Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies

[Jimmy Snyder]

I guess going fishing is his idea of "moving heaven and earth", which was the expression he used when asked whether 9/11 could have been prevented.

Fishing? If it had been me, I would have rushed immediately to the WTC to see what I could do to prevent the attack.

 

[Skyhunter]

According to the letter it was Hoekstra that requested the document be declassified. Since he is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that would make sense.

Santorum is catching all the flack, but Hoekstra seems to be the guy that started the whole fiasco.

 

[Skyhunter]

Fishing? If it had been me, I would have rushed immediately to the WTC to see what I could do to prevent the attack.

If it had been Al Gore, he probably would have started shaking the intelligence tree. Connecting some of the dots, like, oh Islamic fundamentalists wanting to learn to fly a jetliner, but not interested in landing it.

Sounds to me like Bush was waiting for it to happen so they could implement their PNAC plan that tied in so eloquently with Cheney's secret energy task force, and their plan to control the worlds remaining oil reserves.

There that is my conspiracy theory.

 

[edward]

That consiracy theory may not be far from the truth. It is apparent that Bush knew something was going to happen, but (Cheney/Rumfeld) who wanted an excuse to get troops into the Middle East, didn't think the terrorists could do us that much damage. They let it happen without bothering to look and see that that the attack was not going to be from a hijacked airliner coming from Europe. (they had norad actually prepare for that.)

This line of thinking reminds me of all the talk about Roosevelt knowing the Japanese were going to hit Pearl harbor. He obviously did know something was up, so he put his ships in a place that he thought was safe.

Big mistakes in both cases.

 

[Skyhunter]

That consiracy theory may not be far from the truth.

It sure explains why they studiously ignored the threat from Al Qaeda for the first 8 months of the administration.

 

[SOS2008]

At Santorum's request Negrponte was the one who declassified and released the document.
Now the turkeys are cherry picking old intel and trying to make it look current. Haven't we played this tune before?
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/NEGRPONTELETTER.pdf

All the right-wing nut jobs who watch Faux News have believed cherry-picked spin before, so I'll bet this will continue to work now. To my horror, during a recent conversation I realized my sister still thinks Iraq/Saddam was linked to 9-11, while many others remain completely oblivious to the issues in general. Here in Arizona people are so conservative that TVs in lobbies are tuned into Faux News. I can only cringe and spend the time thinking of ways to change the channel!

 

[SOS2008]

Unified Republican support of failed policy vs. claims of "cut and run"

Why are Democrats having so much difficulty holding Bush accountable for his myriad failures? I think it's because they've lost touch with the basic merits of accountability...

But then, some Senate Democrats got smart for a change. They recognized that the party out of the White House doesn't need a detailed strategy for ending a war, just a general sense of direction. When Dwight Eisenhower ran for president in 1952, his plan wasn't any more specific than "I will go to Korea." When Richard Nixon was asked how he would end the Vietnam War in 1968, he said he had a "secret plan"—and got away with it. So now 80 percent of Senate Democrats are united behind something called the "Levin-Reed Amendment." The details of it (begin withdrawal without a firm timetable for getting out completely; diplomacy with the Sunnis; purging the Iraqi military and police of bad guys) are less important than that they finally came up with something.

Of course parrying "cut and run" with "Levin-Reed" won't suffice. But Sen. Joe Biden's riposte to the GOP's symbolic roll-call votes—"The Republicans are now totally united in a failed policy"—is a start. This isn't rocket science. Unless things improve dramatically on the ground in Iraq, Democrats have a powerful argument: If you believe the Iraq war is a success, vote Republican. If you believe it is a failure, vote Democratic.

Isn't that irresponsible? Not in the slightest. It's only under Bush that criticizing the conduct of a war has been depicted as somehow unpatriotic. Lincoln was lambasted by opponents during the Civil War as was FDR during World War II. To take a lesser example, some of the same Sean Hannitys of the world who slam antiwar critics were blasting Bill Clinton's Bosnia policy in 1999 when U.S. planes were in the air over Belgrade.

We'll see this summer if Democrats begin to get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say, "This isn't about us. It's about them." We'll see if, when Karl Rove wants to talk about Iraq, the Democrats respond with three familiar words: "Bring it on."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13531829/site/newsweek/page/2/

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting book on the use of language in politics.

'Talking Right': Why the Left Is Losing, Linguistically
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5536444

Fresh Air from WHYY, July 6, 2006 · In his new book, Talking Right, linguist Geoff Nunberg examines the parlance of the American political right. Conservatives, Nunberg notes, have been remarkably effective at creating a language through which to convey their agenda. The subtitle of his book illustrates what he's getting at: "How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show."

Nunberg, who teaches at the University of California-Berkeley, is a researcher at the Center for the Study of language and Information at Stanford University. He is also the author of Going Nucular and The Way We Talk Now.

Are the Democrats simply tone deaf? That impression was hard to escape when the party floated a new slogan in the fall of 2005 that was aimed at the 2006 midterm elections: "Together, America can do better." Or more accurately, a newly augmented slogan—in 2004, John Kerry had used "America can do better," without the "together" part. According to the congressional newspaper The Hill, Democrats had chosen the slogan to address the party's "messaging problems" after testing it in focus groups along with a number of alternatives. "We know the majority of people agree with us on the issues," one Democrat was quoted as saying, "but this effort is an acknowledgment that we need to communicate better."

Excerpt from book.

It's clear that the Republican party is much better a propaganda than the Democratic party.

Nunberg's website - http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/

 

[edward]

Another bush lie

Before the invasion of Iraq the American people were assured by Bush that they need not worry about the expense. They were told Iraqi oil could pay for rebuilding the country and establishing a new government.

It was alll a lie.

Before the war, US officials engaged in a delicate balancing act. They sought to counter the pervasive belief in the Middle East and Europe that the war was all about oil, while vaguely telling the US taxpayer not to worry about the cost.

Behind the scenes, however, senior figures in the administration - including Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, Douglas Feith, in charge of Pentagon postwar planning, Vice-President Richard Cheney, as well as the CIA's George Tenet - were being advised by former officials, experts and corporate bosses that the badly dilapidated Iraqi oil industry in no way represented a financial lifeline.

"With all the information available, it seems that those in charge chose not to know," commented James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who took part in "Iraq: The Day After", a report produced by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a prestigious think-tank, shortly before the war. "Like other aspects of Iraq, those making policy believed what they wanted to believe about oil, without reference to the facts," Mr Placke told the Financial Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

 

[SOS2008]

Before the invasion of Iraq the American people were assured by Bush that they need not worry about the expense. They were told Iraqi oil could pay for rebuilding the country and establishing a new government.

It was alll a lie.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

If we look at history we see several patterns. First:

When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Surveying our history, we see a clear pattern. Since the end of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The enormous losses of life, property, and liberty that Americans have sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading them into war.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=134

There are many motives for deceiving the American public about the invasion of Iraq, with oil being only one possible reason. Once again, historically Bush, et al, knew that "war presidents" tend to be reelected. Four out of four presidents whose reelection campaigns were conducted during wartime were reelected. And so,

Though major combat is over in Iraq and Afghanistan, George W. Bush likes to describe himself as a "war president." No doubt that's partly because he and his campaign team think that such an image will help him get re-elected. When we recall Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, we impart to them a heroic aura, imagining Americans muting political rivalries and rallying behind the president and the war at hand.

http://hnn.us/articles/4368.html

"President Bush is defining himself as a war president. It is endemic to everything he says and does and that's the overriding definitional tone," said Mike Frank, a government expert from the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/12/politics/main599984.shtml

Of course as one of these articles point out, being a war president does not ensure reelection--it just helps. So Bush and his brain Rove did far more, including unethical smearing of the opponent, etc. The core Bush supporters most certainly perceived Bush "as a Roosevelt or Lincoln, or as a Truman or Johnson." One such supporter made a memorial with Bush's likeness along with several such great presidents, and no doubt wanted him added to Mount Rushmore. ( How disrespectful!)

Of course the rest of us, such as James Moore, the author of "Bush's War For Reelection : Iraq, the White House, and the People" have always known Bush's character was far from that league. He is nothing but an arrogant, reckless, and shallow man who expects the American people to *just trust him* and turn a blind eye to the naked aggressions of his administration.

Because of reelection we have had to endure another term of Bush**t. I know many people were duped, but I hope they regret what they have done, and most of all I hope a lesson has been learned.

 

[edward]

I know many people were duped, but I hope they regret what they have done, and most of all I hope a lesson has been learned.

I know people who still believe all of that Bush**t, take my sister in law, please.

 

[Astronuc]

Attorney General Says President Decided to Deny Security Clearances to Investigators
By MARK SHERMAN, AP

WASHINGTON (July 19) - President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April.

"It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales.

"The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied.

Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060719/wl_afp/usattackspolitics_060718223324

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush blocked a Justice Department probe into a secret program to tap international phone calls and electronic communications of US citizens, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales confirmed that Bush put a halt to an enquiry by department lawyers into the National Security Agency (NSA) program, which involved wiretaps without court warrants.

Meanwhile, two US lawmakers challenged the Justice Department on Tuesday to explain what rights the administration had in tapping phones and allegedly leaking information about sensitive investigations to the media.

Why does this seem like obstruction of justice - a coverup perhaps?

 

[BobG]

Attorney General Says President Decided to Deny Security Clearances to Investigators
By MARK SHERMAN, AP


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060719/wl_afp/usattackspolitics_060718223324
Why does this seem like obstruction of justice - a coverup perhaps?

This is standard practice for the most highly classified programs, as is limiting the number of Congressmen that are allowed to know and provide oversight of those programs. It's not some new policy created by Bush.

That said, the question is whether a handful of Congressmen can hear a briefing on a program like the electronic eavesdropping program and evaluate it when they are not allowed to consult with any outside sources. Protecting national secrets is important, but I don't think Congress is really providing oversight when they lack personal expertise, can't consult with someone who might have expertise, and can't even get clearance for an independent investigation of the program.

In this instance, it's the policy for programs like this that's the problem; not Bush, personally.

 

[Astronuc]

Bob, I agree.

The problem I have with the US administrations is the propensity to use the 'National Security' tag to hide illegal and immoral activities. And it's all administrations to varying degrees.

Of course, any person conducting criminal activities doesn't want to be discovered.

 

[Astronuc]

From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You ‘Axis of Evil’
By FRANK RICH, NY Times, July 16, 2006

AS American foreign policy lies in ruins from Pyongyang to Baghdad to Beirut, its epitaph is already being written in Washington. Last week’s Time cover, “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy,” lays out the conventional wisdom: the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, upended by chaos in Iraq and the nuclear intransigence of North Korea and Iran, is now officially kaput. In its stead, a sadder but more patient White House, under the sway of Condi Rice, is embracing the fine art of multilateral diplomacy and dumping the “bring ’em on” gun-slinging that got the world into this jam.

The only flaw in this narrative — a big one — is that it understates the administration’s failure by assuming that President Bush actually had a grand, if misguided, vision in the first place. Would that this were so. But in truth this presidency never had a vision for the world. It instead had an idée fixe about one country, Iraq, and in pursuit of that obsession recklessly harnessed American power to gut-driven improvisation and P.R. strategies, not doctrine. This has not changed, even now.

And of course, the reputation of the US has been greatly diminished around the world.

Another great line from Rich -

The Bush era has not been defined by big government or small government but by virtual government.

with virtually non-existent leadership.

One more from Rich

“Before long, Congress will be leaving on its summer vacation,” Bob Schieffer of CBS News said two weeks ago. “My question is, how will we know they are gone?” By the calculation of USA Today, the current Congress is on track to spend fewer days in session than the “do-nothing Congress” . . . in 1948. No wonder its approval rating, for Republicans and Democrats together, is even lower than the president’s. It’s not only cowboy diplomacy that’s dead at this point in the Bush era, but also functioning democracy as we used to know it.

 

[Astronuc]

National Guard Readiness
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5640843

Weekend Edition Sunday, August 13, 2006 · The war in Iraq is taking a toll on the Army National Guard's readiness. The plight of the Arkansas National Guard offers an illustration: It was forced to leave millions of dollars of equipment in Iraq.

This is so unbelieveable! The US Military has a shortage of equipment, some of which has worn out or been destroyed in Iraq.

The General in charge of the Guard has apparently reported this to the Armed Services committee in Congress.

When questioned by the same committee, Rumsfeld's response was something like "I don't believe he [the General] said what you [the committe] said he said". The next part of the broadcast is the General's comment in which he says the Army has an equipment shortage, and it's worse for the Guard. Rumsfeld is so in denial!

This is right up there with Bush's statement to the effect "we are doing all we can to support the troops," when in reality the administration was NOT - the troops lacked necessary armoured vehicles and proper body armour. And that is after three years in which to prepare!

And there are people who still support Bush??!?

 

[edward]

The assertions made by Astronuc about insufficient armor and worn out equipment have been proven and verified numerous times with credible links in previous threads.

What is new is that the lack of equipment has filtered back to the national Guard units at home. The link to NPR above makes that fact perfectly clear.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06111.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-12-17-turley_x.htm
By Jonathan Turley, 2003-12-17

I recently received a note from one of the few husbands who knows just what his wife wants as a holiday gift. The Army sergeant (who asked to remain anonymous) e-mailed me from Iraq asking my help in finding him a store to buy body armor for his wife.
Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers — plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit her vest.

The Pentagon confirms that at least 40,000 of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq don't have basic Kevlar Interceptor vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection.
. . .
I first assumed that Murphy's unit was a mix-up. Then I called retailers and manufacturers of body armor and was told that they had been deluged by such orders from the families of soldiers.

Soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm
The Associated Press

Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way.

Pentagon grilled on body armor shortage
BY GLENN THRUSH, WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usarm124584554jan12,0,5263685.story
January 12, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Army announced yesterday plans to distribute 230,000 side-protecting armor inserts to troops in Iraq over the next year amid growing criticism that the Pentagon has delayed life-saving upgrades to body armor.

Last year, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office found that 80 percent of the Marines who died of torso wounds from March 2003 to June 2005 in Iraq may have lived if their vests contained additional protection for the sides, arms and neck.

That report, leaked to news outlets last week, prompted Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) to summon Pentagon brass to Capitol Hill yesterday to explain delays and material shortages in military armor programs.

Iraq Troops Now Have Body Armor
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_armor_060804,00.html
Associated Press
June 8, 2004

COLONIAL HEIGHTS, Va. - The Army's top supply commander said Monday that all American troops in Iraq are now equipped with bullet-resistant vests, after a shortage that led many soldiers to pay for costly body armor themselves.

As late as March, some soldiers headed for Iraq were still buying their own body armor, despite assurances from the military that the equipment would be available before they were in harm's way.

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml
Oct. 31, 2004

But the 343rd isn't the first outfit to be put in harm's way without proper equipment, and commanders in Iraq acknowledged that the unit's concerns were legitimate, even if their mutiny was not.

With a $400 billion defense budget you might think U.S. troops have everything they need to fight the war, but that's not always the case.

Why it took soldiers to put Rumsfeld on the defenseThe Pentagon press corps has been missing in action,
so Army grunts stepped into do its job.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/12/10/kuwait/index.html

December 10, 2004 | Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's rude reality check on Wednesday -- broadcast worldwide during a town-hall-style Q&A session with surprisingly blunt Army reservists in Kuwait -- generated headlines in part because it's so rare for Army grunts to challenge the Pentagon leadership in public. But the critical give-and-take also made waves and jolted the secretary because Rumsfeld is simply not accustomed to facing this type of tough questioning, certainly not from the deferential press corps that covers him and the Pentagon on a daily basis. Instead, many reporters in the clubby world of the capital continue to hold Rumsfeld in unusually high regard, considering he's the point man for the deeply troubling U.S. strategy in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" was the blunt question that Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team put to Rumsfeld, who was visiting soldiers at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, on the eve of their deployment into Iraq.
. . .
But Rumsfeld's headmaster-style pushback, so effective in dealing with timid reporters inside Pentagon briefing rooms, did not stem the flow of tough questions, as troops peppered him about the Pentagon's "stop loss" program, which forces volunteer troops to serve longer than expected. "Settle down, settle down," Rumsfeld said at one point, trying to regain control. "I'm an old man and it's early in the morning. I'm gathering my thoughts here."

I saw that interview.

In January 2006, a Pentagon study revealed that at least 80 percent of marines killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body may have lived if they had been provided additional body armor that shields the sides of the torso. Such additional side armor had been available since 2003.¹⁶

Both the Marine Corps and the Army have now moved to provide the additional side armor. As of January, the Marines had delivered 9,000 sets and expected to have enough for its entire force by April 2006.¹⁸ (That's 3 yrs into a war for which there was 3 yrs to prepare). The Army had provided a limited amount of side armor starting in November of 2003 but did not order enough for all of its soldiers in Iraq. It placed an emergency order for side armor in January 2006.¹⁹ Additional body armor could have saved lives in Iraq, according to a Pentagon report.

16 ‘Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows,’ New York Times, January 6, 2006
18 ‘More Body Armor Is On the Way for U.S. Troops,’ Washington Post, January 12, 2006
19 ‘Pentagon Acts on Body Armor,’ New York Times, January 21, 2006

from http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/pdf/2006-3-8-truman-committee-final.pdf

I'll concede that the Democrats are probably very subjective when it comes to Bush and his policies, particularly Iraq, but the body of evidence supports the concerns expressed in the previous document.

Lastly for the vets who have born the brunt of Bush's war.
http://optruth.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=258&Itemid=66

Bush and his cohorts started planning an invasion for Iraq in 2000, before he was president. He became president Jan 20, 2001. According to the Paul O'Neill, then Secretary of Treasury, Iraq was the first item mentioned at the first Cabinet meeting. That left two years to prepare.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, termed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" by the US administration, began on March 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Freedom
Most troops were sent without effective armor, as the above articles mention, despite Bush's repeated assertions that his administration was doing everything they could to support the troops.

The young men and women of the US military certainly deserve better than that.

 

[mathwonk]

I read the other day that the administration was proposing to change the US law on war crimes to shield people from prosecution who have participated in abu ghraib type incidents.

I was shocked to see how similar this administration has become to fascist dictatorships throughout the world. changing the rules retroactively to pretend we are not guilty of what people considered as war crimes a few years ago, this is worse than embarrassing.

I am equally amazed that there are people who support this regime, but I have learned there are always people who will support anything, and even more who will support an atrocity if it is defended in the name of patriotism.

 

[Skyhunter]

So for 3 years the pentagon has been telling Congress and the press that the body armor shortage is being, or has been addressed.

While the pentagon obfuscated, perhaps as many as 2000 fatal wounds would not have been fatal had the soldiers been wearing full and proper body armor. Two thousand dead needlessly.

Last year, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office found that 80 percent of the Marines who died of torso wounds from March 2003 to June 2005 in Iraq may have lived if their vests contained additional protection for the sides, arms and neck.

How can anyone support this?

The cost of modern warfare is to high. In other words the benefits are not worth the premium that is paid. Not just in the lives of the young men and women in our military, but the rampant destruction of the places where people live. Most costly of all to America is the additional hatred and animosity directed our way.

 

[Astronuc]

I found this site with some comments about the cost of war.

http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/support_troops.html

I haven't verified the accuracy, so the reader must apply due diligence.

 

[ptabor]

with respect to holding people without access to an attorney, I'm torn on this issue.

On the one hand, it's clear (at least in my mind) that fighting the war on "terror" by treating it as a criminal investigation is worthless. Many times the details of plots are unknown, hence getting a warrant to search would be impractical (It must be specified what you're searching for and why). By the time you knew the details, it would probably be too late.

To me, it is a military issue. The whole, and the ONLY purpose of our government (and any other) is to protect our citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. Since these so called terrorists seek to do us harm, it is the executive branch's job to deal with the issue, not the judicial. Consequently, they should be accorded the rights of any other prisoner of war - not those of someone tried in a case of conspiracy to commit murder.

On the other hand, there is a very real and persistent concern that this power to sweep people under the rug will be abused. I, like any rational human being, realize that government is not to be trusted. Given this, it would seem reasonable to extend the checks and balances system to our war on "terror". Of course, the bush administration is not too keen on checks and balances - so this is a valid point of concern for any semi informed citizen.

Also, I noticed that someone invoked the words of one of our forefathers: "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - this has GOT to stop. Our forefathers said lots of things they didn't mean. ie "all men are created equal" - so long as you're not black or red skinned and "inalienable rights" - like the right to pick cotton in a field.


With regards to the original topic, the lies of the republican party, need I remind anyone here that lies are not central to the republican party. Clinton, for example, committed purgury (don't give me the line that we had no right to ask. He was an employee of the citizens and he was using his power as a government official to have an affair. It was happening on the taxpayers dime. If a CEO of a big corporation had been using investor money to get BJ's in his office, he'd be fired or in prison).

 

[Astronuc]

holding people

That is the whole point!

The idea of due process is that the authorities (which normally applies to civil authorities) must have a legitimate reason to hold and prosecute someone. Otherwise, innocent people would be arbitrarily detained, which has already been the case in Afghanistan.

I believe 'due process' and a 'just application of the law', including observance of basic human and civil rights, must be extended to 'ALL' peoples, not just US citizens, i.e. there must be 'one' standard applied uniformly and fairly to all people.


As for Clinton being on the taxpayers' dime, presidents must inherently mix public and private lives. It would be a stretch to say Clinton did it on the payroll or at taxpayer expense. However, I do agree he lied. On the other hand, Bush makes Clinton look like a 'boy scout'.

 

[SOS2008]

I believe 'due process' and a 'just application of the law', including observance of basic human and civil rights, must be extended to 'ALL' peoples, not just US citizens, i.e. there must be 'one' standard applied uniformly and fairly to all people.

The best way to spread democracy is to set a good example.

Unfortunately BushCo decided to adopt Israel's philosophy of "hit them before they hit you," but this is reasonable only if there is good intelligence first. The high percentage of prisoners that are released after years of investigation because of lack of evidence indicates the U.S. is WAY off.

Well that's what you get when you put a bunch of idiots in charge. First BushCo divided the world, then our country, and now even their own party. I wonder how long it will take for the U.S. to gain back respect from the rest of the world, and if our wounded country will ever heal.

 

[Astronuc]

States Sue Federal Gov't Over Forest Protections
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5691875

All Things Considered, August 22, 2006 · Logging has begun on the largest area of roadless forest in the state of Oregon, and the state's government is fuming.

When the Bush administration reversed the ban on building new roads on now roadless federal lands, it agreed to let the states decide which areas should remain protected, and which should be open to activities such as road-building, mining and oil and gas exploration.

But the federal government is allowing logging in Oregon and energy development in Colorado before either state has finished its plan for the roadless lands. Five states have gone to court in protest of the actions.

The job being undertaken in Oregon is relatively small, but it's causing a large controversy. National conservation groups see it as proof that the Bush administration is intent on opening more federal wild land to logging, mining and drilling.

Despite Health Risks, D.C. Power Plant Kept Open
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673425

Morning Edition, August 21, 2006 · Hundreds of old coal-fired power plants still haven't installed modern pollution controls. One plant, across the Potomac River from the White House, is so vital to the Washington, D.C. region's electricity supply that the federal government is bending pollution rules to keep it running.

The federal government sees the Mirant power station in Alexandria, Va., as an essential source of electricity for central Washington. Local politicians and residents see it as an especially potent health hazard. They say that, even though the plant was here first, it doesn't belong in a neighborhood that's now full of garden apartments, brick town houses and high-rise condominiums.

U.S. Power Plants Slow to Clean Up Their Act
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673484
by Elizabeth Shogren

NPR.org, August 20, 2006 · Most of country's 420 coal-fired power plants still lack advanced pollution controls, even though the equipment to clean up their hazardous exhausts has been widely available for many years, according to Environmental Protection Agency officials.

Serious Health Hazards

The federal government has long known that the plants harm public health, but in recent years, science has shown that they are deadlier than Congress realized when it adopted major air-pollution laws.

The EPA now estimates that each year, tens of thousands of older Americans die early from heart or lung failure, and younger Americans suffer asthma attacks, as a result of tiny particles or soot from power plants. Both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by the plants form fine particles or soot.

"These are much smaller than the width of a human hair, so they can deposit very deep in the lungs and can contribute to a lot of respiratory effects, as well as cardiovascular effects," says Jonathan Levy, a professor of public health at Harvard University who studies power-plant pollution.

Putting profit ahead of peoples' health. Hmmmm.

 

[Gokul43201]

...Israel's philosophy of "hit them before they hit you,"...

Not from anything I've read or heard about!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/israel-inde.htm

War of Independence
The UNSCOP reported on August 31 that a majority of its members supported a geographically complex system of partition into separate Arab and Jewish states, a special international status for Jerusalem, and an economic union linking the three members. Backed by both the United States and the Soviet Union, the plan was adopted after two months of intense deliberations as the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947. Although considering the plan defective in terms of their expectations from the League of Nations Mandate twenty-five years earlier, the Zionist General Council stated willingness in principle to accept partition. The League of Arab States (Arab League) Council, meeting in December 1947, said it would take whatever measures were required to prevent implementation of the resolution.

Despite the passage of the UN partition plan, the situation in Palestine in early 1948 did not look auspicious for the Yishuv. When the AHC {Arab Higher Commission] rejected the plan immediately after its passage and called for a general strike, violence between Arabs and Jews mounted. Many Jewish centers, including Jerusalem, were besieged by the Arabs.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/yom_kippur.htm

Yom Kippur War
On 6 October 1973 Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a surprise attack on Israel.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/lebanon.htm

Lebanon
(Civil War 1975-1991)
An interim cease-fire brokered by the U.S. in 1981 among Syria, the PLO, and Israel was respected for almost a year. Several incidents, including PLO rocket attacks on northern Israel, as well as an assassination attempt on the Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom, led to the June 6, 1982 Israeli ground attack into Lebanon to remove PLO forces.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/6-day.htm

Six Day War (War of 1967)
On 13 May 1967, Egypt reinforced its forces in the Sinai border and Israel mobilized in response.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/israel-terror.htm

Terrorist Attacks in Israel
Initially linked to Syria, Al Fatah came into its own after the June 1967 War, when the West Bank and the Gaza Strip fell under Israeli control. Palestinian refugees poured into Jordan, where the PLO established virtually autonomous enclaves, and from which it launched guerrilla raids. Israel's retaliation inflicted heavy damage within Jordan. The PLO refused demands from King Hussein that it cease operations and, in a sharp conflict with Jordanian forces in 1970 and 1971, was driven out of Jordan. Shifting its headquarters to Lebanon, the PLO adopted a more formal military structure, benefiting from an abundant flow of arms from other Arab nations. In spite of the danger of Israeli reprisals, the Lebanese government was forced to accept the independent political and military presence of the PLO in Lebanon.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/intifada2.htm

Al-Aqsa Intifada
The Al-Aqsa Intifada began in September 2000, in response to Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on September 28th. The Temple Mount, known as the Haram as Sharif in Arabic, is also the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, from which the uprising takes its name. This visit was seen by many to be a provocative gesture aimed at inciting the Palestinians because the mosque is considered the third holiest site for Muslims. Many Israelis viewed Sharon's visit as an internal political move against Prime Minister Ehud Barak, his opponent in the upcoming election. Some sources contend that the Intifada was planned by the Palestinian Authority or other Palestinian groups. Additionally, the Israeli government received some assurances from the Palestinian government that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount would not cause violence. Contrary to some reports, Sharon did not enter the mosque itself. Regardless, violent Palestinian demonstrations occurred on September 29th. Israeli police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the stone-throwing protesters and in the process killed four and wounded about 200 Palestinians. Following these demonstrations, similar protests broke out across Israel.
...
Negotiations at Sharm-el-Sheikh in October to end the violence produced the Mitchell Report, considered an authoritative report on Al-Aqsa Intifada. The report blamed both the Israelis and the Palestinians for the violence. At the negotiations, both sides vowed to put an end to the violence. At an Arab League summit in Cairo, however, Arafat and other Arab leaders praised the Intifada and rejected the Mitchell Report. Soon thereafter, a suicide bombing in Jerusalem increased tensions and diminished hopes of ending the violence.
...
No agreement was reached during negotiations in Washington in December 2000, either. President Clinton's proposal called for Palestinian control over 97% of the West Bank, complete control over Gaza, control of West Bank airspace, an international force in the Jordan Valley to replace the IDF, and control over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Haram as Sharif. The Israelis accepted Clinton's proposal with reservations and the Palestinians did not respond before the deadline. Negotiations at Taba in January 2001 failed to produce an agreement either. Violence continued over the course of 2001.
...
UN Resolution 1397, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's peace proposal, and American General Anthony Zinni's visit to the region failed to end the violence in March 2002. After a suicide attack killed 27 Israelis during a Passover seder in April 2002, Israel embarked on Operation Defensive Shield and reoccupied Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and other towns in an attempt to destroy terrorist infrastructure, disrupt funding, and prevent attacks.
...
In November 2004, Yasir Arafat died and many thought that new opportunities for peace would come from his death. In January 2005, Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the PNA and met with Sharon at Sharm-el-Sheikh in February 2005. Both sides announced an end to the violence. The Israeli parliament approved the disengagement plan during the same month. In March 2005, militant groups agreed to a tahideyah (lull in the fighting). While not a full truce, this was considered major progress and some have argued that it marked the end of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

In July 2005, the truce was broken by a suicide bombing in Netanya, which led to raids by the IDF into the West Bank. Hamas responded with rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
...
Israel implemented its disengagement plan in August 2005, evacuating settlers from all of its Gaza settlements and four settlements in the West Bank. Sharon suffered a massive stroke in January 2006 and leadership of the Israeli government fell to Ehud Olmert. Hamas was victorious in Palestinian elections held in January 2006 and Olmert's Kadima Party retained power in Israeli elections in March 2006.

Hamas continued to launch rockets from the Gaza Strip and on June 25th, 2006 captured an Israeli corporal after killing two other Israeli soldiers in a raid attacking an Israeli border post near Gaza. Hamas's incursion into Israel led to Operation Summer Rains, a major thrust into Gaza. On July 12th, Hizbullah militants killed three Israeli soldiers in the north and captured two others. This led Israel to commence Operation Just Reward, a sustained bombing campaign against southern Lebanon.

The commonest phrase one comes across, it seems, (when you read the history of Israel) is "in retaliation". I've come across several objections that these retaliations were employing excessive force with a dangerously negligent attitude towards collateral loss - never that Israel was the one with the policy of first strikes.

 

[Astronuc]

Certainly Israel has retaliated when attacked, but Israel has targeted Hamas people in Gaza, and in some cases 'vehichles suspected of . . . '.

ARABS-ISRAEL - May 8 - Hamas Leader Killed In Gaza Helicopter Attack
APS Diplomat Recorder, May, 2003

Israeli attack helicopters fire three missiles, killing Eyad Al Beik, a 30-year-old Hamas leader, and leaving his white sedan mangled and scorched in the Shaikh Radwan neighbourhood in Gaza City. (The violence points to the challenges facing US State Secretary Colin Powell, who is ...

Israel Launches Missile Strikes Against Hamas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4755346

Morning Edition, July 15, 2005 · Israel launches helicopter missile strikes against vehicles suspected of transporting members of Hamas. The strikes occurred in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip and killed at least four people.

Overnight, Israeli helicopters fired missiles at five Palestinian targets in Gaza. The strikes came after a 22-year-old Israeli woman was killed in a rocket attack on an Israeli village. That rocket fire sparked a gun battle Friday between Hamas militants and Palestinian police; two Palestinians reportedly died.

Whether or not such pre-emptive strikes are justified is certainly debatable.

 

[Gokul43201]

Certainly Israel has retaliated when attacked, but Israel has targeted Hamas people in Gaza, and in some cases 'vehichles suspected of . . . '.

ARABS-ISRAEL - May 8 - Hamas Leader Killed In Gaza Helicopter Attack
APS Diplomat Recorder, May, 2003


Israel Launches Missile Strikes Against Hamas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4755346

Whether or not such pre-emptive strikes are justified is certainly debatable.

But Hamas was established to eliminate Israel, and has engaged in coutless terrorist strikes against Israeli civilians since its inception. Attacking a terrorist organization that was formed to destroy you, and has made every effort to do so, is, strictly speaking, retaliation, not pre-emption.

But this is now derailing the thread into another Israel-Palestine debate. I'm dropping this issue here - feel free to throw in your response - so we can get back on topic. I wish however, that SOS hadn't attempted an offhand swipe at an unrelated target.

 

[russ_watters]

The high percentage of prisoners that are released after years of investigation because of lack of evidence indicates the U.S. is WAY off.

If you are talking about detainees in the war on terror/war in Iraq, there are three things you are forgetting:

-A high fraction of the detainees (not just at 'gitmo) were little more than POWs and were never going to be prosecuted.
-Having evidence, on its own, does not provide a means to deal with the detainees, so it is going to far to say that not enough evidence was a critical part of why so many were released.
-This isn't a police investigation. You can't just drive to someone's house and interview them. Because of that, they have to cast a wide net and releasing people doesn't imply that "the U.S. is WAY off".

Well that's what you get when you put a bunch of idiots in charge. First BushCo divided the world, then our country, and now even their own party. I wonder how long it will take for the U.S. to gain back respect from the rest of the world, and if our wounded country will ever heal.

The US - and the world - are doing just fine. The biggest problem for the Democratic party is how to convince people who are bumping into the ceiling that they are falling to the floor. Its the reason the dems are losing the battle over economics. It doesn't matter how many times a guy hears 'you're poor, you're poor, you're poor, you're poor, you're poor' - if he just got a raise and bought a house, he's not going to believe it.

 

[Astronuc]

The US - and the world - are doing just fine.

Well - some of the US and some of the world are doing fine.

Starting with -

Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.

So nearly half the people are not doing fine, because a reasonable standard of living is way more than $2/day anywhere in the world. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp#fact1

I imagine most people in Afghanistan and Iraq are not doing fine, nor in S. Lebanon, nor in many parts of Russia, China, India, . . . , nor in many parts of S. America, nor in much of Africa - especially Darfur . . . .

Unemployment is up slightly in the US from 4.6% to 4.8%, many more are employed in low wage jobs because they can't get higher paying jobs (I need to find statistics on this).

And how about - Struggling Ford Puts the Brakes on Production
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5671732

All Things Considered, August 18, 2006 · As part of its "Way Forward" restructuring campaign, the Ford Motor Company says it will reduce its fourth-quarter vehicle production by 168,000 in North America, compared with a year ago. That's down more than 20 percent. The company hopes to reduce bulging dealer inventories by temporarily shutting down ten plants. Analysts say the production cuts could pay off if Ford's new models prove popular.

Northwest's Advice to the Laid Off: Dumpster Dive
Morning Edition, August 23, 2006 · Losing your job hurts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5693397

But earlier this month, Northwest Airlines made things even worse. The company gave pink-slipped employees a tip sheet on how to cut living expenses. Among the suggestions: Rummage through other people's garbage (Tip# 46: "Don't be shy about pulling something you like out of the trash").

The tip sheet was called "101 Ways to Save Money," and it went out to 60 Northwest employees slated to lose their jobs this fall in Montana, Texas and North Dakota.