Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
more than likely true... and most of those folks threatening others would be revulsed if it (threatening) was done to themselves...stuart wrote:chances are the kind of mail he received contained speech that was not protected. Just a hunch though.
<heavy sigh>
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
regarding new revelations by Gen Janice Karpinski, former commander at Abu Garaib, that Gen Miller of Guantanamo fame said the "prisoners should be treated like dogs", which was stongly denied by a spokesperson for Miller, I say subject Miller to a lie detector test. Seems like the Code of Honor for cadets at the point ends when they get up there in the command food chain....shame on you General!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Brain food
DID WE COMMIT WAR CRIMES?
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The high non-Reagan moment of the week came when Attorney General John Ashcroft contended with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the whole business of torture. Ashcroft was explaining something not terribly complicated, but it led to combat. Ashcroft had said that in denying to the congressional committee copies of the memorandums that had been sent to advise the president on the matter of permissible conduct in war, he was not invoking executive privilege.
"What are you invoking?" Kennedy asked, causing much mirth and derision.
John Ashcroft is not to be confused with Oliver Wendell Holmes when explaining legal quandaries or dilemmas. But his primary points were reasonable. They were that in the opinion of some legal analysts, the al-Qaida captives were not entitled to the protections defined by the Geneva Conventions. They are not members of an "army," therefore not "combatants" within the meaning of the Geneva protocols.
Now, all that of course does not instruct us on the moral question: Were we entitled to deal with the prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the way we did? The answer is clearly, No. But that answer carries a lot of freight, because there are people circling the scene who are very eager to prosecute the United States for war crimes. These people, it is fair to generalize, are less interested in war crimes than in prosecuting the U.S. for committing war crimes. The question of U.S. responsibility is political in its implications.
Arguing in favor of facing the question in The Hague (news - web sites), Jonathan Tepperman of Foreign Affairs magazine reminds us that "legal principles can affect politics. If voters begin to believe that George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld is legally responsible for the torture, it could affect the president's chances in November." But if we do not agree to come on stage as defendants, we undermine the international case against war crimes.
Mr. Ashcroft didn't suggest he had authority to dispose of such questions, but he was firm in insisting that memos sent to the president on such issues as this have to be secure from legislative scrutiny, invoking, quite simply, not the executive privilege, but the separation of powers.
Without intending to condone such things as happened in Abu Ghraib, a counselor to the president might be asked to opine on what are the permissible standards of interrogation of al-Qaida forces. It is easy to say that those standards should be obvious -- they are deduced from the Bible, the Areopagitica, and the Department of Ethics at Harvard. A very good case can be made for saying this, but not a case that illuminates questions of legal exposure. And, incidentally, not necessarily a case that accosts battlefield realities.
The best way to confront the question, How far can you go in interrogatory techniques? is to answer: It isn't possible categorically to say. At what point does constant exposure to light slide over from deprivation into torture? Obviously we expect interrogators to be persistent even into invasions of time normally reserved for sleeping. But when does that clock sound? After 16 hours? 20 hours? 24 hours?
The movement now is to assign responsibility to a military official wearing more than the two stars of Maj. Gen. George Fay. If you want to bring in lieutenant generals and four-star generals and get answers from them, you have to have a full-blooded warrant from the president, and it is being sought.
The best evidence of the incongruity of Abu Ghraib with American standards is the universal revulsion felt by the American people when those photographs were published. But right now there are only seven soldiers being prosecuted, and the sense of it is that that does not go deeply enough. If what happened was odious, but what happened did so under the auspices of a well-organized military, then you scratch up against the lessons of Nuremberg, which held superiors responsible for misconduct by subordinates. And people are wanting to know what are the relevant jurisdictions, and what tribunals do we have in mind to convoke in order to satisfy ourselves -- and the world -- that America wants more than merely to punish the people who did it. We need to punish also the people who let it happen.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The high non-Reagan moment of the week came when Attorney General John Ashcroft contended with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the whole business of torture. Ashcroft was explaining something not terribly complicated, but it led to combat. Ashcroft had said that in denying to the congressional committee copies of the memorandums that had been sent to advise the president on the matter of permissible conduct in war, he was not invoking executive privilege.
"What are you invoking?" Kennedy asked, causing much mirth and derision.
John Ashcroft is not to be confused with Oliver Wendell Holmes when explaining legal quandaries or dilemmas. But his primary points were reasonable. They were that in the opinion of some legal analysts, the al-Qaida captives were not entitled to the protections defined by the Geneva Conventions. They are not members of an "army," therefore not "combatants" within the meaning of the Geneva protocols.
Now, all that of course does not instruct us on the moral question: Were we entitled to deal with the prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the way we did? The answer is clearly, No. But that answer carries a lot of freight, because there are people circling the scene who are very eager to prosecute the United States for war crimes. These people, it is fair to generalize, are less interested in war crimes than in prosecuting the U.S. for committing war crimes. The question of U.S. responsibility is political in its implications.
Arguing in favor of facing the question in The Hague (news - web sites), Jonathan Tepperman of Foreign Affairs magazine reminds us that "legal principles can affect politics. If voters begin to believe that George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld is legally responsible for the torture, it could affect the president's chances in November." But if we do not agree to come on stage as defendants, we undermine the international case against war crimes.
Mr. Ashcroft didn't suggest he had authority to dispose of such questions, but he was firm in insisting that memos sent to the president on such issues as this have to be secure from legislative scrutiny, invoking, quite simply, not the executive privilege, but the separation of powers.
Without intending to condone such things as happened in Abu Ghraib, a counselor to the president might be asked to opine on what are the permissible standards of interrogation of al-Qaida forces. It is easy to say that those standards should be obvious -- they are deduced from the Bible, the Areopagitica, and the Department of Ethics at Harvard. A very good case can be made for saying this, but not a case that illuminates questions of legal exposure. And, incidentally, not necessarily a case that accosts battlefield realities.
The best way to confront the question, How far can you go in interrogatory techniques? is to answer: It isn't possible categorically to say. At what point does constant exposure to light slide over from deprivation into torture? Obviously we expect interrogators to be persistent even into invasions of time normally reserved for sleeping. But when does that clock sound? After 16 hours? 20 hours? 24 hours?
The movement now is to assign responsibility to a military official wearing more than the two stars of Maj. Gen. George Fay. If you want to bring in lieutenant generals and four-star generals and get answers from them, you have to have a full-blooded warrant from the president, and it is being sought.
The best evidence of the incongruity of Abu Ghraib with American standards is the universal revulsion felt by the American people when those photographs were published. But right now there are only seven soldiers being prosecuted, and the sense of it is that that does not go deeply enough. If what happened was odious, but what happened did so under the auspices of a well-organized military, then you scratch up against the lessons of Nuremberg, which held superiors responsible for misconduct by subordinates. And people are wanting to know what are the relevant jurisdictions, and what tribunals do we have in mind to convoke in order to satisfy ourselves -- and the world -- that America wants more than merely to punish the people who did it. We need to punish also the people who let it happen.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Brain food
DID WE COMMIT WAR CRIMES?
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The high non-Reagan moment of the week came when Attorney General John Ashcroft contended with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the whole business of torture. Ashcroft was explaining something not terribly complicated, but it led to combat. Ashcroft had said that in denying to the congressional committee copies of the memorandums that had been sent to advise the president on the matter of permissible conduct in war, he was not invoking executive privilege.
"What are you invoking?" Kennedy asked, causing much mirth and derision.
John Ashcroft is not to be confused with Oliver Wendell Holmes when explaining legal quandaries or dilemmas. But his primary points were reasonable. They were that in the opinion of some legal analysts, the al-Qaida captives were not entitled to the protections defined by the Geneva Conventions. They are not members of an "army," therefore not "combatants" within the meaning of the Geneva protocols.
Now, all that of course does not instruct us on the moral question: Were we entitled to deal with the prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the way we did? The answer is clearly, No. But that answer carries a lot of freight, because there are people circling the scene who are very eager to prosecute the United States for war crimes. These people, it is fair to generalize, are less interested in war crimes than in prosecuting the U.S. for committing war crimes. The question of U.S. responsibility is political in its implications.
Arguing in favor of facing the question in The Hague, Jonathan Tepperman of Foreign Affairs magazine reminds us that "legal principles can affect politics. If voters begin to believe that George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld is legally responsible for the torture, it could affect the president's chances in November." But if we do not agree to come on stage as defendants, we undermine the international case against war crimes.
Mr. Ashcroft didn't suggest he had authority to dispose of such questions, but he was firm in insisting that memos sent to the president on such issues as this have to be secure from legislative scrutiny, invoking, quite simply, not the executive privilege, but the separation of powers.
Without intending to condone such things as happened in Abu Ghraib, a counselor to the president might be asked to opine on what are the permissible standards of interrogation of al-Qaida forces. It is easy to say that those standards should be obvious -- they are deduced from the Bible, the Areopagitica, and the Department of Ethics at Harvard. A very good case can be made for saying this, but not a case that illuminates questions of legal exposure. And, incidentally, not necessarily a case that accosts battlefield realities.
The best way to confront the question, How far can you go in interrogatory techniques? is to answer: It isn't possible categorically to say. At what point does constant exposure to light slide over from deprivation into torture? Obviously we expect interrogators to be persistent even into invasions of time normally reserved for sleeping. But when does that clock sound? After 16 hours? 20 hours? 24 hours?
The movement now is to assign responsibility to a military official wearing more than the two stars of Maj. Gen. George Fay. If you want to bring in lieutenant generals and four-star generals and get answers from them, you have to have a full-blooded warrant from the president, and it is being sought.
The best evidence of the incongruity of Abu Ghraib with American standards is the universal revulsion felt by the American people when those photographs were published. But right now there are only seven soldiers being prosecuted, and the sense of it is that that does not go deeply enough. If what happened was odious, but what happened did so under the auspices of a well-organized military, then you scratch up against the lessons of Nuremberg, which held superiors responsible for misconduct by subordinates. And people are wanting to know what are the relevant jurisdictions, and what tribunals do we have in mind to convoke in order to satisfy ourselves -- and the world -- that America wants more than merely to punish the people who did it. We need to punish also the people who let it happen.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The high non-Reagan moment of the week came when Attorney General John Ashcroft contended with Sen. Edward Kennedy on the whole business of torture. Ashcroft was explaining something not terribly complicated, but it led to combat. Ashcroft had said that in denying to the congressional committee copies of the memorandums that had been sent to advise the president on the matter of permissible conduct in war, he was not invoking executive privilege.
"What are you invoking?" Kennedy asked, causing much mirth and derision.
John Ashcroft is not to be confused with Oliver Wendell Holmes when explaining legal quandaries or dilemmas. But his primary points were reasonable. They were that in the opinion of some legal analysts, the al-Qaida captives were not entitled to the protections defined by the Geneva Conventions. They are not members of an "army," therefore not "combatants" within the meaning of the Geneva protocols.
Now, all that of course does not instruct us on the moral question: Were we entitled to deal with the prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the way we did? The answer is clearly, No. But that answer carries a lot of freight, because there are people circling the scene who are very eager to prosecute the United States for war crimes. These people, it is fair to generalize, are less interested in war crimes than in prosecuting the U.S. for committing war crimes. The question of U.S. responsibility is political in its implications.
Arguing in favor of facing the question in The Hague, Jonathan Tepperman of Foreign Affairs magazine reminds us that "legal principles can affect politics. If voters begin to believe that George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld is legally responsible for the torture, it could affect the president's chances in November." But if we do not agree to come on stage as defendants, we undermine the international case against war crimes.
Mr. Ashcroft didn't suggest he had authority to dispose of such questions, but he was firm in insisting that memos sent to the president on such issues as this have to be secure from legislative scrutiny, invoking, quite simply, not the executive privilege, but the separation of powers.
Without intending to condone such things as happened in Abu Ghraib, a counselor to the president might be asked to opine on what are the permissible standards of interrogation of al-Qaida forces. It is easy to say that those standards should be obvious -- they are deduced from the Bible, the Areopagitica, and the Department of Ethics at Harvard. A very good case can be made for saying this, but not a case that illuminates questions of legal exposure. And, incidentally, not necessarily a case that accosts battlefield realities.
The best way to confront the question, How far can you go in interrogatory techniques? is to answer: It isn't possible categorically to say. At what point does constant exposure to light slide over from deprivation into torture? Obviously we expect interrogators to be persistent even into invasions of time normally reserved for sleeping. But when does that clock sound? After 16 hours? 20 hours? 24 hours?
The movement now is to assign responsibility to a military official wearing more than the two stars of Maj. Gen. George Fay. If you want to bring in lieutenant generals and four-star generals and get answers from them, you have to have a full-blooded warrant from the president, and it is being sought.
The best evidence of the incongruity of Abu Ghraib with American standards is the universal revulsion felt by the American people when those photographs were published. But right now there are only seven soldiers being prosecuted, and the sense of it is that that does not go deeply enough. If what happened was odious, but what happened did so under the auspices of a well-organized military, then you scratch up against the lessons of Nuremberg, which held superiors responsible for misconduct by subordinates. And people are wanting to know what are the relevant jurisdictions, and what tribunals do we have in mind to convoke in order to satisfy ourselves -- and the world -- that America wants more than merely to punish the people who did it. We need to punish also the people who let it happen.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
More stuff to make your head hurt....
THE PLAYGROUND
Tue Jun 15, 8:04 PM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.
"Excuse me, sir. Are you Maureen's father?"
John Dickson looked over at the children playing on the school playground. He ducked, but the football grazed his questioner, bloodying his nose. "Can you use my handkerchief?" Dickson brought it out from his pocket.
"No. No thanks. I'll be OK. I'm a doctor, by the way." He extended his hand.
"If you mean her," Dickson pointed at the girl on the swing, "yes, that's Maureen Dickson, my daughter."
"Well, John -- may I call you John? -- you saw the newspapers this morning, the Supreme Court refusing to take my case against the school our kids attend."
"Yes, I read the whole story here" -- he pulled the paper up from his bicycle bag. "You're mad because the court refused to forbid the recitation of the pledge with the phrase 'under God' in it."
"Yes. What I'm wondering is, would you be willing to enter the case as a plaintiff, since your little girl there, Maureen, has to recite the same pledge?"
"I forget. Why wouldn't the Supreme Court see your case through?"
"Because Sally -- my daughter -- can't be represented by me."
"Why not? You're the father."
"Well ... I don't live with Sally's mother. And under the law, if the parents aren't married, the mother has legal rights, and her mother is -- a Christian."
"You don't live with Sally's mother, you're divorced --"
"Actually, we were never married. By the way, I'm also a lawyer."
"And you're against the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes 'under God'?"
"Right. None of that business of a state invoking God!"
"You took a pledge when you became a doctor?"
"Yes, of course, the Hippocratic oath, modern form."
"The Hippocratic oath has you saying you 'must not play at God.' Are you going to ask the Supreme Court to declare that oath unconstitutional?"
"Now wait a minute, Dickson. I just wanted to know if you would agree to serve as a plaintiff on behalf of your daughter, Maureen --"
"But I have to figure out what you're trying to do for your girl, before I decide whether I want to help you." John Dickson reached for the newspaper. "You said when interviewed after you presented your case that appearing before the Supreme Court had been a great experience but ..." -- he looked down at the text -- "'But the experience of a lifetime is to love your kid and be with her.' But it isn't the court that's keeping you from the experience of a lifetime. What's keeping you is you have yet to marry the mother."
"The fact I didn't marry Sandra has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance."
"But you're attempting to take the Pledge of Allegiance away from all the students at your daughter's school, and all students everywhere. And it says here that your wife -- I mean, the mother of your child -- is in favor of her little girl reciting the full pledge, and of course that California law gives her, not the absent-from-the-house father, standing in a court trial. Are you trying to get that law changed too? And while you're at it, Newdow, you intend to do something about the Hippocratic oath?"
"What about the Hippocratic oath?"
"The provision in it that says you mustn't play God."
"Who says I was trying to play God?"
"I say it. You impregnate a woman who gives birth to the child, you refuse to marry her or live with her, you protest the policies of the school the girl goes to, and you want to impose your values on the school. So that all the little boys in that school will grow up like you, a doctor who violates his Hippocratic oath, and refuses to live up to the responsibilities of a father? I call that playing God."
They both ducked, avoiding the speeding ball that whizzed by.
Tue Jun 15, 8:04 PM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.
"Excuse me, sir. Are you Maureen's father?"
John Dickson looked over at the children playing on the school playground. He ducked, but the football grazed his questioner, bloodying his nose. "Can you use my handkerchief?" Dickson brought it out from his pocket.
"No. No thanks. I'll be OK. I'm a doctor, by the way." He extended his hand.
"If you mean her," Dickson pointed at the girl on the swing, "yes, that's Maureen Dickson, my daughter."
"Well, John -- may I call you John? -- you saw the newspapers this morning, the Supreme Court refusing to take my case against the school our kids attend."
"Yes, I read the whole story here" -- he pulled the paper up from his bicycle bag. "You're mad because the court refused to forbid the recitation of the pledge with the phrase 'under God' in it."
"Yes. What I'm wondering is, would you be willing to enter the case as a plaintiff, since your little girl there, Maureen, has to recite the same pledge?"
"I forget. Why wouldn't the Supreme Court see your case through?"
"Because Sally -- my daughter -- can't be represented by me."
"Why not? You're the father."
"Well ... I don't live with Sally's mother. And under the law, if the parents aren't married, the mother has legal rights, and her mother is -- a Christian."
"You don't live with Sally's mother, you're divorced --"
"Actually, we were never married. By the way, I'm also a lawyer."
"And you're against the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes 'under God'?"
"Right. None of that business of a state invoking God!"
"You took a pledge when you became a doctor?"
"Yes, of course, the Hippocratic oath, modern form."
"The Hippocratic oath has you saying you 'must not play at God.' Are you going to ask the Supreme Court to declare that oath unconstitutional?"
"Now wait a minute, Dickson. I just wanted to know if you would agree to serve as a plaintiff on behalf of your daughter, Maureen --"
"But I have to figure out what you're trying to do for your girl, before I decide whether I want to help you." John Dickson reached for the newspaper. "You said when interviewed after you presented your case that appearing before the Supreme Court had been a great experience but ..." -- he looked down at the text -- "'But the experience of a lifetime is to love your kid and be with her.' But it isn't the court that's keeping you from the experience of a lifetime. What's keeping you is you have yet to marry the mother."
"The fact I didn't marry Sandra has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance."
"But you're attempting to take the Pledge of Allegiance away from all the students at your daughter's school, and all students everywhere. And it says here that your wife -- I mean, the mother of your child -- is in favor of her little girl reciting the full pledge, and of course that California law gives her, not the absent-from-the-house father, standing in a court trial. Are you trying to get that law changed too? And while you're at it, Newdow, you intend to do something about the Hippocratic oath?"
"What about the Hippocratic oath?"
"The provision in it that says you mustn't play God."
"Who says I was trying to play God?"
"I say it. You impregnate a woman who gives birth to the child, you refuse to marry her or live with her, you protest the policies of the school the girl goes to, and you want to impose your values on the school. So that all the little boys in that school will grow up like you, a doctor who violates his Hippocratic oath, and refuses to live up to the responsibilities of a father? I call that playing God."
They both ducked, avoiding the speeding ball that whizzed by.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
isn't it funny Joel that this is exactly what the British thought of the colonial rebels (sans Geneva) shooting at them from behind trees!!They are not members of an "army," therefore not "combatants" within the meaning of the Geneva protocols.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.
"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the world around it," said Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. "Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."
Retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, said the Bush administration anticipated a rosy reception after a military victory in Iraq but "we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. So we see here unfolding before us a total disaster."
Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war, said the administration's handling of wider relations with the Islamic world was particularly damaging to U.S. interests in the long run.
The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, did not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in a statement outlining its views. But one of its members said Sunday "it goes more or less without saying."
The statement suggested Bush's policies had left the United States isolated in the world.
Secretary of State Colin Powell reacted sharply to the allegation, noting that Bush has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in search of support from the international community.( this is a half ass lie..the prez went to the UN to make threats and demands)
"We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?" he asked.
Powell said the authors of the statement "wish to see President Bush not re-elected. I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people." He commented in an interview with the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television network.
The Bush-Cheney campaign said at least 20 members of the group have been involved in partisan political activities in the past.
"It is not surprising that John Kerry has the support of a group of people who share his belief that the threat of terror is exaggerated," Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a statement. "This is a group that shares John Kerry's pre-September 11th world view and supports John Kerry's failed ideas for treating terrorism as a matter mainly for law-enforcement and intelligence."
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said people who leave the Foreign Service can say what they want.
"This is a group of people who have taken a stand, made a statement. They are free to do so," he said. "I think this administration has a record that it is happy to stand on," he added.
Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.
Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Bill Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan); and retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency
Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq, and Crowe and Turner have endorsed Kerry.
Also included is Jack F. Matlock, who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained the post under the first President Bush, and William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel and four African countries.
Normally, former diplomats and military commanders avoid making political statements, especially in an election year. But last month 53 former diplomats accused the Bush administration of undermining U.S. credibility in the Middle East by its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
WASHINGTON - A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.
"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the world around it," said Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. "Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."
Retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, said the Bush administration anticipated a rosy reception after a military victory in Iraq but "we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. So we see here unfolding before us a total disaster."
Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war, said the administration's handling of wider relations with the Islamic world was particularly damaging to U.S. interests in the long run.
The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, did not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in a statement outlining its views. But one of its members said Sunday "it goes more or less without saying."
The statement suggested Bush's policies had left the United States isolated in the world.
Secretary of State Colin Powell reacted sharply to the allegation, noting that Bush has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in search of support from the international community.( this is a half ass lie..the prez went to the UN to make threats and demands)
"We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?" he asked.
Powell said the authors of the statement "wish to see President Bush not re-elected. I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people." He commented in an interview with the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television network.
The Bush-Cheney campaign said at least 20 members of the group have been involved in partisan political activities in the past.
"It is not surprising that John Kerry has the support of a group of people who share his belief that the threat of terror is exaggerated," Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a statement. "This is a group that shares John Kerry's pre-September 11th world view and supports John Kerry's failed ideas for treating terrorism as a matter mainly for law-enforcement and intelligence."
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said people who leave the Foreign Service can say what they want.
"This is a group of people who have taken a stand, made a statement. They are free to do so," he said. "I think this administration has a record that it is happy to stand on," he added.
Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.
Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Bill Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan); and retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency
Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq, and Crowe and Turner have endorsed Kerry.
Also included is Jack F. Matlock, who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained the post under the first President Bush, and William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel and four African countries.
Normally, former diplomats and military commanders avoid making political statements, especially in an election year. But last month 53 former diplomats accused the Bush administration of undermining U.S. credibility in the Middle East by its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
will this guy please go away.......somewhere far.....like Baghdad
NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) called his marital infidelity a "terrible moral error" whose disclosure to his wife put him "in the doghouse," during an interview scheduled for this Sunday's "60 Minutes."
Why did he commit adultery with White House intern Monica Lewinsky?
"For the worst possible reason," Clinton said. "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."
NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) called his marital infidelity a "terrible moral error" whose disclosure to his wife put him "in the doghouse," during an interview scheduled for this Sunday's "60 Minutes."
Why did he commit adultery with White House intern Monica Lewinsky?
"For the worst possible reason," Clinton said. "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
I've been saying that since the inseption of this thread. I also said that Bush and the rest of these guys need to go to jail. state not federal prison.cowboyangel wrote:By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.
Bush and Cheney should be charged with treason.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
build the case...DVD Burner wrote:I've been saying that since the inseption of this thread. I also said that Bush and the rest of these guys need to go to jail. state not federal prison.cowboyangel wrote:By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.
Bush and Cheney should be charged with treason.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Al Qaeda Disconnect
by David Corn
he connection"--neoconservative shorthand for the purported link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda--is crumbling. Two days after Vice President Cheney asserted that Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda" and one day after George W. Bush echoed his second-in-command, the independent bipartisan 9/11 commission said that no such bond existed. In a staff statement the commission notes, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda...occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." According to the commission, bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" in the early 1990s ("despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime"), a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met bin Laden in 1994 and bin Laden asked Iraq for space where he could establish training camps and for assistance in obtaining weapons. But, the commission concludes, "Iraq apparently never responded." Regarding possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 plot, the commission states, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
With one paragraph, the commission decimates a primary rationale of Bush's war on Iraq. Before the invasion, Bush argued that Saddam was an immediate threat and war was necessary because (a) Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and (b) Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda and at any moment could slip bin Laden WMDs to use against the United States. As Bush proclaimed in November 2002, Saddam was "a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda." But he produced no proof then, and, according to the commission, he has none now.
There were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but it appears that a relationship never blossomed. The 9/11 report, however, does indicate that there were several nations essential to Al Qaeda's growth and development. Sudan supported it extensively in the early 1990s. Bin Laden's operatives obtained training in explosives, intelligence and security from Iran. Pakistan "facilitated" the "Taliban's ability to provide Bin Ladin a haven." The governments of Pakistan and Iran apparently permitted recruits to transit their nations to bin Laden's training camps (perhaps 20,000 jihadis overall flocked to these facilities). Saudi Arabia was "fertile fundraising ground" for Al Qaeda, which depended on informal money-transfer networks in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, it seems that Al Qaeda could not have thrived without official or unofficial assistance in many countries. But according to the commission, Iraq was not among them.
Before and after the Iraq invasion, Cheney and others tried to tie Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. Asked this past September if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, Cheney again referred to the allegation that Mohamed Atta, lead 9/11 plotter, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before the strikes. Cheney was not reluctant about pushing this charge, although the CIA and FBI had already concluded that it was probably untrue. And in recent weeks neocon hawks like former CIA chief R. James Woolsey have continued to blow on the embers of the Atta-in-Prague story. But in another staff statement, the 9/11 commission declares, "Based on the evidence available-including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting-we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."
But "the connection" persists-at least for Bush. The day before the 9/11 commission released these reports, a reporter asked Bush to provide "the best evidence" for claiming that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. "Zarqawi is the best evidence," Bush said. "Remember the e-mail exchange between Al Qaeda and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom" in Iraq? This reference was to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in Iraq. Earlier this year, the Kurds intercepted a letter (not an e-mail) Zarqawi supposedly sent to Al Qaeda asking for help fomenting civil war in Iraq. According to US officials, Al Qaeda turned down the request. This exchange, if it indicates anything, is evidence of a division between the two terrorist camps. And Zarqawi has been linked in the past not to Saddam's regime but to Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist outfit that declared its opposition to Saddam.
If Zarqawi was the best evidence Bush could offer, he had a paltry case for going to war. Moreover, the 9/11 commission's findings show that Bush and the entire "connection" crowd were--and remain--disconnected from the known facts.
from the Nation Magazine http://www.thenation.com
by David Corn
he connection"--neoconservative shorthand for the purported link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda--is crumbling. Two days after Vice President Cheney asserted that Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda" and one day after George W. Bush echoed his second-in-command, the independent bipartisan 9/11 commission said that no such bond existed. In a staff statement the commission notes, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda...occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." According to the commission, bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" in the early 1990s ("despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime"), a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met bin Laden in 1994 and bin Laden asked Iraq for space where he could establish training camps and for assistance in obtaining weapons. But, the commission concludes, "Iraq apparently never responded." Regarding possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 plot, the commission states, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
With one paragraph, the commission decimates a primary rationale of Bush's war on Iraq. Before the invasion, Bush argued that Saddam was an immediate threat and war was necessary because (a) Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and (b) Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda and at any moment could slip bin Laden WMDs to use against the United States. As Bush proclaimed in November 2002, Saddam was "a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda." But he produced no proof then, and, according to the commission, he has none now.
There were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but it appears that a relationship never blossomed. The 9/11 report, however, does indicate that there were several nations essential to Al Qaeda's growth and development. Sudan supported it extensively in the early 1990s. Bin Laden's operatives obtained training in explosives, intelligence and security from Iran. Pakistan "facilitated" the "Taliban's ability to provide Bin Ladin a haven." The governments of Pakistan and Iran apparently permitted recruits to transit their nations to bin Laden's training camps (perhaps 20,000 jihadis overall flocked to these facilities). Saudi Arabia was "fertile fundraising ground" for Al Qaeda, which depended on informal money-transfer networks in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, it seems that Al Qaeda could not have thrived without official or unofficial assistance in many countries. But according to the commission, Iraq was not among them.
Before and after the Iraq invasion, Cheney and others tried to tie Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. Asked this past September if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, Cheney again referred to the allegation that Mohamed Atta, lead 9/11 plotter, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before the strikes. Cheney was not reluctant about pushing this charge, although the CIA and FBI had already concluded that it was probably untrue. And in recent weeks neocon hawks like former CIA chief R. James Woolsey have continued to blow on the embers of the Atta-in-Prague story. But in another staff statement, the 9/11 commission declares, "Based on the evidence available-including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting-we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."
But "the connection" persists-at least for Bush. The day before the 9/11 commission released these reports, a reporter asked Bush to provide "the best evidence" for claiming that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. "Zarqawi is the best evidence," Bush said. "Remember the e-mail exchange between Al Qaeda and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom" in Iraq? This reference was to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in Iraq. Earlier this year, the Kurds intercepted a letter (not an e-mail) Zarqawi supposedly sent to Al Qaeda asking for help fomenting civil war in Iraq. According to US officials, Al Qaeda turned down the request. This exchange, if it indicates anything, is evidence of a division between the two terrorist camps. And Zarqawi has been linked in the past not to Saddam's regime but to Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist outfit that declared its opposition to Saddam.
If Zarqawi was the best evidence Bush could offer, he had a paltry case for going to war. Moreover, the 9/11 commission's findings show that Bush and the entire "connection" crowd were--and remain--disconnected from the known facts.
from the Nation Magazine http://www.thenation.com
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
I keep forgeting about this
Don King Hits The Campaign Trail
Boxing Promoter Embarks On Cross-Country Tour
Jun 3, 2004 8:38 am US/Central
PHILADELPHIA (AP) Wild-haired and oft-investigated boxing promoter Don King is touring the country with Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie to promote President Bush's re-election.
As King himself might say -- and did say at a stop in Philadelphia on Wednesday -- "Only in America."
The flamboyant, voluble promoter, speaking to a group of black business leaders at a downtown jazz club, touted Bush's economic policies and said Democrats have taken blacks' votes for granted.
"People understand that George Walker Bush is the man with the plan to make America better," King, wearing an American flag tie and plenty of diamond-encrusted jewelry, said to raucous applause. "Sometimes, just sometimes, it ain't too bad to be in the Bushes."
King might seem an odd choice for Bush front man. He was convicted in the 1967 beating death of a man who owed him money and spent nearly four years in prison. In 1954, he killed a man who was robbing a numbers house he operated in Cleveland, but it was ruled self-defense.
He's also beaten tax evasion and fraud charges, faced numerous lawsuits from boxers and their handlers, and endured three grand jury investigations and an FBI sting operation -- all the while cementing his status as one of the world's top boxing promoters.
Republicans see King as a way to reach the ever-elusive black vote.
"I said to him, you know they are going to come after us, they are going to attack us, and they are going to try to smear us," Gillespie said Wednesday. "But the fact is, I know the man, he is a friend of mine, and I'm proud to stand with him today."
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tara Wall called King a "patriot."
"We support those who support us. Don King has come out to support us and he supports President George Bush. That's something he chose to do on his own and we're glad to have him," she said.
While steering clear of King, the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday attacked Gillespie's visit to Philadelphia and said in a statement that blacks in the city have been hurt, not helped, by Bush's economic policies.
King had called Gillespie as the presidential race got under way and said he wanted to help Bush grab a greater share of the black vote than in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore got 90 percent to Bush's 9 percent.
King and Gillespie, who began their "Economic Empowerment Tour" in Detroit last week, also plan stops in New York and Miami. The duo was joined in Philadelphia by Miss America 2003 Erika Harold, who is black.
King calls himself a "Republocrat" but said he is currently registered as a Republican. He hosted a fund-raiser for the RNC in March and lent his voice and likeness to a cartoon on the RNC Web site that pokes fun at presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry.
King, whose classic boxing promotions have ranged from the Rumble in the Jungle and Thrilla in Manila in the 1970s to the Mike Tyson-Evander Holyfield bouts of the 1990s, praised Bush and Gillespie for their attempts to reach out to blacks.
"Where have you see a Republican chairman standing up with us in the heart of the ghetto? We're going to talk about how we can make that change, to educate and uplift and enlighten our people," he told reporters.
Don King Hits The Campaign Trail
Boxing Promoter Embarks On Cross-Country Tour
Jun 3, 2004 8:38 am US/Central
PHILADELPHIA (AP) Wild-haired and oft-investigated boxing promoter Don King is touring the country with Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie to promote President Bush's re-election.
As King himself might say -- and did say at a stop in Philadelphia on Wednesday -- "Only in America."
The flamboyant, voluble promoter, speaking to a group of black business leaders at a downtown jazz club, touted Bush's economic policies and said Democrats have taken blacks' votes for granted.
"People understand that George Walker Bush is the man with the plan to make America better," King, wearing an American flag tie and plenty of diamond-encrusted jewelry, said to raucous applause. "Sometimes, just sometimes, it ain't too bad to be in the Bushes."
King might seem an odd choice for Bush front man. He was convicted in the 1967 beating death of a man who owed him money and spent nearly four years in prison. In 1954, he killed a man who was robbing a numbers house he operated in Cleveland, but it was ruled self-defense.
He's also beaten tax evasion and fraud charges, faced numerous lawsuits from boxers and their handlers, and endured three grand jury investigations and an FBI sting operation -- all the while cementing his status as one of the world's top boxing promoters.
Republicans see King as a way to reach the ever-elusive black vote.
"I said to him, you know they are going to come after us, they are going to attack us, and they are going to try to smear us," Gillespie said Wednesday. "But the fact is, I know the man, he is a friend of mine, and I'm proud to stand with him today."
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tara Wall called King a "patriot."
"We support those who support us. Don King has come out to support us and he supports President George Bush. That's something he chose to do on his own and we're glad to have him," she said.
While steering clear of King, the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday attacked Gillespie's visit to Philadelphia and said in a statement that blacks in the city have been hurt, not helped, by Bush's economic policies.
King had called Gillespie as the presidential race got under way and said he wanted to help Bush grab a greater share of the black vote than in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore got 90 percent to Bush's 9 percent.
King and Gillespie, who began their "Economic Empowerment Tour" in Detroit last week, also plan stops in New York and Miami. The duo was joined in Philadelphia by Miss America 2003 Erika Harold, who is black.
King calls himself a "Republocrat" but said he is currently registered as a Republican. He hosted a fund-raiser for the RNC in March and lent his voice and likeness to a cartoon on the RNC Web site that pokes fun at presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry.
King, whose classic boxing promotions have ranged from the Rumble in the Jungle and Thrilla in Manila in the 1970s to the Mike Tyson-Evander Holyfield bouts of the 1990s, praised Bush and Gillespie for their attempts to reach out to blacks.
"Where have you see a Republican chairman standing up with us in the heart of the ghetto? We're going to talk about how we can make that change, to educate and uplift and enlighten our people," he told reporters.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Lilly Flower
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:33 am
You don't think it's been done already?Simply Joel wrote:
build the case...
My goodness.
If the congress is capable of impeaching a President on a BJ then what is everyone doing sitting on thier hands about the killings and abuse this President is inflicting by telling lies about countries that are not doing what he has said to be doing.
You are watching too much TV.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
samtzu
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
- Contact:
History has shown that sending poor young men (and now women) into battle for agressive and imperialistic reasons (such as more profit for Haliburton), putting them in the position of getting the shit blown out of them, and convincing them that torture and abuse are viable methods to win the hearts and minds of the people, lies well within the president's mandate. A blow job in the Oval Office does not.
Something is very wrong with that picture.
Something is very wrong with that picture.
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Samtzu remember that film Koyaanisqatsi,Godfrey Reggio's film on life out of balamce? Life is totally out of balance. ..lies are taken to be truth, the evil call what they do good, etc etc..........
let's check out what the Hopi have to say http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/saturn.htm
let's check out what the Hopi have to say http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/saturn.htm
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
guess who?
from here:
http://www.excitementmachine.org/jc/gents/5.html
from here:
George Bush's dirty secret
Just a little humor. I'm sure there's one on Clinton comming out soon.
from here:
http://www.excitementmachine.org/jc/gents/5.html
from here:
George Bush's dirty secret
Just a little humor. I'm sure there's one on Clinton comming out soon.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
samtzu
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
- Contact:
Cowboyangel:
Precisely! The Hopi are correct, and they know that a correction is coming. President Doofus is part of it. When the world swings so far in the wrong direction as it has, the return will be wonderful.
I could tie in more about W.B. Yeats and the 26,000 year gyering cycle, or even the Mayans 2012 'End-O-The-World' calendar (for sale in the lobby) but not now... Later, perhaps...
And thanks for the link... it has come at precisely the right time for me.
Sam
Precisely! The Hopi are correct, and they know that a correction is coming. President Doofus is part of it. When the world swings so far in the wrong direction as it has, the return will be wonderful.
I could tie in more about W.B. Yeats and the 26,000 year gyering cycle, or even the Mayans 2012 'End-O-The-World' calendar (for sale in the lobby) but not now... Later, perhaps...
And thanks for the link... it has come at precisely the right time for me.
Sam
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
I can't believe some people finally got the balls to indicte Ken Lay.
Four years it took. People are weak suckers. He's finally gonna get indicted for fraud. what was so hard about that. Same charges can and should be brought up for Dick and Bush plus treason. simple. just no one with the balls to do it.
Four years it took. People are weak suckers. He's finally gonna get indicted for fraud. what was so hard about that. Same charges can and should be brought up for Dick and Bush plus treason. simple. just no one with the balls to do it.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
or a legal leg to stand on?DVD Burner wrote:I can't believe some people finally got the balls to indicte Ken Lay.
Four years it took. People are weak suckers. He's finally gonna get indicted for fraud. what was so hard about that. Same charges can and should be brought up for Dick and Bush plus treason. simple. just no one with the balls to do it.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Because I am not a lawyer... I don't knwo why it took 4 years for an indictment against Ken Lay... but I bet there is a real legal reasonSimply Joel wrote:or a legal leg to stand on?DVD Burner wrote:what was so hard about that. Same charges can and should be brought up for Dick and Bush plus treason. simple. just no one with the balls to do it.
and onto the other reference.... it isn't about balls, it is about legal foundation for the legal actions you are demanding... the case hasn't been made in court, the legislature (contempt of gongress kind of thing) or in this forum.
if it were about balls, we would be as backward as a couple of the countries we are nationa building in... becuase IMHO tribalism is about balls... not the rule of law.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
samtzu
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
- Contact:
Joel wrote:
I had a court experience years ago where it was made extremely clear to me that the American Justice System is based solely on money. I was able to walk out of the court because I threw some money at them. Although I am glad I was able to walk, the pain of those who can't 'just walk' affects me.
Ken Lay will serve his time... all three weeks of it... and he will be fined heavily... about 3% of what he stole from all of us. That is American justice.
Yes, there is. It is called 'a-shitload-o'-money'. It is the legal reason that OJ was exonerated; why Michael Jackson is still a free 'man' (?); and why millions of Americans rest in government built facilities because they couldn't 'afford' a good lawyer.Because I am not a lawyer... I don't knwo why it took 4 years for an indictment against Ken Lay... but I bet there is a real legal reason
I had a court experience years ago where it was made extremely clear to me that the American Justice System is based solely on money. I was able to walk out of the court because I threw some money at them. Although I am glad I was able to walk, the pain of those who can't 'just walk' affects me.
Ken Lay will serve his time... all three weeks of it... and he will be fined heavily... about 3% of what he stole from all of us. That is American justice.
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Here is someone else that doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about.samtzu wrote: Yes, there is. It is called 'a-shitload-o'-money'. It is the legal reason that OJ was exonerated; why Michael Jackson is still a free 'man' (?); and why millions of Americans rest in government built facilities because they couldn't 'afford' a good lawyer.
First off this is the wrong forum to talk about OJ and Jackson but since you brought up OJ I will put it to you this way.
It is quite obvious that you have never seen anyone killed before and have never seen anyone murdered by knife before.
I WILL TELL YOU FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; IT IS NOT PRETTY AND IS A SERIOUS MESS.
You do not come from any murder scene using a knife with drops of blood on you. Blood sprays all over the place and does not come off with a simple shower and a quick wash of a load of laundry.
As far as MJ is concerned who really cares.
It would be nice if the debate could be restricted to the intelligent only, Joel and the others have been great, However it is an open forum and we have to take it with a small grain of salt, those that are'nt as intelligent.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER