Iraq was no threat to us and until it presented an immediate threat to Israel we shouldnt have intervened.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 02:03:23 PM
not fair to be reasonable.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Freak on November 29, 2005, 02:11:49 PM
How about acting in the US' interests rather than fighting wars that have nothing to do with us?  Iraq was no threat to us and until it presented an immediate threat to Israel we shouldnt have intervened.

Problem is, the USA's interests are global, we don't get involved the world falls apart. Sick.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 02:14:01 PM
oh, so you want us to be global cops?
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: TrojanChispas on November 29, 2005, 02:15:06 PM
Yes, our interests extend globally, but they compete with one another.  While it may be in our interest for every gov't to be a free trade democracy, balancing our budget is a competing interest.  Only when we have an overwhelming interest in something and we KNOW we will prevail (or have no choice) should we intervene.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Thikighoros on November 29, 2005, 02:44:34 PM
Apparently, julie's waiting for us to be attacked at home, again. By then, it will be too late.

Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Freak on November 29, 2005, 02:54:48 PM
I'm not waiting, we are global cops and have been since WW2.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 04:01:58 PM
Apparently, julie's waiting for us to be attacked at home, again. By then, it will be too late.



when it happen, it not going to happen from iraq. julie all for fighting terrorism, but that not what iraq all about.  never was.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 30, 2005, 10:39:08 PM
not about fighting terrorism
but clinton is the one who called for a regime change in iraq...and he was correct.  bush booted the regime.
Title: Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
Post by: Julie Fern on January 28, 2007, 05:35:12 AM
putz.