ptownrob:

you are too funny. I am convinced that you were having an uneventful day and decided to have some fun with this forum. Nothing can set this board off like a posting like yours.:pepper2:

ptownrob

Come back when you graduate .......

Fumar

Why should anyone be afraid of American Justice?
 

The attempted Bush Adminstration's Unitary Executive Coup was nothing but one huge, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." Not one word that anyone has written here indicates that they believe any different.

What was it Yoda said? Oh, Yeah...
Convenient it is very, when the shoe is on the other hand.

and Cabo, " I've added leftists and Marxists to your list per your request. Somehow, they seem most appropriate given your "party" line and unoriginal talking points.

You seem not to recognize the poem of Pastor Martin Niemöller..and if you agree to "add" Marxist and Leftists to my "list" as you call it, can it be taken to mean that you give tacit assent to the entire list?

Here's the poem in its entirety:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

(By the way, he was not very popular with Adolph Hitler.)

Cabo, you also state, In true Marxist banana republic style, your remedies and the Obama administration's direction seem to have no problem with establishing ex post facto criteria, contrived de facto bills of attainder, punishment of legal opinions and other unconstitutional devices to "hang" the previous administration while conveniently diverting attention from the real economic disaster they are crafting.

Does this mean that there is no circumstance, whatsoever, that would justify investigating the circumstances surrounding the Executive-authorized torture that accompanied this war?

My point is quite simple, and not meant to inflame, ad hominem, anyone posting on this board. On the other hand, calling to task those who perpetrated an evil is not ad hominem, it is ad rem, since they are the primary actors in the event. If one simply blames all the ills of the world on some villified group- "THEM" it's not a far reach to the mobs to justify book burnings, teabaggings and the like.

I'm not sure where it came across that Democrats should not be held accountable for their actions (or inactions). If there is illegal activity, including the deliberate misleading of the American people for reasons OTHER THAN National Security, then prosecution of those crimes should be investigated. No one should be afraid of the Light of Justice- She holds a balanced scale and she is blindfolded. I get the impression that several of our members do not have faith in American Justice any longer. If that be the case, perhaps it is not I who should be looking for greener pastures.

I would only caution that, in the past, the cry of "national security" has been used both legitimately and illegally. Sometimes only history can be the jusdge. Certainly Lincoln had just cause for suspending habeus corpus . Posse Comitatus has been violated on numerous occasions, but not necessarily for the wrong reasons.

All three branches of our government have recognized that Japanese internment camps in WWII were an abuse of national security. The Supreme Court, Congress and the Attorney General, Dep. Attorney General and Independent Prosecutor in the Nixon years recognized that Nixon's claim of "Executive Privilege" was not valid. You know who finally said that Nixon had the right to disobey the entire government accusing Nixon of breaking the laws of the United States?

A young lawyer named Robert Bork. I believe he's a poster-child of the false concept of "judicial restraint."


Finally, Steve, I have no disagreement with you whatsoever about the aftermath of 9/11. I do disagree with the outright falsehoods that you state, whicih completely change the sense of your statement concerning Iraq:

Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and 1.)notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and 2.)believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq 3.)already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. 4.)Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.

I do not, for a minute, deny that Saadam was a brutal, inhuman dictator- along with dozens of other national tyrants, with whom we seemed quite content to countenance. But that was not the justification for the war.

1.) Iraq was a major trading partner with a number of Western nations. In fact, for years, we supported Saadam in his war against Iran.

2. & 3.)The NIE for the U.S. were very ambivalent about Saadam's capabilities, the British were even more wary, and U.N. Weapons inspectors testified that Saadam had destroyed or lost virtually all capabilities since the 1991 war. It was George W. Bush who DELIBERATELY mislead the world concerning Iraq's attempt to get "yellowcake" for nuclear programs.

4.) Saadam was violently oppposed to Al Queda, and the Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld) smokescreen connecting him with 9/11 was repeatedly shown to be a total fabrication. Saadam feared radical Islam for the same reasons we do- He ran a secular (Muslim) state. He did not want radical Islamists anywhere near Iraq, and was willing to go to war to prevent it.

Your argument about Saadam being allied with Al Queda has been debunked as false propaganda as thoroughly as that of the moon being made of Swiss cheese- not that I have anything against Swiss cheese.

ptownrob... replace Nazis with Obama Marxists in your recent misrepresented version of Niemoller's poem and it makes more sense.

The original, unmanipulated version went like this:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

That thing about "social democrats" is a myth created by ..........

I am sure the targets of George Soros and your leftists friends "revenge" prosecution, or is that persecution, could interpret this classic in another way from their perspective.

Your pedantic ramblings are flawed and unimpressive.

Have a good evening.

I don't know who the "debunkers" are whom you believe. Methinks they have an agenda, and it is usually the same - America is the villain no matter what happens.

Saadam's regime was playing all sides. Iraqi support to Al Qa'ida was logical under the circumstances - if Al-Qa-ida targeted everyone else (being non-MidEast nations), then Iraq (and others - an an example, the financial book is not closed on Saudi involvement) would be the A-Q quartermaster. The quid pro quo was A-Q not interfering with Saadam's stranglehold. The "war makes strange bedfellows" is true. Stalin-Churchill-Roosevelt epitomized that. The Iran-Iraq feud has been going on for many a century, and was and still is Sunni v. Shia, and has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

And if the Bush administration AND Congress jointly made decisions based on intelligence information not as accurate as desired, blame the Clinton administration. It was Pres. Clinton that gutted the intelligence community budget, closing out collection and monitoring programs that took many years to develop and which kept the evil-doers in check offshore. The more incomplete the intelligence information, the greater the decision risk.

You can choose to disbelieve , but it was what it was,,,

Pres. Obama will be in a better position regarding decisions concerning homeland security, as he is inheriting an intelligence collection and analysis capacity in much better operational shape than his predecessor. It's still not as good as it was prior to 1992, but should continue to improve unless the new administration wants to work in the blind a la the previous Democratic administration. It is what it is....

First, let me correct an incorrect statement that has been fervently repeated by Democrats for years. Bill Clinton was NOT impeached for “…lieing about extra-marital affairs.” This repetition of this lie is done on the operating principles of the Democrats that, “If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people will come to believe that it is the truth.”
The reasons for Clinton’s impeachment are laid out the articles of impeachment:

Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

You can read the entire articles at http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ts/clinton.htm

It was these same crimes that caused the courts, including The United States Supreme Court to have his law license suspended for five years – are these too ‘Kangaroo Courts’?

On one of your other points, Bucco has recently posted a link to a WSJ editorial that discusses this at length. Of particular interest is that Nancy Pelosi was the ranking democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and was thoroughly briefed on all topics, including waterboarding. Should she be investigated and indicted, or is it to be only members of the Bush Administration? According to her Republican counterpart, Porter Goss, her major concern was that the CIA was not doing enough.

Oh, I forgot that she has said, in the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, "I can't recall."

Steve, you were dead on when you pointed out that Bill Clinton had vastly reduced our intelligence capability and President Bush was building it back and as a result, Obama inherited a much stronger intelligence capability than President Bush did. However, the recent ideas of 'after-the-fact' criminal prosecution by the Obama administration will cause continuing CYA activities in the intelligence committee to the detriment of actual intelligence gathering.

How dare I venture back into this arena..... But it is funny how we can hammer one for their opinion. But is interesting to read the included link. Yes it is from MSNBC, so I know there are a few that will say look at the source. Then again those are the Bush Bowers. But here it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30363738/

Man had opinion,, he stated that.. Like it or not, it is his thought. If you guys dont behave, I will have to throw another yellow flag for a Personal Foul.

Money OOUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Geez...I hate polls, but if you check the same poll numbers used to work that article you linked to show that the DISAPPROVE pct is also the highest since he took office (32.3) !

And have to have a retort for your "Bush bower" comment !!! I suppose because I admantly oppose the current WH policies and beliefs I might be considered a "Bush bower" as you so nicely phrase it (which factually is very very far from true), but I have to tell you since you put it in the context of MSNBC. I very seldom rely on cable news sources but MSNBC at night is the single most hate filled bunch of folks I can recall. They are the anti "move forward" network. They are, and it seems always will, stuck in the Bush presidency forever :)

I honestly never watch them or any of them, but the ads for those shows never fail to mention the last President, not what is happening today !

Opinion is one thing, spewing propaganda is quite another. I think vanilla is the best ice cream in the world. That's my opinion. But when you start twisting facts and even more so leaving out other facts that spin things in a slanted view is quite another. I think we all might be guilty of that from time to time but when you are, getting a spanking by other "opinion" holders shouldn't come as a surprise.

Out of context and slanting the story all = lying.
 

Everybody does it....some is just not malicious. For politicians it is the only way they know how to speak.

BTK

agree agreee agreee