Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
That's some great comments, Phsstpok. Thanks.
I was trying to think of a lefty (Lenin?) attached to "Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, loudly and often, all reality to the contrary." Classic Saul Alinsky agitprop.
Yessssss !!!!!!!
But seriously, you completely failed to defend your man vs. law statement, other than call me ignorant. In fact, the very documents your bring up, the Federalist Papers, prove the liberals are the ones that value man over law. FP 51, as far as I know, is not the law of the land, but an opinion that someone wrote as a pr campaign to get the constitution signed. Hmm sounds like a judges opinion doesn't it ? I'm not disagreeing with it, mind you, I'm just citing it as an example of how liberals put man over law.
As for the Gitmo business, this may surprise you, but I can disagree with the leader of my own party and not consider myself a turncoat. Gitmo has nothing to do with this discussion in all practicality because it is far outweighed by all the evidence in favor of the libs being the ones who are un-American.
PS I defended you earlier and I get called ignorant for it ? Typical dem, you are.
The clear, undeniable fact is that if Bush had done the same thing to the free democratic state of Israel that he did to Iraq where people constantly lived under the fear of being thrown into plastic shredders feet-first, you wouldn't be hearing a peep out of any international leader's mouth (except for Sharon's of course).
Very sad indeed! Let's roll and win re-election for Bush!
More misdirection and dishonesty. You bemoan the reduction in the rate of growth of the Veterans Budget, but you take credit for the constraint on spending imposed on Clinton by the Rep legislature. And of course you dont answer the question..
So here we have a Republican President who has increased discretionary spending at a faster clip than anyone since Carter and yet you attack him for being a radical right winger, putting the interests of evangelicals and big business above all others.
Admit it, Perlstein. Its all about power. Gots to get the Democrats back into government controlling the courts and the pursestrings, even if we have to hoist up an empty suited blueblood billionaire like John Kerry to make it happen!!
Well, there was the New Year's arrests, the Sudan missile attacks--
Ive been doing much more reading than posting, but this is beyond weak.
The New Years arrests were the result of a single observant border guard, working under no special anti-terror directive.
And the Sudanese missles were just a silly ineffective laughable response to the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans working for the US.
Im sure that the fact that the missles were launched on the eve of Monicas grand jury testimony was purely incidental, but such a token gesture was the very last message that needed to be sent to Al Qaeda. They received it and read it correctly the US (under Clinton) was not prepared to meet an attack with sufficient force to dent their operations.
They mistakenly assumed that Bush was of the same mold in that regard.
Rick, I was looking over your 1/14/04 piece in which you stated the following:
Baghdad will become Beirut: Iraq's three major religious and ethnic groups, the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, will consolidate their respective positions in the center, south, and north of the country, recruit their militias, and get down to fighting for control of the power vacuum that is the post-war "peace."
Do you have any timetable on when the major fighting will commence? Aside from the random, though deadly, car bombings, this explosion in violence that you predicted has yet to materialize. Where exactly are the militias massing? When does the shooting war start? When are the Kurds going to break away, risking war with Turkey?
And will the Last Copter Out of Baghdad depart before the election?
----
Couple of points. When will civil war commence? Well, the bombing of four churches yesterday might suggest it already has. And that the presence of 150,000 allied forces are what's keeping the lid on, more ore less.
Pretty good analysis of prospects for civil war by the CIA's former Saudi Arabia station chief here:
http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html
And, once again, I have to distance myself from the idiotic headline implying I argued that the MILITARY would pull out of Iraq. My argument was that the administration would pull back on their on-the-record goals for the civil administration--which largely revolved around U.S. privatization and the writing of a formal constiution--which proved to be 100% correct. In fact, they gave up on privatization the DAY after the first executive of a privatizing state-owned firm was shot, as I explain in the article.
I'm proud of that article. I said George Bush was going to move the goalline to the 50-yard-line in Iraq and declare he'd scored a touchdown on July 1, and he did.
No thanks.
I think the biggest error on the assumptive engine of the left is that those on the right wanted to remove Clinton for office for having an affair. Not true. Clinton committed a felony. Perjury, no matter what the issue, is a felony. Perjury is most assuredly a High Crime. It is a crime that undercuts our entire Judicial system. (If you can lie under oath, then what is the point of the oath at all.)
The chief enforcer of our entire Judicial system undercut that system for a trivial thing such as a sexual harrassment case. How serious, then, must he take the Judicial system and his role in protecting it?
No, it is not the fact that he enjoyed the company of many women that was the final straw, it was that he had complete disregard for the laws and diginity of 2/3rd's of our system of Government. The Senate as a whole made it a clean sweep and refused to do their duty (or even look at the evidence in most cases).
Don't expect an immediate reply, if at all, since you're swamped, but:
Wasn't Ahmed Chalabi's office recently randsacked and he himself deposed as our "most important liaison", specifically because of his ties to Iran? In other words, I don't think his ties to Iran were known at the time he was a special guest of Bush's at the SOTU address you mention.
I could be wrong though.
Back to reading this thread. Actually, I'm going to continue at home, this is fascinating. I'm still behind myself, by about 100 posts, and that's just searching for your replies! LOL
This is as entertaining as I'd hoped. Thanks again for the ping dead!
Of course, if Hastert succeeds with eliminating the IRS...I will stand corrected.
The hell with that - Ill kiss him on the mouth.
>>>Basically, I don't accept your premises, so why argue about your conclusions?<<<
AMEN TO THAT!
<><
No, that was the Republican congress.
Bush did not.
True, I'm afraid to say.
z zz zzz zzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Liberals are just too boring - life is too short and they put me to sleep.
It probably helped him personally.
He worked hard ordering documentation of POWS who's remains were never returned to be shredded...the same exact thing he crucified Oliver North for doing.
He then killed the Viet Nam Human Rights Act, attaching non-humanitarian aid to Vietnam to progress on human rights issues, in the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which he chaired.
H.R. 2833 stated that Hanoi would get NO goodies from the US unless it demonstrated progress in the following areas:
His excuse was "it may hinder rather than advance the cause of human rights in Vietnam."
In gratitude, Hanoi designatied John Forbes Kerry's first cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International as the exclusive real estate representative in Vietnam. A contract worth millions.
All of this information if freely accessable via the internet. Google it.
Admirable qualities indeed.
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.