Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
And I don't have to "weasel" out of anything, merely point out that you do not understand the difference.
Here's another thing, a "red herring" doesn't start by identifying itself as irony. That, much like your speculation that I am "crying" about being insulted, might make you feel like you're a donut, but on closer scrutiny makes you the hole.
Why hold back. Why not critique GWB. If the jury was right GWB will not override the jury out of POLITICAL fears. If the jury was wrong GWB will not override the jury out of political fears.
I am very sorry however I voted for GWB twice. He is an arrogant SOB who is only doing what he wants to do regardless of what the world will think.
His father was a president, Dubya is a loser !
He will sit on his A$$ and ignore this entire thing because he does not want to offend the USA, Mexico, Law Enforcement, those who prefer pardons blah blah blah, Dubya is a loser
I see we're back in Cuba, again. Are you suggesting that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texaqs lied about the testimony of Agents Compean and Ramos? On official letterhead? And no one, not the judge, the jury, the defendants, or their attorneys were able to make each other understand that the U.S. Attorney lied to them?
Can you imagine the howls if some jurors decided to let a terrorist walk because they disagreed with Bush's foreign policy? That's the slope we're on, folks.
It's great when a leader can create a vision that people can 'latch' on to. The problem is, everyone has their own ideas of what he should do, so few listened to his 'vision'.
Bush does not have a sense of the importance of acting ruthlessly in politics.
I don't think being ruthless in politics is the way to get the people to support you. I don't think he tried to pretend to be politically ruthless when he was running for office, so no one should be surprised.
A good war president must be willing to be ruthless both to the enemies abroad and the enemies within.
I agree, we should take the gloves off. But I don't think that would have garnered the support of those who have been against him. More war dead isn't going to get the liberals and RINOS on his side. Spending more money on the war wouldn't get the 'true conservatives' on his side. I think he's just been trying to do what he thinks is best. Doesn't always turn out just the way we'd like, but isn't that true of all human beings?
A leader would have insisted that Berger go to jail for the rest of his life and made it clear that purloining classified documents at a time of war is an act of war.
Bush can express opinions on that, but I don't believe that is within his powers to carry it out.
two border patrol agents who shoot a fleeing drug dealer and potential terrorist in the a$$ get socked with a 12 year sentence.
Just curious. If this had been a drug dealer in one of our cities and two city policemen, would you be as upset? At any rate, I can't debate that issue, because I don't have all the facts.
What kind of leadership is that?
Based on your comments, it sounds as though ramming things through Congress, overstepping Presidential authority, and being politically ruthless are the hallmarks of a leader in your view. I can't say I would share the same view of leadership.
Further Bush should have been on the radio and television and on the stump all over the country asking people to support his efforts in the war on terror and asking people to make their own sacrifices in this cause so that the war is a nationally shared event and not merely Bush's war.
I would have liked to have seen that myself. But again, I don't see that winning over the liberals, RINOS - they'd be complaining about him only being out for photo ops. The 'true conservatives' would be complaining about him spending money.
This is now Bush's war.
It's my war too, and the war of all those who know that we needed to go after Saddam, and that we need to continue to fight the radicals there instead of here. If more don't start supporting his efforts, the liberals and RINOs will be emboldened and WILL yank funding for the war. Not a good result for any of us.
Great leaders do not squander the opportunity to be great, they seize the moment.
Great leaders need willing followers or they cannot be leaders. The things I see said on FR are as hateful as any I've heard from liberals. It's a shame, really.
These fellas are there doing a job....
Going a bit far there arent you.
No, I don't think so. Some people on this thread were speaking of jury nullification.
I believe that police should have the right to shoot a fleeing felon.
Up until 1985 the common law rule was that in order to protect the public safety, any felony suspect who attempted to escape after being told to stop by the police could be shot. The streets of America are less safe today because of the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner.
Today any felony suspect (rape, murder, child kidnapping, whatever), who is attempting to escape and is not directly posing an immediate deadly threat to public or the police cannot be shot. And they know it. So what do they have to lose by running?
What has ever become of the case of Dog the Bounty Hunter? Is there anything we won't do to appease the Mexican government?
That's the only way to shoot.
Wrong.
GREAT leaders create willing followers. If you cannot garner followers, then you are not a leader.
Bush's approval ratings right now are around 22%. You cannot claim that he is a great leader. At this point he is not even a mediocre leader.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the outrage on this case. These two agents may be the most incompetent pair of law enforcement officers in history (and if they're as bad as some of these stories have made them out to be, I believe their hiring was bordering on a negligent act itself). But even if they were - so what? What good has this case accomplished?
If these two gentlemen really did that poor of a job as border agents, take their badges and discharge them. Maybe you could even argue they could be prosecuted. But to give immunity to an illegal alien drug dealer in exchange for testimony? What kind of message is that sending? We've sent the message to a parasite third world nation that we're willing to overlook crimes by their invading citizens if they're willing to perform certain acts in our legal system. Is this really any way to discourage the run on our borders? Where was the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor?
Would you not support jury nullification in a trial on unconstitutional gun laws, for instance?
He was not shot in the back. He was shot in the side of the buttocks and a bullet fragment wound up in his right groin. The Doctor that removed the bullet fragment testified that the smuggler was in a "bladed stance" facing in the general direction of the officer when he was struck. This supports Ramos' contention that Aldrete-Davila turned and pointed what looked to be a gun at him. Ramos had to make a split second decision and drew his gun in self defense.
How incredibly true that is.
In war, generals have made it a point of reading the nature of their opponents. They study their personal, tactical, and strategic weaknesses (and strengths.)
President Bush is no exception. Both his foreign and domestic enemies have noted his tendencies. We can count on that.
But, let's go beyond that. It is time (or incredibly close to it) to move from the cheering section to the analysts booth. We must choose a new leader in 2 years, and it's good to know the weaknesses we want to avoid and the strengths we want to encourage.
It is not disloyalty to Pres. Bush to begin dissecting his performance with withering honesty. In the same way that our system demands that we give a President steadfast backing, it also demands that near the end of that presidency we get brutally honest about good and bad performance; strong and weak characteristics.
That analysis should form some template for determining what we're looking for in the man who will replace the sitting president.
The system forces us to this. We would be grossly negligent not to do it.
The Bush Team has miserably failed at public communication and information warfare. If there's any weakness that stands head and shoulders above the rest, this is the one I would choose.
They have been playing defense for nearly 4 years now, and they absolutely abhor going on the offense. The last truly aggressive behavior on this administration's part was in its first year. The fight for Florida against Gore and the resolve to strike back against Al-Qaeda both showed stiff backbone that must have been the only backbone allowance that had been granted this crew.
The most egregious mistake in the war has been the failure to include the general public in the war effort. It's hard to fight a war when the nation thinks it's bread and circus as usual. And if you tell me that that was the media's fault, then go to my first criticism above about information warfare.
There's more, but these are those that will form part of what I'm looking for in the next republican candidate.
Thank you. Interesting etymology of that phrase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.