Operation Iraqi Freedom came into effect on March 20th 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. The initial mission and reasoning behind the operation was to disarm the Iraqi nation of their Nuclear and Chemical weapons, while attempting to decimate terrorist organizations. In the process of ridding the world of adversarial harm from the capricious nation, coalition forces would also liberate the citizens of Iraq from years of murder, censorship, and oppression. It has been almost four years since the United States’ military has occupied the country, when will be a rational and logical timetable for withdrawal, and did the Bush Administration adhere and accomplish their targeted goal.
April 9th 2003, showcased to the world the defeat of the Iraqi Army, and the fall of Baghdad: Iraq’s capital. In December of the same year, occupying forces captured the former Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein, hiding in a bunker. The United States occupancy in Iraq ultimately showed no signs of Nuclear or Chemical silos, or development or research centers; which debunked the Bush Administrations initial allegations. The American Government has been trying to “rebuild” Iraq’s political structure, and with the inhabitance of American troops, the United States has been able to minimally control the country to a certain extent.
Iraq as a whole is very unstable and undoubtedly a total mess. Criticisms attacking the Bush Administration claim that this operation has been nothing but a disastrous failure. Many Americans are growing increasingly upset and angered at the Bush Administration. Accusations surrounding the Administration claim that the United States are just overseas in an attempt to seize valuable oil resources in the Middle East. The surplus of the Middle East’s oil supply has been the main argumentative sentiments enfolding the United States occupancy in Iraq.
The Middle East has long had a reputation of being an unstable region. Conflicting differences between varying religious and ethnic groups, disrupts the pugnacious area. Growing tensions between neighboring Shiites and Sunni will only lead to an escalation of violence and instability, and could induce a potential civil war throughout the country and region. While American forces have been in Iraq, many civilian rebels have been attacking American troops which only adds to the nations instability. Acts of terrorism are a daily occurrence in the country.
While many Americans believe that the United States Government should withdraw troops immediately, the onset of potential terrorist acts are imminent. While occupying Iraq, we have been able to eliminate and neutralize terrorist organizations, such as Al-Quidia; which will only hault and delay possible attacks.
As stated earlier, the main attribution for the United States’ apprehension of withdrawing troops is the possibility of civil war around the region. The current arms transfer is only heightening the volatile scare of war. Many of the nations surrounding Iraq, have been researching and acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and are audacious enough to use them.Operation Iraqi Freedom came into effect on March 20th 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. The initial mission and reasoning behind the operation was to disarm the Iraqi nation of their Nuclear and Chemical weapons, while attempting to decimate terrorist organizations. In the process of ridding the world of adversarial harm from the capricious nation, coalition forces would also liberate the citizens of Iraq from years of murder, censorship, and oppression. It has been almost four years since the United States’ military has occupied the country, when will be a rational and logical timetable for withdrawal, and did the Bush Administration adhere and accomplish their targeted goal.
April 9th 2003, showcased to the world the defeat of the Iraqi Army, and the fall of Baghdad: Iraq’s capital. In December of the same year, occupying forces captured the former Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein, hiding in a bunker. The United States occupancy in Iraq ultimately showed no signs of Nuclear or Chemical silos, or development or research centers; which debunked the Bush Administrations initial allegations. The American Government has been trying to “rebuild” Iraq’s political structure, and with the inhabitance of American troops, the United States has been able to minimally control the country to a certain extent.
Iraq as a whole is very unstable and undoubtedly a total mess. Criticisms attacking the Bush Administration claim that this operation has been nothing but a disastrous failure. Many Americans are growing increasingly upset and angered at the Bush Administration. Accusations surrounding the Administration claim that the United States are just overseas in an attempt to seize valuable oil resources in the Middle East. The surplus of the Middle East’s oil supply has been the main argumentative sentiments enfolding the United States occupancy in Iraq.
The Middle East has long had a reputation of being an unstable region. Conflicting differences between varying religious and ethnic groups, disrupts the pugnacious area. Growing tensions between neighboring Shiites and Sunni will only lead to an escalation of violence and instability, and could induce a potential civil war throughout the country and region. While American forces have been in Iraq, many civilian rebels have been attacking American troops which only adds to the nations instability. Acts of terrorism are a daily occurrence in the country.
While many Americans believe that the United States Government should withdraw troops immediately, the onset of potential terrorist acts are imminent. While occupying Iraq, we have been able to eliminate and neutralize terrorist organizations, such as Al-Quidia; which will only hault and delay possible attacks.
As stated earlier, the main attribution for the United States’ apprehension of withdrawing troops is the possibility of civil war around the region. The current arms transfer is only heightening the volatile scare of war. Many of the nations surrounding Iraq, have been researching and acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and are audacious enough to use them.Operation Iraqi Freedom came into effect on March 20th 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. The initial mission and reasoning behind the operation was to disarm the Iraqi nation of their Nuclear and Chemical weapons, while attempting to decimate terrorist organizations. In the process of ridding the world of adversarial harm from the capricious nation, coalition forces would also liberate the citizens of Iraq from years of murder, censorship, and oppression. It has been almost four years since the United States’ military has occupied the country, when will be a rational and logical timetable for withdrawal, and did the Bush Administration adhere and accomplish their targeted goal.
April 9th 2003, showcased to the world the defeat of the Iraqi Army, and the fall of Baghdad: Iraq’s capital. In December of the same year, occupying forces captured the former Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein, hiding in a bunker. The United States occupancy in Iraq ultimately showed no signs of Nuclear or Chemical silos, or development or research centers; which debunked the Bush Administrations initial allegations. The American Government has been trying to “rebuild” Iraq’s political structure, and with the inhabitance of American troops, the United States has been able to minimally control the country to a certain extent.
Iraq as a whole is very unstable and undoubtedly a total mess. Criticisms attacking the Bush Administration claim that this operation has been nothing but a disastrous failure. Many Americans are growing increasingly upset and angered at the Bush Administration. Accusations surrounding the Administration claim that the United States are just overseas in an attempt to seize valuable oil resources in the Middle East. The surplus of the Middle East’s oil supply has been the main argumentative sentiments enfolding the United States occupancy in Iraq.
The Middle East has long had a reputation of being an unstable region. Conflicting differences between varying religious and ethnic groups, disrupts the pugnacious area. Growing tensions between neighboring Shiites and Sunni will only lead to an escalation of violence and instability, and could induce a potential civil war throughout the country and region. While American forces have been in Iraq, many civilian rebels have been attacking American troops which only adds to the nations instability. Acts of terrorism are a daily occurrence in the country.
While many Americans believe that the United States Government should withdraw troops immediately, the onset of potential terrorist acts are imminent. While occupying Iraq, we have been able to eliminate and neutralize terrorist organizations, such as Al-Quidia; which will only hault and delay possible attacks.
As stated earlier, the main attribution for the United States’ apprehension of withdrawing troops is the possibility of civil war around the region. The current arms transfer is only heightening the volatile scare of war. Many of the nations surrounding Iraq, have been researching and acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and are audacious enough to use them.Operation Iraqi Freedom came into effect on March 20th 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. The initial mission and reasoning behind the operation was to disarm the Iraqi nation of their Nuclear and Chemical weapons, while attempting to decimate terrorist organizations. In the process of ridding the world of adversarial harm from the capricious nation, coalition forces would also liberate the citizens of Iraq from years of murder, censorship, and oppression. It has been almost four years since the United States’ military has occupied the country, when will be a rational and logical timetable for withdrawal, and did the Bush Administration adhere and accomplish their targeted goal.
April 9th 2003, showcased to the world the defeat of the Iraqi Army, and the fall of Baghdad: Iraq’s capital. In December of the same year, occupying forces captured the former Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein, hiding in a bunker. The United States occupancy in Iraq ultimately showed no signs of Nuclear or Chemical silos, or development or research centers; which debunked the Bush Administrations initial allegations. The American Government has been trying to “rebuild” Iraq’s political structure, and with the inhabitance of American troops, the United States has been able to minimally control the country to a certain extent.
Iraq as a whole is very unstable and undoubtedly a total mess. Criticisms attacking the Bush Administration claim that this operation has been nothing but a disastrous failure. Many Americans are growing increasingly upset and angered at the Bush Administration. Accusations surrounding the Administration claim that the United States are just overseas in an attempt to seize valuable oil resources in the Middle East. The surplus of the Middle East’s oil supply has been the main argumentative sentiments enfolding the United States occupancy in Iraq.
The Middle East has long had a reputation of being an unstable region. Conflicting differences between varying religious and ethnic groups, disrupts the pugnacious area. Growing tensions between neighboring Shiites and Sunni will only lead to an escalation of violence and instability, and could induce a potential civil war throughout the country and region. While American forces have been in Iraq, many civilian rebels have been attacking American troops which only adds to the nations instability. Acts of terrorism are a daily occurrence in the country.
While many Americans believe that the United States Government should withdraw troops immediately, the onset of potential terrorist acts are imminent. While occupying Iraq, we have been able to eliminate and neutralize terrorist organizations, such as Al-Quidia; which will only hault and delay possible attacks.
As stated earlier, the main attribution for the United States’ apprehension of withdrawing troops is the possibility of civil war around the region. The current arms transfer is only heightening the volatile scare of war. Many of the nations surrounding Iraq, have been researching and acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and are audacious enough to use them.Operation Iraqi Freedom came into effect on March 20th 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. The initial mission and reasoning behind the operation was to disarm the Iraqi nation of their Nuclear and Chemical weapons, while attempting to decimate terrorist organizations. In the process of ridding the world of adversarial harm from the capricious nation, coalition forces would also liberate the citizens of Iraq from years of murder, censorship, and oppression. It has been almost four years since the United States’ military has occupied the country, when will be a rational and logical timetable for withdrawal, and did the Bush Administration adhere and accomplish their targeted goal.
April 9th 2003, showcased to the world the defeat of the Iraqi Army, and the fall of Baghdad: Iraq’s capital. In December of the same year, occupying forces captured the former Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein, hiding in a bunker. The United States occupancy in Iraq ultimately showed no signs of Nuclear or Chemical silos, or development or research centers; which debunked the Bush Administrations initial allegations. The American Government has been trying to “rebuild” Iraq’s political structure, and with the inhabitance of American troops, the United States has been able to minimally control the country to a certain extent.
Iraq as a whole is very unstable and undoubtedly a total mess. Criticisms attacking the Bush Administration claim that this operation has been nothing but a disastrous failure. Many Americans are growing increasingly upset and angered at the Bush Administration. Accusations surrounding the Administration claim that the United States are just overseas in an attempt to seize valuable oil resources in the Middle East. The surplus of the Middle East’s oil supply has been the main argumentative sentiments enfolding the United States occupancy in Iraq.
The Middle East has long had a reputation of being an unstable region. Conflicting differences between varying religious and ethnic groups, disrupts the pugnacious area. Growing tensions between neighboring Shiites and Sunni will only lead to an escalation of violence and instability, and could induce a potential civil war throughout the country and region. While American forces have been in Iraq, many civilian rebels have been attacking American troops which only adds to the nations instability. Acts of terrorism are a daily occurrence in the country.
While many Americans believe that the United States Government should withdraw troops immediately, the onset of potential terrorist acts are imminent. While occupying Iraq, we have been able to eliminate and neutralize terrorist organizations, such as Al-Quidia; which will only hault and delay possible attacks.
As stated earlier, the main attribution for the United States’ apprehension of withdrawing troops is the possibility of civil war around the region. The current arms transfer is only heightening the volatile scare of war. Many of the nations surrounding Iraq, have been researching and acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and are audacious enough to use them.
Please critique my paper on iraq, vaild? well written?
Great job, genius. . . . . where's the 'paper' ? Jackass !!
Reply:tom t You are on newspaper!
http://www.osoq.com/funstuff/extra/extra...
Reply:Is it top secret?
Reply:It's every bit as good as Bush's
Reply:It's perfect.
Reply:no spam please
Reply:So Tom, where's the paper?
Friday, May 21, 2010
What do you think of a President who flips off the American people, isn't he saying f_____you We The People?
And what do you think about a President that says "quit throwing the constituion in my face, it's just a piece of paper." (Bush has not denied saying it)
while writing laws taking our rights away? And has broken over 100 of our laws saying they don't pertain to him?
Wouldn't you consider that treason against the American people?
Don't wait thinking he'll be gone soon to demand he be impeached. Because self proclaimed "King George" plans to have martial law in place before anyone else gets into office.
What do you think of a President who flips off the American people, isn't he saying f_____you We The People?
The martial law option scares the hell out of me. Trust me the PNAC could not have picked a better puppet. There is much more going on behind the scenes than the general population is aware of. It is probably just as well because... well ....never mind just keep believing.
Reply:I judge Bush by his successes and failures. He gets a big fat F. I don't care if he flipped off the camera. The just a piece of paper thing freaks me out, but not nearly as much as the rising gas prices, devaluation of the dollar, deficit funded tax cuts and stimulus packages, and never ending foreign entanglements. I judge by results. The results are abysmal..
Reply:If I had a dime for every time Bush lied or committed treason, why I would...buy a baseball team!
He has nothing but contempt for the average working American. He almost has a tough time hiding it when he speaks. It is really frustrating that so many voters are fooled by his "religious guy" routine.
Reply:He phucqued us long before he flipped us. He is dispicable. The price of gas should tell you all you need to know about him.
Reply:Well apparently he OK'd forms of torture that are strictly banned internationally so for that at least, I would say he is in the wrong
Reply:not very much
Reply:Obama has not been elected yet.
You Bush haters are just self hating Taliberals. When Bush is gone you will find someone else to blame your sick existance on.
USA 128
Libs 0
children shoes
while writing laws taking our rights away? And has broken over 100 of our laws saying they don't pertain to him?
Wouldn't you consider that treason against the American people?
Don't wait thinking he'll be gone soon to demand he be impeached. Because self proclaimed "King George" plans to have martial law in place before anyone else gets into office.
What do you think of a President who flips off the American people, isn't he saying f_____you We The People?
The martial law option scares the hell out of me. Trust me the PNAC could not have picked a better puppet. There is much more going on behind the scenes than the general population is aware of. It is probably just as well because... well ....never mind just keep believing.
Reply:I judge Bush by his successes and failures. He gets a big fat F. I don't care if he flipped off the camera. The just a piece of paper thing freaks me out, but not nearly as much as the rising gas prices, devaluation of the dollar, deficit funded tax cuts and stimulus packages, and never ending foreign entanglements. I judge by results. The results are abysmal..
Reply:If I had a dime for every time Bush lied or committed treason, why I would...buy a baseball team!
He has nothing but contempt for the average working American. He almost has a tough time hiding it when he speaks. It is really frustrating that so many voters are fooled by his "religious guy" routine.
Reply:He phucqued us long before he flipped us. He is dispicable. The price of gas should tell you all you need to know about him.
Reply:Well apparently he OK'd forms of torture that are strictly banned internationally so for that at least, I would say he is in the wrong
Reply:not very much
Reply:Obama has not been elected yet.
You Bush haters are just self hating Taliberals. When Bush is gone you will find someone else to blame your sick existance on.
USA 128
Libs 0
children shoes
It appears we are losing the war in Iraq, will we just pick up and leave, not worrying about the consequences?
Yesterday paper, Bush said we are losing the war in Iraq? Will they bomb us again or hurting all of our soilders.
It appears we are losing the war in Iraq, will we just pick up and leave, not worrying about the consequences?
appearances can be decieving ... so can bush ...
Reply:Whether Liberals or conservatives prevail, we will have to pick up, leave and act as a big brother to a younger and very dysfunctional brother.
We've dug such a deep hole that we have no choice. It is either leave now, or stay for 20 years (a generation) and affect the Education and social systems.
I doubt they ever bombed us in the USA. The people were Saudis and Yemenis. If anything they will be angry at us. The key thing to do is to either increase the troop levels and impose a strict martial law for 10 years, or leave and give them money in the form of aide and we have the CIA assassinate those Religious men who are behind all the strife
Reply:only if liberal cowards get their way
Reply:YOUR FRIEND, NANCY POLOSI, CALLED. SHE SAID KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THE DEMS WILL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO LOSE THE WAR ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
Reply:There is no way in hell we can militarily win a war in Iraq now. This is not because our soldiers are losing. This is because there is no military objective. There is no "war". There isn't an army to fight. The fight we are losing is the fight for the minds of the Iraqi population. This is also a fight we cannot win because nobody in our government understands the way the Iraqi people think.
Reply:We are NOT losing the war in Iraq and we ARE NOT
goin to just pick up and leave.
Reply:We aren't losing the war. All of the soldiers want to continue fighting, and as long as the soldiers are fighting at their own will, I don't see why we shouldn't continue the waar.
Reply:Your first mistake (besides the green hair) is reading the paper the media will only report the bad things from Iraq they say good news does not sell the truth is good news will not sell the liberal agenda. We are not loosing the war there and will not leave unless the fool liberals get their way and by the way(to the guy who had the few blocks comment) since when has a whole country been considered a few blocks you idiot.
Reply:appears!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how bad does it get before you say controling a few blocks after 3 years and 170 billion is a total defeat?
It appears we are losing the war in Iraq, will we just pick up and leave, not worrying about the consequences?
appearances can be decieving ... so can bush ...
Reply:Whether Liberals or conservatives prevail, we will have to pick up, leave and act as a big brother to a younger and very dysfunctional brother.
We've dug such a deep hole that we have no choice. It is either leave now, or stay for 20 years (a generation) and affect the Education and social systems.
I doubt they ever bombed us in the USA. The people were Saudis and Yemenis. If anything they will be angry at us. The key thing to do is to either increase the troop levels and impose a strict martial law for 10 years, or leave and give them money in the form of aide and we have the CIA assassinate those Religious men who are behind all the strife
Reply:only if liberal cowards get their way
Reply:YOUR FRIEND, NANCY POLOSI, CALLED. SHE SAID KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THE DEMS WILL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO LOSE THE WAR ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
Reply:There is no way in hell we can militarily win a war in Iraq now. This is not because our soldiers are losing. This is because there is no military objective. There is no "war". There isn't an army to fight. The fight we are losing is the fight for the minds of the Iraqi population. This is also a fight we cannot win because nobody in our government understands the way the Iraqi people think.
Reply:We are NOT losing the war in Iraq and we ARE NOT
goin to just pick up and leave.
Reply:We aren't losing the war. All of the soldiers want to continue fighting, and as long as the soldiers are fighting at their own will, I don't see why we shouldn't continue the waar.
Reply:Your first mistake (besides the green hair) is reading the paper the media will only report the bad things from Iraq they say good news does not sell the truth is good news will not sell the liberal agenda. We are not loosing the war there and will not leave unless the fool liberals get their way and by the way(to the guy who had the few blocks comment) since when has a whole country been considered a few blocks you idiot.
Reply:appears!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how bad does it get before you say controling a few blocks after 3 years and 170 billion is a total defeat?
Please help what should I do?
I saw President G.W. Bush personally ripping the Constitution in half on the White House Front lawn on 2-18-08. Bush called the Constitution Just a piece of paper, Bush got the Constitution from Sandy Berger who took it from the National Archives on my Birthday.
How did Sandy Berger get it?
Please help what should I do?
My dear fellow American. You are in the U.S.A. if you receiving food stamps then you are in the welfare system. your politic is the main problem in our nation.
Instead of wasting the tax payers money by going to d.e.s., why don't you master in controlling your own life. the solution is as simple as 2+2=4 and live within your means. The u.s.consitution does not give our government the authority to feed you, its give you the rights,freedom and liberty to get a job or create your own business to pursuit your happiness to feed yourself. Go move to a communist country if you what the government to take care of you. and stop supporting a turning our states into a fascist nation.
How did Sandy Berger get it?
Please help what should I do?
My dear fellow American. You are in the U.S.A. if you receiving food stamps then you are in the welfare system. your politic is the main problem in our nation.
Instead of wasting the tax payers money by going to d.e.s., why don't you master in controlling your own life. the solution is as simple as 2+2=4 and live within your means. The u.s.consitution does not give our government the authority to feed you, its give you the rights,freedom and liberty to get a job or create your own business to pursuit your happiness to feed yourself. Go move to a communist country if you what the government to take care of you. and stop supporting a turning our states into a fascist nation.
I recently went on a job interview. I was offered the job. However, they are now beating me around the bush.?
I went to the interview and got the job. I filled out all the papers and everything. The start day was pushed back to a week later because of "issues going on." He told me not to put in my resignation with my current job until he was absolutely sure of the start date and to call him the following week to make sure. I called the following week and he said they are having "software issues" and I cannot start yet. It's been two weeks now. I'm not sure if he's beating me around the bush and lying or if this is true. Can I take legal action for this ? Eventhough I never resigned from my current job I was promised this one. And now it seems like I'm being lied too? Any lawyers out there who can help me?
Thanks
I recently went on a job interview. I was offered the job. However, they are now beating me around the bush.?
legal action for what?
you have had no financial loss.
they told you to not put in your notice yet and you are still employed, so what is the problem?
employers can hire and fire whomever they like you can't make them start you any sooner then it fits into their plans.
if you really want the new job don't go making waves and cause them to question their decision to hire you.
Reply:You have no legal recourse. They haven't made you an offer. You don't have an offer letter.
Reply:No, unless you have signed an employment contract you have no legal recourse.
Reply:This company sounds confused. Find a professional company which know what it is doing.
Reply:find another job
Thanks
I recently went on a job interview. I was offered the job. However, they are now beating me around the bush.?
legal action for what?
you have had no financial loss.
they told you to not put in your notice yet and you are still employed, so what is the problem?
employers can hire and fire whomever they like you can't make them start you any sooner then it fits into their plans.
if you really want the new job don't go making waves and cause them to question their decision to hire you.
Reply:You have no legal recourse. They haven't made you an offer. You don't have an offer letter.
Reply:No, unless you have signed an employment contract you have no legal recourse.
Reply:This company sounds confused. Find a professional company which know what it is doing.
Reply:find another job
If Bush only does what he thinks is right, why did he hand Rumsfailed his papers after the election?
Coincidence? Or was it a political decision versus what is best for the war on terror?
If Bush only does what he thinks is right, why did he hand Rumsfailed his papers after the election?
not that complicated. rumsfeld help orchestrate the swiftest victory in the history warfare but was not well suited to the police work that followed.
by any measure, we have never been in a war with fewer casualties.
Reply:Leap over the Neocon fascists' orchestrated show of propaganda. Don't buy it anymore. It's time to figure out how to clean up their mess of death and destruction. Start by supporting the politicians you think are on the path of fixing things. They need to hear from you.
Reply:I think Rumsfeld was doomed - either way.
I believe if Bush had dumped him prior to the elections, it would have definitely appeared to be a political effort to appease the voters and gain more support for the republican candidates.
Rumsfeld was not the best man for this position - he certainly proved that - and why it took Bush so long to figure this out may well be one of his greatest faults. He seems to be loyal to his staff to the point of being blind as to their incompetence.
Reply:Because Bush is a liar.
Reply:It's a government conspiracy Chi guy! Your an idiot! Let's let the terrorist continue these sneak attacks in our backyard. Maybe you bleeding liberals will get the big picture then. Ohh, I forgot, Bush planned the Twin Towers bombing also. My fault.
Reply:Since when can liberals listen to reason ? Is this something new ?
baby shoes
If Bush only does what he thinks is right, why did he hand Rumsfailed his papers after the election?
not that complicated. rumsfeld help orchestrate the swiftest victory in the history warfare but was not well suited to the police work that followed.
by any measure, we have never been in a war with fewer casualties.
Reply:Leap over the Neocon fascists' orchestrated show of propaganda. Don't buy it anymore. It's time to figure out how to clean up their mess of death and destruction. Start by supporting the politicians you think are on the path of fixing things. They need to hear from you.
Reply:I think Rumsfeld was doomed - either way.
I believe if Bush had dumped him prior to the elections, it would have definitely appeared to be a political effort to appease the voters and gain more support for the republican candidates.
Rumsfeld was not the best man for this position - he certainly proved that - and why it took Bush so long to figure this out may well be one of his greatest faults. He seems to be loyal to his staff to the point of being blind as to their incompetence.
Reply:Because Bush is a liar.
Reply:It's a government conspiracy Chi guy! Your an idiot! Let's let the terrorist continue these sneak attacks in our backyard. Maybe you bleeding liberals will get the big picture then. Ohh, I forgot, Bush planned the Twin Towers bombing also. My fault.
Reply:Since when can liberals listen to reason ? Is this something new ?
baby shoes
Bush says he's going to start helping the immigrants out by fixing their papers. True or False? Explain?
Who the hell knows what Bush will do? It's always one thing today and another tomorrow.
Bush says he's going to start helping the immigrants out by fixing their papers. True or False? Explain?
Anything he can do to betray his own citizens and help the criminal element is what he will do.
Reply:false, hes a ********
Reply:True, just like those WMDs that they found.
Reply:I haven't heard anything put that way, but Bush wants to fix us alright by making Canada, USA, and Mexico one country like the EU.
America Roses: I looked twice, but you are correct and said it twice! On Larry King (check my question) he admited he's got a soft spot for Mexico (above Americans) to do anything they want!
Reply:Who the heck knows what this nut is going to do next? I'm tuned out until his time is up and he's finished screwing things up.
Reply:He like give away america , he treason and pretending like King Jorge Bush.
soo what we can do now guys..and wu wei..look like our enemy just our goverment...betray citizen can we stop this ..?
Reply:True. Bush wants to provide amnesty, no matter what the cost. He's been trying to push anything he can through congress that at least has some sort of timetable and/or amnesty/guest worker provision on it becuase he knows that as soon as he gets that under his belt he can work on bigger things. You know, like giving up our sovergnity.
Check this out.....
Bush says he's going to start helping the immigrants out by fixing their papers. True or False? Explain?
Anything he can do to betray his own citizens and help the criminal element is what he will do.
Reply:false, hes a ********
Reply:True, just like those WMDs that they found.
Reply:I haven't heard anything put that way, but Bush wants to fix us alright by making Canada, USA, and Mexico one country like the EU.
America Roses: I looked twice, but you are correct and said it twice! On Larry King (check my question) he admited he's got a soft spot for Mexico (above Americans) to do anything they want!
Reply:Who the heck knows what this nut is going to do next? I'm tuned out until his time is up and he's finished screwing things up.
Reply:He like give away america , he treason and pretending like King Jorge Bush.
soo what we can do now guys..and wu wei..look like our enemy just our goverment...betray citizen can we stop this ..?
Reply:True. Bush wants to provide amnesty, no matter what the cost. He's been trying to push anything he can through congress that at least has some sort of timetable and/or amnesty/guest worker provision on it becuase he knows that as soon as he gets that under his belt he can work on bigger things. You know, like giving up our sovergnity.
Check this out.....
Dude Man I saw a News paper at the 7-11 that said Rice aborted her and Bushes love child. Man is that wrong?
Dude man the kid could have grown up to sell meth in both neighborhoods Dude
Dude Man I saw a News paper at the 7-11 that said Rice aborted her and Bushes love child. Man is that wrong?
Thats cold dude. How could they
With those genes that could woulda been one heck ofa good time.
Haha nice pic Feelgood
Reply:Put the pipe down man. Its like her D N A. ( Tv was stuck on some smart soundin show, I was too blazed to find the remote me and peggyleesue learned all bouts it honey) Report It
Reply:What's really cool is that they aborted it it AFTER it was born.
So cool.
Reply:Why are you here? I didn't miss you, I don't like clones on either side.
Reply:Feelgood : I'm right here. I ain't a coning sissy.
showtime dance shoes
Dude Man I saw a News paper at the 7-11 that said Rice aborted her and Bushes love child. Man is that wrong?
Thats cold dude. How could they
With those genes that could woulda been one heck ofa good time.
Haha nice pic Feelgood
Reply:Put the pipe down man. Its like her D N A. ( Tv was stuck on some smart soundin show, I was too blazed to find the remote me and peggyleesue learned all bouts it honey) Report It
Reply:What's really cool is that they aborted it it AFTER it was born.
So cool.
Reply:Why are you here? I didn't miss you, I don't like clones on either side.
Reply:Feelgood : I'm right here. I ain't a coning sissy.
showtime dance shoes
Just out of ample curiosity: What would be the perfect world for Bush supporters?
No silly Constitution to get in the way of things?
Bush elected President for life?
Freedoms and liberties restricted to party loyalties only?
State-controlled restrictions on the media and the internet?
National ID cards and personal papers for each person?
Women having no rights whatsoever?
Rigged elections without the need for a recount or court challenge?
Wiretapping of all US citizens without warrants?
Zero gun control laws?
A para-military government?
No healthcare or any other social programs?
Just out of ample curiosity: What would be the perfect world for Bush supporters?
This is their utopia.
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMiXPxjtGdQ...
Reply:We both know who has taken everyone's rights away. Report It
Reply:Liberals want to kill babies rhetoric
Reply:The GOP perfect world - seventy portly white guys with every dollar of American currency.
Reply:Yes, and much more.
Reply:all of what you layed out is already happening , see link -
http://journals.aol.com/naziunitedstates...
Reply:Islamo terrorists dead and dying
America Safe
entitlement programs reduced
a national conceal carry law for those qualified and trained
(hey bud, gun rights are in the "silly" constitution too)
(maybe you missed it when the dems rigged the 60' election by getting cemeteries in illinois to vote for JFK?)
Reply:From you - the correct use of the English language.
There can be no "ample curiosity" - not sure what you meant.
For Democrats - to support the military funding.
For Libs - to stop exagarrating conservatives stands on issues.
Our Constitution is not silly - Mr take our guns
People loyal to republicans do not get more freedoms than anyone else. In both parties they reward those loyal where they legally can. Look up the pardons of Whitewater defendents %26amp; Clinton loyalists
No - I do not want to give up my 2nd admendment right to bear arms.
No, I do not want to pay for every illegal to have a baby to back door the immigration laws. I do not even want to pay for every lazy person or person who chose to have a nice car %26amp; no health insurance
Recounts became standard 8 years ago when the Democrats lost so who is trying to rig elections?.
As a woman what are you talking about - Democrats are no more woman friendly except Clinton than Republicans.
Yes I do like national ID cards - do you have a social security card %26amp; drivers license - then they have your information get a national card as you are in the national system already.
Wiretapping of cell phones for national security does not cause me to lose sleep. If people wanted their cellphone conversations to be private, they would not be talking on the dog gone phones everytime %26amp; in every resturaunt where I eat out. The CIA has been paying people to randomly watch numbers %26amp; listen when a questionable call occurs for years.
My friend in CIA says at least since Ford's administration if not before. Do not give into the paranoids.
Para-military goverment - oh grow up! not even worth of an answer.
I never thought of media control - but I think I like it. just kidding.
Are you surrendering the office of President? I can live with that but can we keep changing Republican presidents every 4 years like the Constitution says.
Reply:How ridiculous!
Bush will have served his term and it's time to go.
You are the ones attempting to rob us of our freedoms!
You are also the ones who have controlled the media and now that we have a FEW outlets, you feel threatened.
National ID cards for aliens only (my opinion)
I'm a woman and have all of the rights that everyone else has. I don't feel as though I need more. I have a BRAIN.
Fair elections. Again, you're wrong.
Wiretapping of potential terrorists, yes.
I have the right to bear arms.
A military that can protect us and is alert at all times. No different than today. Voluntary.
A real close look at social programs. Some are needed, many are a waste.
Reply:Jeb Bush: Chief Electoral Officer.
Nothing else needed. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
The world population:
Opponents: Dead, in prison or in forced labour camps.
Suffer, you suckers, suffer!
Supporters: High bank balances and low IQs.
Spend, you suckers, spend!
Guns, stetsons and cowboy boots everywhere!
Reply:Animal Farm
" Rich good, poor bad "
Reply:suthrnly...................... SMART WOMAN! If I wasn't married, I'd ask you to marry me! :)
Reply:No working drones with IQ over 80. But lots of drones and low wages, no benefits, no retirement. Just die on the job and don't cause a fuss.
Reply:A Fourth Reich with Israel in control. A New World Order. The world we live in now.
Reply:Can we banish all libtards to gitmo too? That Would be perfect.
Reply:One picture is worth a thoushad wrds:
http://www.dialogica.com.ar/unr/postitul...
Reply:team Bush,you can join too,but you gotta have faith in Bush .go team go
Reply:Jock straps? Aren't all politicians' brains in their balls?
By the way, I did say ALL politicians.
Reply:A very ignorant place.
Reply:Sorry, dude but its the liberals who constantly attack your civil liberties and threaten freedom and opportunity. That is a fact.
Bush elected President for life?
Freedoms and liberties restricted to party loyalties only?
State-controlled restrictions on the media and the internet?
National ID cards and personal papers for each person?
Women having no rights whatsoever?
Rigged elections without the need for a recount or court challenge?
Wiretapping of all US citizens without warrants?
Zero gun control laws?
A para-military government?
No healthcare or any other social programs?
Just out of ample curiosity: What would be the perfect world for Bush supporters?
This is their utopia.
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMiXPxjtGdQ...
Reply:We both know who has taken everyone's rights away. Report It
Reply:Liberals want to kill babies rhetoric
Reply:The GOP perfect world - seventy portly white guys with every dollar of American currency.
Reply:Yes, and much more.
Reply:all of what you layed out is already happening , see link -
http://journals.aol.com/naziunitedstates...
Reply:Islamo terrorists dead and dying
America Safe
entitlement programs reduced
a national conceal carry law for those qualified and trained
(hey bud, gun rights are in the "silly" constitution too)
(maybe you missed it when the dems rigged the 60' election by getting cemeteries in illinois to vote for JFK?)
Reply:From you - the correct use of the English language.
There can be no "ample curiosity" - not sure what you meant.
For Democrats - to support the military funding.
For Libs - to stop exagarrating conservatives stands on issues.
Our Constitution is not silly - Mr take our guns
People loyal to republicans do not get more freedoms than anyone else. In both parties they reward those loyal where they legally can. Look up the pardons of Whitewater defendents %26amp; Clinton loyalists
No - I do not want to give up my 2nd admendment right to bear arms.
No, I do not want to pay for every illegal to have a baby to back door the immigration laws. I do not even want to pay for every lazy person or person who chose to have a nice car %26amp; no health insurance
Recounts became standard 8 years ago when the Democrats lost so who is trying to rig elections?.
As a woman what are you talking about - Democrats are no more woman friendly except Clinton than Republicans.
Yes I do like national ID cards - do you have a social security card %26amp; drivers license - then they have your information get a national card as you are in the national system already.
Wiretapping of cell phones for national security does not cause me to lose sleep. If people wanted their cellphone conversations to be private, they would not be talking on the dog gone phones everytime %26amp; in every resturaunt where I eat out. The CIA has been paying people to randomly watch numbers %26amp; listen when a questionable call occurs for years.
My friend in CIA says at least since Ford's administration if not before. Do not give into the paranoids.
Para-military goverment - oh grow up! not even worth of an answer.
I never thought of media control - but I think I like it. just kidding.
Are you surrendering the office of President? I can live with that but can we keep changing Republican presidents every 4 years like the Constitution says.
Reply:How ridiculous!
Bush will have served his term and it's time to go.
You are the ones attempting to rob us of our freedoms!
You are also the ones who have controlled the media and now that we have a FEW outlets, you feel threatened.
National ID cards for aliens only (my opinion)
I'm a woman and have all of the rights that everyone else has. I don't feel as though I need more. I have a BRAIN.
Fair elections. Again, you're wrong.
Wiretapping of potential terrorists, yes.
I have the right to bear arms.
A military that can protect us and is alert at all times. No different than today. Voluntary.
A real close look at social programs. Some are needed, many are a waste.
Reply:Jeb Bush: Chief Electoral Officer.
Nothing else needed. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
The world population:
Opponents: Dead, in prison or in forced labour camps.
Suffer, you suckers, suffer!
Supporters: High bank balances and low IQs.
Spend, you suckers, spend!
Guns, stetsons and cowboy boots everywhere!
Reply:Animal Farm
" Rich good, poor bad "
Reply:suthrnly...................... SMART WOMAN! If I wasn't married, I'd ask you to marry me! :)
Reply:No working drones with IQ over 80. But lots of drones and low wages, no benefits, no retirement. Just die on the job and don't cause a fuss.
Reply:A Fourth Reich with Israel in control. A New World Order. The world we live in now.
Reply:Can we banish all libtards to gitmo too? That Would be perfect.
Reply:One picture is worth a thoushad wrds:
http://www.dialogica.com.ar/unr/postitul...
Reply:team Bush,you can join too,but you gotta have faith in Bush .go team go
Reply:Jock straps? Aren't all politicians' brains in their balls?
By the way, I did say ALL politicians.
Reply:A very ignorant place.
Reply:Sorry, dude but its the liberals who constantly attack your civil liberties and threaten freedom and opportunity. That is a fact.
How can people say that the media is not liberal and bias? They hate Bush and the love the liberal democrats.?
Everyone in the media attacks bush except for fox news and talk radio. how about the evening news and the papers. How can anyone say that there isn't any bias in the media?
How can people say that the media is not liberal and bias? They hate Bush and the love the liberal democrats.?
after the elections i finally realized how blatant the news media was and is....i only watch fox news........at least they give more than one side
Reply:Reality has a liberal bias.
Reply:Oh, there is bias in the news all right. And it's slanted to the right and it is LIES. The news that pisses you off is the REAL news that manages to escape Fox and Rupert Murdoch:
FOX news sued for the right to lie, and won
NEWS – In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States
http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/10/1...
Reply:All major media, Internet and movie companies are owned by Jews.That is the answer to your question.
Reply:maybe you're too young to know this but the role of the media was defined as a alternative voice to power. It's not a case of this side or that side. It is the media's job to put the heels of powerful people in Washington and Wall Street to the fire. Before there was cable TV and 24 hour news, Media investigated Washington and power brokers to make sure they weren't telling the American people, lies, read up on McCarthyism and study the media from the end of WW2 till now, the left slant is supposed to be a check on the right slant of the right slanted Military Industrial complex Eisenhower warned about in the 1950's. so all of the people from the Heritage foundation and FOX really don't even need to be in existence.
Reply:All media is owned by someone and that person or people have their own bias which flows down.
I don't think Cons can complain too much because GW gives the media plenty of legitimate reasons to attack him.
Reply:Ever notice the connection between labor unions %26amp; bias against Bush and every other Republican.
News, Hollywood, Teachers, Transportation, pop/rock music industry, late night shows.
Without Fox Americans would be isolated like they are in the mideast.
How can people say that the media is not liberal and bias? They hate Bush and the love the liberal democrats.?
after the elections i finally realized how blatant the news media was and is....i only watch fox news........at least they give more than one side
Reply:Reality has a liberal bias.
Reply:Oh, there is bias in the news all right. And it's slanted to the right and it is LIES. The news that pisses you off is the REAL news that manages to escape Fox and Rupert Murdoch:
FOX news sued for the right to lie, and won
NEWS – In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States
http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/10/1...
Reply:All major media, Internet and movie companies are owned by Jews.That is the answer to your question.
Reply:maybe you're too young to know this but the role of the media was defined as a alternative voice to power. It's not a case of this side or that side. It is the media's job to put the heels of powerful people in Washington and Wall Street to the fire. Before there was cable TV and 24 hour news, Media investigated Washington and power brokers to make sure they weren't telling the American people, lies, read up on McCarthyism and study the media from the end of WW2 till now, the left slant is supposed to be a check on the right slant of the right slanted Military Industrial complex Eisenhower warned about in the 1950's. so all of the people from the Heritage foundation and FOX really don't even need to be in existence.
Reply:All media is owned by someone and that person or people have their own bias which flows down.
I don't think Cons can complain too much because GW gives the media plenty of legitimate reasons to attack him.
Reply:Ever notice the connection between labor unions %26amp; bias against Bush and every other Republican.
News, Hollywood, Teachers, Transportation, pop/rock music industry, late night shows.
Without Fox Americans would be isolated like they are in the mideast.
Is what i fear most come to pass in recent days .Bush just got his torture bill through and a provision to ex-
clude american citizens was removed during this Foley scandall and school shooting .He passed it and now any american can be detained without charges or the right to a trial .What happened to my wonderful america under bush .
I am realy worried about where this will lead america in the near future .
This was the beginning of book burnings and witch trials and the inquesition and the crusades and hitlers germany .The power of the state to detain anyone places fear in the hearts of free men when no charges need to be filed and no system for release is available .ANyone can go to jail now who opposes the government .please call the news channels papers and tell everyone you know that this is the beggining of the end to americas freedom .
Is what i fear most come to pass in recent days .Bush just got his torture bill through and a provision to ex-
Pal, they cannot put us all in jail, and if they get me they won't keep me, I will fart every five seconds and they will let me go.
Reply:Well what do you propose to do? My vote doesn't matter and I can call my senator all day long and it makes no difference. So what to do?
Reply:could you please post source?
Reply:i don't support bush in many thing but this torture thing have gone to for . i say there are no rules any more this isn't ww2 we have to play their game any thing that will help this country stay safe . this is not a concern of my
Reply:if you fear it then you are a terrorist like you damn party Thank God it passed
Reply:Another liberal chicken little theory. Good kool aid your drinking The sky is falling The sky is falling Just remember we won two more years two more years. THANK GOD%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;
Reply:After a quick scan of
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1...
I can't find anything that prevents Bush from declaring a us citizen an unlawful enemy combatant.
Reply:Holy crap! Are you serious?? Sneaky little bastard...can you post where you read that as a link, or email it to me??
Reply:I think you have a valid point. The beginning of the end actually happened when he was first elected........
Reply:Simmer down.. As horrifying as this news is, he doesn't have too much longer to see it enforced. Give'em enough rope and they're sure to hang themselves......although I think they already have(the Bush administration that is)
Reply:Gosh!You don't think that there are any terrorist here in the USA? It may be the only way to catch them before they can do any harm.Don't panic I doubt they are coming after you.
I am realy worried about where this will lead america in the near future .
This was the beginning of book burnings and witch trials and the inquesition and the crusades and hitlers germany .The power of the state to detain anyone places fear in the hearts of free men when no charges need to be filed and no system for release is available .ANyone can go to jail now who opposes the government .please call the news channels papers and tell everyone you know that this is the beggining of the end to americas freedom .
Is what i fear most come to pass in recent days .Bush just got his torture bill through and a provision to ex-
Pal, they cannot put us all in jail, and if they get me they won't keep me, I will fart every five seconds and they will let me go.
Reply:Well what do you propose to do? My vote doesn't matter and I can call my senator all day long and it makes no difference. So what to do?
Reply:could you please post source?
Reply:i don't support bush in many thing but this torture thing have gone to for . i say there are no rules any more this isn't ww2 we have to play their game any thing that will help this country stay safe . this is not a concern of my
Reply:if you fear it then you are a terrorist like you damn party Thank God it passed
Reply:Another liberal chicken little theory. Good kool aid your drinking The sky is falling The sky is falling Just remember we won two more years two more years. THANK GOD%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;
Reply:After a quick scan of
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1...
I can't find anything that prevents Bush from declaring a us citizen an unlawful enemy combatant.
Reply:Holy crap! Are you serious?? Sneaky little bastard...can you post where you read that as a link, or email it to me??
Reply:I think you have a valid point. The beginning of the end actually happened when he was first elected........
Reply:Simmer down.. As horrifying as this news is, he doesn't have too much longer to see it enforced. Give'em enough rope and they're sure to hang themselves......although I think they already have(the Bush administration that is)
Reply:Gosh!You don't think that there are any terrorist here in the USA? It may be the only way to catch them before they can do any harm.Don't panic I doubt they are coming after you.
What do Americans think of the unprecedented actions of Bush Jr.?
I'm a Canadian, and follow the American political scene as it directly affects many of components to our society.
I'm flabergasted at George W. Bush and his use of the power which comes with the Oval Office.
I'm wondering what do democrate and republican americans think?
Do you find his actions out of line?
And, democrates, why on earth has there been no papers of impeachment filed??
Pelosi is third in line!
Cheers,
Your friendly Canadian,
What do Americans think of the unprecedented actions of Bush Jr.?
Our government has a goal. A new world order and police state. In order to achieve this goal they need us to beg them for security. In order for us to beg them for security, something big has to happen. So our government orchestrated 911 for a reason to go to war, to begin building this new world government. Think about it, would you like Iraq coming over here and telling us how to run our government? That's exactly what we are doing. We are over there telling them how they are going to rebuild their government, and they never attacked us in the first place. Come on people, please wake up. Educate yourselves, don't let the wool be over your eyes anymore. If you think this is just my own opinion, then by all means do your own research before you rule me out. I didn't believe it at first either until I saw some dvds and I could see the controlled demolition of 911 right in front of my face.
www.infowars.com
www.prisonplanet.com
www.thepowerhour.com
Reply:See as a Canadian, you do not understand how slow, stupid and oblivious Americans are. Many Americans think that we have a right to police the world. Many Americans think that what Bush is doing is for the good of the world. Some democrats would like to impeach him, but we don't have enough smart people in Congress to do that. Oh well, I guess Americans will realize how much their monkey leader ****** up the country when we get bombed again.
Reply:I believe the reason you do not see impeachment an issue if because unfortunately the Democrats know the same power this god awful president has created is the same power that they will inherit in 2008. That is a bad sign for this country in my opinion. And yes he is completely out of line.
Reply:Most of us think that both parties are out of touch will the American public. Hopefully we will remember those who sold us out at election time.
Reply:Uhhh because you need an actual charge and evidence to impeach.
Look Congress said the President needs to Stop Iraq. They passed a resolution, so did the UN, that Iraq needed to be invaded. It wasn't really Bush's call.
I think he is doing fine. He isn't the best, but certainly not the worst. The Democrats would be torn to bits if they tried to impeach a President during a time of war. Plus our Congress's approval rating is like 26%. Yay them!
To understand American Politics you have to realize that the power lies with Congress. The President is there to enforce their rules. Considering we are doing just fine I see no reason for our government to waste more time and impeach a president with 1 year left in his term. And Nancy Pelosi isn't very popular with Americans either.
Hey Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both Impeached! Yay them!
And dano's right, both sides really suck right now.
Reply:I think Democrats should control both congress and the executive. They clearly run things better. Perhaps the next election will see a Democratic revolution.
Reply:His approval rating is currently around 26%, and the Congress 's rating is about the same. Apparently the majority of people have finally woken up,including past supporters. This Presidency is a real low point in American History; poor decisions, stubbornness , cronyism.
As an "outsider", you must think that we as a group must be a bunch of voting idiots electing this guy twice. Maybe we're just getting what we deserve.
Reply:Alot of us want him Impeached for all of his criminal activity against the people and the U.S. Constitution but much of Congress is scared to speak up about it.
Reply:The dark shadow of fascism is driven by powerful winds buffeting enormous storm clouds.
These are turbulent times in America.
Reply:You have to break the Law for Impeachment. He has broken none.
Reply:It directly affects you because Canada is America jr. You only exist because the United States exists. We go down , you starve to death. So get on the right team...and if you were wondering where your Stanley Cup is... we have that too.
Reply:Holding my breath and counting the days.
Reply:you don't follow it closely enough to criticize and frankly you need to just pay attention to your own country. input from Canada is as valuable as one ply toilet paper.
affiliate
I'm flabergasted at George W. Bush and his use of the power which comes with the Oval Office.
I'm wondering what do democrate and republican americans think?
Do you find his actions out of line?
And, democrates, why on earth has there been no papers of impeachment filed??
Pelosi is third in line!
Cheers,
Your friendly Canadian,
What do Americans think of the unprecedented actions of Bush Jr.?
Our government has a goal. A new world order and police state. In order to achieve this goal they need us to beg them for security. In order for us to beg them for security, something big has to happen. So our government orchestrated 911 for a reason to go to war, to begin building this new world government. Think about it, would you like Iraq coming over here and telling us how to run our government? That's exactly what we are doing. We are over there telling them how they are going to rebuild their government, and they never attacked us in the first place. Come on people, please wake up. Educate yourselves, don't let the wool be over your eyes anymore. If you think this is just my own opinion, then by all means do your own research before you rule me out. I didn't believe it at first either until I saw some dvds and I could see the controlled demolition of 911 right in front of my face.
www.infowars.com
www.prisonplanet.com
www.thepowerhour.com
Reply:See as a Canadian, you do not understand how slow, stupid and oblivious Americans are. Many Americans think that we have a right to police the world. Many Americans think that what Bush is doing is for the good of the world. Some democrats would like to impeach him, but we don't have enough smart people in Congress to do that. Oh well, I guess Americans will realize how much their monkey leader ****** up the country when we get bombed again.
Reply:I believe the reason you do not see impeachment an issue if because unfortunately the Democrats know the same power this god awful president has created is the same power that they will inherit in 2008. That is a bad sign for this country in my opinion. And yes he is completely out of line.
Reply:Most of us think that both parties are out of touch will the American public. Hopefully we will remember those who sold us out at election time.
Reply:Uhhh because you need an actual charge and evidence to impeach.
Look Congress said the President needs to Stop Iraq. They passed a resolution, so did the UN, that Iraq needed to be invaded. It wasn't really Bush's call.
I think he is doing fine. He isn't the best, but certainly not the worst. The Democrats would be torn to bits if they tried to impeach a President during a time of war. Plus our Congress's approval rating is like 26%. Yay them!
To understand American Politics you have to realize that the power lies with Congress. The President is there to enforce their rules. Considering we are doing just fine I see no reason for our government to waste more time and impeach a president with 1 year left in his term. And Nancy Pelosi isn't very popular with Americans either.
Hey Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both Impeached! Yay them!
And dano's right, both sides really suck right now.
Reply:I think Democrats should control both congress and the executive. They clearly run things better. Perhaps the next election will see a Democratic revolution.
Reply:His approval rating is currently around 26%, and the Congress 's rating is about the same. Apparently the majority of people have finally woken up,including past supporters. This Presidency is a real low point in American History; poor decisions, stubbornness , cronyism.
As an "outsider", you must think that we as a group must be a bunch of voting idiots electing this guy twice. Maybe we're just getting what we deserve.
Reply:Alot of us want him Impeached for all of his criminal activity against the people and the U.S. Constitution but much of Congress is scared to speak up about it.
Reply:The dark shadow of fascism is driven by powerful winds buffeting enormous storm clouds.
These are turbulent times in America.
Reply:You have to break the Law for Impeachment. He has broken none.
Reply:It directly affects you because Canada is America jr. You only exist because the United States exists. We go down , you starve to death. So get on the right team...and if you were wondering where your Stanley Cup is... we have that too.
Reply:Holding my breath and counting the days.
Reply:you don't follow it closely enough to criticize and frankly you need to just pay attention to your own country. input from Canada is as valuable as one ply toilet paper.
affiliate
Do American citizens really like George W Bush?
I am not American and have never lived in the country but I studied American politics in college 5-6 years ago. I do watch the news and stuff and I am interseted in what goes on around the world. I have been wondering though if there are so many people in the US that dislike Bush (and have no problem in showing it) then why is he still the President? Is what we see in tv or read in the papers all talk and no action? Or is it just that people pretend they don't like him but actually vote for him? Thanks whoever answers and hope I didn't offend anyone.
Do American citizens really like George W Bush?
When a president is elected, they hold the office for 4 years. Even if a majority of the population decides they don't like him, after all, he can't be removed unless he's impeached by the legislative branch of our government.
He has to have committed what they deem to be an impeachable offense.
Then he still may retain the office if not convicted for the offense.
So, no, we the people, cannot get rid of Bush.
As far as the vote goes, Bush "won" with only a 2-3% majority, and a lot of people here dispute the accuracy of that. There are a lot of people who believe that the election was "rigged" in various ways to ensure that slight majority.
Reply:The country was nearly split on Bush during the last election. I don't believe anything was rigged. Since the election, Bush's approval rating has plummetted to previously-unseen lows. It was around 34% of the country that approved of his job performance last week in USA Today. Report It
Reply:i care very much for my President. The media and the left Democrats hate him. Thank-you for your question. Report It
Reply:You don't hear much from us that are proud of President Bush because most of our news and media are Democrats or Liberals that hate him. They also do all the whining and crying because they lost the elections. We who like Bush are just quieter. I wish you could hear more from my side.
Reply:Some people do like him apparently but he's less popular since the war. A lot of the people voted for him again because they were afraid to get a new president while our nation is at war. I heard a lot of military people say that. Maybe it's fear of the unknown. Politics can be tricky.
We didn't really have much to choose from in the last election.
Reply:I am an American and I like him and I voted for him and I am proud of it and I would do it again. I am not a Republican I vote for who has the best Ideas and seem to the most honest and sincere.
Reply:It is called the vocal minority.Conservatives very seldom feel the need to seek out media coverage,we just vote.
Reply:Mostly the people who like him are from the Conservative or Republican political parties. Those who don't are mainly of the Democratic or Liberal political parties.
That does not mean that every Republican and Conservative like him - some just like to keep their party in power.
It also does not mean that EVERY Democrat or Liberal dislikes him.
Reply:I disagree on some of Bush's policies but I still like him as president. And be careful with what you see on T.V. It's not very accurate and tends to only show the extremes of most issues. But I do find it kind of annoying how many countries and people concentrate their hate for certain policies just towards the U.S. when there are many many other countries that I could talk crap about all day without stopping.
Reply:I definitely don't support Mr. President Bush. His views are so off from my own and also from some of the polls that i have seen. I am a moderate conservative, but i am completely liberal as far as the civil movement goes. As long as there is intolerance and semantics dividing people i will be there trying to help everyone. Love is stronger than politics.
Its also much harder to remove him from office especially during a war time. I actually voted for him the second time around because if Senator Kerry took office we would have complete chaos. Imagine Bruce Almighty with the answer all yes button on the laptop.
Had to vote against a public liar, of course.
Don't worry, even in other countries, you are still granted the same allowance to question us, so if you offend someone they are the ones with the problem, and they don't have to answer your question.
Reply:may be yes.
Reply:i AM american but i dont live in that country anymore and i did NOT vote for bush to be in office... i am NOT republican i vote democrate but bush is running his office with his father by his side i reckon. If i had to bet bush his influenced by his father on the decisions he is making.. i mean common like he would want to hurt nearly ALL the oil refin. that he owns on land AND in water.. uuughhhh
Reply:the damn uneducated, god loving/fearing, fat red states love the guy while in san francisco and many other metropolitan areas he is loathed. I for one will say he is a moron and needs to be removed from office but with republicans in control of the house and congress, it will never happen
Reply:Because he cheated. They rigged the computerized voting machines because the Diebold CEO promised to "deliver Ohio" to Bush--and countless other voting "irregularities." Yup, we live in a dictatorship where the people have absolutely no say in what happens in their own government, much less their own country.
Reply:I like President Bush. I think he got a lot of bad info on Iraq and now he is taking a beating for it. The media only reports things that sell papers and bad news sells. There are many positive things happening in Iraq, but do we see them on TV or in the papers? No, because that does not sell.
Reply:Most people don't really think. G W doesn't really care about you, he is only concerned about following through with his agenda, helping rich people, the republican party, his cronies and changing laws that destroy your environment. Your great grandchildren will be right in the smack middle of the worst DEBT ever created just because GW wants to look good. He is a feeble minded piss poor leader, and I'm ashamed of the American people who voted for him. Sorry you were fooled. Why don't you research the Internet and find out what he really has done to this country!
Reply:They must like him or why did they vote for him. Unfortunately, because of the undemocratic electoral system and the reliance on donor contributions the US electorate do not get much of a choice. The TV and papers are also run for commercial gain and there is no effective public broadcasting system. A change will come but it will take years.
In the meantime, George will pass on power to another president who has been backed by big money and the new president will have to look after his rich constituents.
Reply:I have to say I wish Cheney takes him hunting with him next time. He is not a good leader role model for our future . He half the time looks so dumbfounded that I just cant wait till his term is up I think we all need to stand up and figure away to get him out of office sooner it just sucks for all we need to protest him what are we at war for so he can become richer and we keep losing our jobs I feel sorry for all the milary they are giving up everything that were suppost to be fighting for when nothing has seem to make a difference. we need our hearts and soul back. he does not do that for americans he just dont. I want it to be safe for us all but our troops need to be home with there family now we sould have already been done fighting no matter what happens over seas the gas prices stll would have went up this is another way for him and his family to be verrrrrry wealthy . He needs to worry about everyone. thats what a true leader does please lets not take this lets get our troops home and send president worthnothing back to texas for good ol texas asswooping.
Do American citizens really like George W Bush?
When a president is elected, they hold the office for 4 years. Even if a majority of the population decides they don't like him, after all, he can't be removed unless he's impeached by the legislative branch of our government.
He has to have committed what they deem to be an impeachable offense.
Then he still may retain the office if not convicted for the offense.
So, no, we the people, cannot get rid of Bush.
As far as the vote goes, Bush "won" with only a 2-3% majority, and a lot of people here dispute the accuracy of that. There are a lot of people who believe that the election was "rigged" in various ways to ensure that slight majority.
Reply:The country was nearly split on Bush during the last election. I don't believe anything was rigged. Since the election, Bush's approval rating has plummetted to previously-unseen lows. It was around 34% of the country that approved of his job performance last week in USA Today. Report It
Reply:i care very much for my President. The media and the left Democrats hate him. Thank-you for your question. Report It
Reply:You don't hear much from us that are proud of President Bush because most of our news and media are Democrats or Liberals that hate him. They also do all the whining and crying because they lost the elections. We who like Bush are just quieter. I wish you could hear more from my side.
Reply:Some people do like him apparently but he's less popular since the war. A lot of the people voted for him again because they were afraid to get a new president while our nation is at war. I heard a lot of military people say that. Maybe it's fear of the unknown. Politics can be tricky.
We didn't really have much to choose from in the last election.
Reply:I am an American and I like him and I voted for him and I am proud of it and I would do it again. I am not a Republican I vote for who has the best Ideas and seem to the most honest and sincere.
Reply:It is called the vocal minority.Conservatives very seldom feel the need to seek out media coverage,we just vote.
Reply:Mostly the people who like him are from the Conservative or Republican political parties. Those who don't are mainly of the Democratic or Liberal political parties.
That does not mean that every Republican and Conservative like him - some just like to keep their party in power.
It also does not mean that EVERY Democrat or Liberal dislikes him.
Reply:I disagree on some of Bush's policies but I still like him as president. And be careful with what you see on T.V. It's not very accurate and tends to only show the extremes of most issues. But I do find it kind of annoying how many countries and people concentrate their hate for certain policies just towards the U.S. when there are many many other countries that I could talk crap about all day without stopping.
Reply:I definitely don't support Mr. President Bush. His views are so off from my own and also from some of the polls that i have seen. I am a moderate conservative, but i am completely liberal as far as the civil movement goes. As long as there is intolerance and semantics dividing people i will be there trying to help everyone. Love is stronger than politics.
Its also much harder to remove him from office especially during a war time. I actually voted for him the second time around because if Senator Kerry took office we would have complete chaos. Imagine Bruce Almighty with the answer all yes button on the laptop.
Had to vote against a public liar, of course.
Don't worry, even in other countries, you are still granted the same allowance to question us, so if you offend someone they are the ones with the problem, and they don't have to answer your question.
Reply:may be yes.
Reply:i AM american but i dont live in that country anymore and i did NOT vote for bush to be in office... i am NOT republican i vote democrate but bush is running his office with his father by his side i reckon. If i had to bet bush his influenced by his father on the decisions he is making.. i mean common like he would want to hurt nearly ALL the oil refin. that he owns on land AND in water.. uuughhhh
Reply:the damn uneducated, god loving/fearing, fat red states love the guy while in san francisco and many other metropolitan areas he is loathed. I for one will say he is a moron and needs to be removed from office but with republicans in control of the house and congress, it will never happen
Reply:Because he cheated. They rigged the computerized voting machines because the Diebold CEO promised to "deliver Ohio" to Bush--and countless other voting "irregularities." Yup, we live in a dictatorship where the people have absolutely no say in what happens in their own government, much less their own country.
Reply:I like President Bush. I think he got a lot of bad info on Iraq and now he is taking a beating for it. The media only reports things that sell papers and bad news sells. There are many positive things happening in Iraq, but do we see them on TV or in the papers? No, because that does not sell.
Reply:Most people don't really think. G W doesn't really care about you, he is only concerned about following through with his agenda, helping rich people, the republican party, his cronies and changing laws that destroy your environment. Your great grandchildren will be right in the smack middle of the worst DEBT ever created just because GW wants to look good. He is a feeble minded piss poor leader, and I'm ashamed of the American people who voted for him. Sorry you were fooled. Why don't you research the Internet and find out what he really has done to this country!
Reply:They must like him or why did they vote for him. Unfortunately, because of the undemocratic electoral system and the reliance on donor contributions the US electorate do not get much of a choice. The TV and papers are also run for commercial gain and there is no effective public broadcasting system. A change will come but it will take years.
In the meantime, George will pass on power to another president who has been backed by big money and the new president will have to look after his rich constituents.
Reply:I have to say I wish Cheney takes him hunting with him next time. He is not a good leader role model for our future . He half the time looks so dumbfounded that I just cant wait till his term is up I think we all need to stand up and figure away to get him out of office sooner it just sucks for all we need to protest him what are we at war for so he can become richer and we keep losing our jobs I feel sorry for all the milary they are giving up everything that were suppost to be fighting for when nothing has seem to make a difference. we need our hearts and soul back. he does not do that for americans he just dont. I want it to be safe for us all but our troops need to be home with there family now we sould have already been done fighting no matter what happens over seas the gas prices stll would have went up this is another way for him and his family to be verrrrrry wealthy . He needs to worry about everyone. thats what a true leader does please lets not take this lets get our troops home and send president worthnothing back to texas for good ol texas asswooping.
Tony Blaire is one of the best friends of Mr. Bush. When Mr. Blaire went to USA there was no proper good bye.?
Tony Blaire is one of the best friends of Mr. Bush. When Mr. Blaire went to USA there was no proper good bye.
This is from the UK papers and looked very embarrassing. What’s more the oil pilferages in the Iraq also raise many questions.
Mr. Bush only said generally that he was responsible for the resignation of Mr. Blaire. There was nothing on Kyoto Protocol or withdraw from Iraq. In fact Iraq did not exist.
Why?
Tony Blaire is one of the best friends of Mr. Bush. When Mr. Blaire went to USA there was no proper good bye.?
Blair is responsible for his own actions. He's a big boy.
Reply:He said "So long, and thanks for all the fish".
Reply:Blair got what he deserved. I say hat's off to the people of England, that MADE their voices be heard-lucky people that truly are blessed to live in a "Democracy."
Blair was "warned" by President Clinton, NOT to get to close to Bush, but the "Poodle" did not obey the command. . .
Reply:If Blair doesn't resign now, he'll become very isolated and lonely to the point of depression. Especially after Bush's term of office.
So, Bush is happy for his best puppet.
This is from the UK papers and looked very embarrassing. What’s more the oil pilferages in the Iraq also raise many questions.
Mr. Bush only said generally that he was responsible for the resignation of Mr. Blaire. There was nothing on Kyoto Protocol or withdraw from Iraq. In fact Iraq did not exist.
Why?
Tony Blaire is one of the best friends of Mr. Bush. When Mr. Blaire went to USA there was no proper good bye.?
Blair is responsible for his own actions. He's a big boy.
Reply:He said "So long, and thanks for all the fish".
Reply:Blair got what he deserved. I say hat's off to the people of England, that MADE their voices be heard-lucky people that truly are blessed to live in a "Democracy."
Blair was "warned" by President Clinton, NOT to get to close to Bush, but the "Poodle" did not obey the command. . .
Reply:If Blair doesn't resign now, he'll become very isolated and lonely to the point of depression. Especially after Bush's term of office.
So, Bush is happy for his best puppet.
Isn't it finally time to impeach George W. Bush?
Article 3 of the Nixon impeachment stated, in part, that Nixon "has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas."
Isn't this what Bush has been doing with the Plame investigation, the U.S. Attorney firings, the NSA wiretapping, the Abu Ghraib torturing, etc.?
Haven't we finally had enough? Are we really going to let Bush and Cheney walk on all this? No personal attacks, please; I am just looking at the public record. Just state your opinion on the facts.
Isn't it finally time to impeach George W. Bush?
Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority vote, and unfortunately Congress is still too evenly split for that. However, there has been talk of charging him with contempt of court for refusing to comply with the subpoena. I think that would be thoroughly appropriate, and his efforts to weasel out of that charge would once again demonstrate that he thinks he's above the law. Just keep putting those nails in the coffin, George.
Reply:Finally? I thought it was time four years ago.
To the "Cheney will be President" people... Cheney can be impeached and brought up on charges just as easily as Bush. That is not a problem. If Bush is guilty, Cheney is guilty.
Reply:Since the articles of impeachment were only drafted, but never voted on, it doesn't mean they would have been upheld.
Of course, by your logic, both Clintons would have need to have been found in violation of the law. They failed to deliver many, many documents and info requested by subpeona. Such as Hillary's Rose Law firm records. Such as official White House e-mail (as opposed to GOP internal e-mail). Etc.
Not sure what makes you think there was anything done at all by Bush regarding Plame, Abu Ghraib, the NSA wiretapping or even the US attorney firings - there has been no testimony or evidence that he's done anything wrong at all in any of these cases.
There is no public record indicating any wrongdoing, so where are your facts?
Reply:No, there have to be a crime committed first
Reply:If that is the route you choose to take. Personally, I see no point in wasting the time, money, and effort necessary to impeach a President who will be out of office is less than a year and a half and is quickly loosing support within his own party. President Bush is a lame duck, there is no need to remove him because he has little political power.
Since the Clinton impeachment has been brought up in a few answers, let us examine it. President Clinton was impeached after being indicted by a grand jury for the felony crime of perjury (lying under oath to a court of law). President Bush has yet to be indicted for any crime. Also, the political consequences of the unsuccessful impeachment of President Clinton were fairly large in the next election. Republicans lost control of the Senate, lost a lot of seats in the House, and nearly lost the Presidency to a not so popular Vice President. I don't think it is in the Democratic party's best interest to impeach Bush. If they leave him alone, they are the clear favorites to win the White House in 2008. Why screw that up?
Reply:Watergate was a scam to get him into office. This is completely different. I spit on hippies like you.
Reply:Well that sounds all well and good. . . if you want President Cheaney in the white house.
Reply:Given that Cheney would be tossed as well, keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi stands next in line. That's most likely the reason for her "Not on my watch!" comment.
Even then, I'd vote for impeachment. It just doesn't get much worse than it is now.
FYI, I was as life-long Republican until shortly after Bush was elected. I've switched to Independent and during the last general election voted the first straight party ticket I've ever voted in 36 years of voting. Hint: It was NOT a Repbulican ticket!
Reply:you want Cheney to be President ?
Reply:I don't understand why Clinton almost got impeached over an adulterous affair (even though we are supposed to keep church and state seperate anyway) yet Bush is able to do illegal spying on our very own citizens and there isn't a mention of the word impeachement!
The Republicans (evil do'ers) were ALL over Clinton- but now....all they are doing is supporting their war monger.
Reply:you're a democrat. what would republicans think of this?
but I myself am undecided with this whole politics stuff. so don't try to change me.
Reply:Well, once they investigate WJ Clinton further and he goes to jail we can look into beginning impeachment proceedings for George W Bush. Now that means we have to open more CIA files. Full disclosure during the Clinton administration. He fired 93 US Attorneys when he took office. It is under Executive Orders u can search engine. Wiretapping and? investigations of suspected criminals and terrorists? When we know now what is real as b4 we were in the dark. In Europe the CIA/FBI had already taken aggressive actions against suspected terrorists. Those places we hear so little about?
In my opinion this is all about an extra ordinary election with a past President and his spouse running for the 44th President.
Nepotism I thought we were rid of during Kennedy days. SO, your headlines are more extreme. Politics as usual if you follow the trends. 2007 it is a new ball game out there.
I feel strongly that these are not facts yet public speculation. Propaganda for the return of Democratic control by two very dominate individuals. If the Good Senator from New York cared about the fact that she accepted donations for re-election only to devote her time to run for President ? And she sleeps well at night? Why can I believe she will perform better at another job?
Judge Holloway Johnson is one to look up and stay onto. She derailed Kenneth Starr. Reports came out she over looked criminal sentences for financiers on the Clinton payroll. So if she gets a better job in '09, like Pelosi and the rest of the debts do not cry to those of us who said we told you so. Thank you very much.
**be still my heart butterbar u pulled up Rose Law Firm
documents were found in the First Ladies quarters.. imagine that .. and where are they now? Sandy Berger? Or Vince Foster, well he committed suicide and a bullet to the back of the head? Fact. Clinton witnesses are very flexible.
Isn't this what Bush has been doing with the Plame investigation, the U.S. Attorney firings, the NSA wiretapping, the Abu Ghraib torturing, etc.?
Haven't we finally had enough? Are we really going to let Bush and Cheney walk on all this? No personal attacks, please; I am just looking at the public record. Just state your opinion on the facts.
Isn't it finally time to impeach George W. Bush?
Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority vote, and unfortunately Congress is still too evenly split for that. However, there has been talk of charging him with contempt of court for refusing to comply with the subpoena. I think that would be thoroughly appropriate, and his efforts to weasel out of that charge would once again demonstrate that he thinks he's above the law. Just keep putting those nails in the coffin, George.
Reply:Finally? I thought it was time four years ago.
To the "Cheney will be President" people... Cheney can be impeached and brought up on charges just as easily as Bush. That is not a problem. If Bush is guilty, Cheney is guilty.
Reply:Since the articles of impeachment were only drafted, but never voted on, it doesn't mean they would have been upheld.
Of course, by your logic, both Clintons would have need to have been found in violation of the law. They failed to deliver many, many documents and info requested by subpeona. Such as Hillary's Rose Law firm records. Such as official White House e-mail (as opposed to GOP internal e-mail). Etc.
Not sure what makes you think there was anything done at all by Bush regarding Plame, Abu Ghraib, the NSA wiretapping or even the US attorney firings - there has been no testimony or evidence that he's done anything wrong at all in any of these cases.
There is no public record indicating any wrongdoing, so where are your facts?
Reply:No, there have to be a crime committed first
Reply:If that is the route you choose to take. Personally, I see no point in wasting the time, money, and effort necessary to impeach a President who will be out of office is less than a year and a half and is quickly loosing support within his own party. President Bush is a lame duck, there is no need to remove him because he has little political power.
Since the Clinton impeachment has been brought up in a few answers, let us examine it. President Clinton was impeached after being indicted by a grand jury for the felony crime of perjury (lying under oath to a court of law). President Bush has yet to be indicted for any crime. Also, the political consequences of the unsuccessful impeachment of President Clinton were fairly large in the next election. Republicans lost control of the Senate, lost a lot of seats in the House, and nearly lost the Presidency to a not so popular Vice President. I don't think it is in the Democratic party's best interest to impeach Bush. If they leave him alone, they are the clear favorites to win the White House in 2008. Why screw that up?
Reply:Watergate was a scam to get him into office. This is completely different. I spit on hippies like you.
Reply:Well that sounds all well and good. . . if you want President Cheaney in the white house.
Reply:Given that Cheney would be tossed as well, keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi stands next in line. That's most likely the reason for her "Not on my watch!" comment.
Even then, I'd vote for impeachment. It just doesn't get much worse than it is now.
FYI, I was as life-long Republican until shortly after Bush was elected. I've switched to Independent and during the last general election voted the first straight party ticket I've ever voted in 36 years of voting. Hint: It was NOT a Repbulican ticket!
Reply:you want Cheney to be President ?
Reply:I don't understand why Clinton almost got impeached over an adulterous affair (even though we are supposed to keep church and state seperate anyway) yet Bush is able to do illegal spying on our very own citizens and there isn't a mention of the word impeachement!
The Republicans (evil do'ers) were ALL over Clinton- but now....all they are doing is supporting their war monger.
Reply:you're a democrat. what would republicans think of this?
but I myself am undecided with this whole politics stuff. so don't try to change me.
Reply:Well, once they investigate WJ Clinton further and he goes to jail we can look into beginning impeachment proceedings for George W Bush. Now that means we have to open more CIA files. Full disclosure during the Clinton administration. He fired 93 US Attorneys when he took office. It is under Executive Orders u can search engine. Wiretapping and? investigations of suspected criminals and terrorists? When we know now what is real as b4 we were in the dark. In Europe the CIA/FBI had already taken aggressive actions against suspected terrorists. Those places we hear so little about?
In my opinion this is all about an extra ordinary election with a past President and his spouse running for the 44th President.
Nepotism I thought we were rid of during Kennedy days. SO, your headlines are more extreme. Politics as usual if you follow the trends. 2007 it is a new ball game out there.
I feel strongly that these are not facts yet public speculation. Propaganda for the return of Democratic control by two very dominate individuals. If the Good Senator from New York cared about the fact that she accepted donations for re-election only to devote her time to run for President ? And she sleeps well at night? Why can I believe she will perform better at another job?
Judge Holloway Johnson is one to look up and stay onto. She derailed Kenneth Starr. Reports came out she over looked criminal sentences for financiers on the Clinton payroll. So if she gets a better job in '09, like Pelosi and the rest of the debts do not cry to those of us who said we told you so. Thank you very much.
**be still my heart butterbar u pulled up Rose Law Firm
documents were found in the First Ladies quarters.. imagine that .. and where are they now? Sandy Berger? Or Vince Foster, well he committed suicide and a bullet to the back of the head? Fact. Clinton witnesses are very flexible.
Do you think that President Bush and his administration are infringing on our Constitutional rights?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why does his administration and him need to know the where abouts and private information of every one? Is it not our constitutional right to be and go freely where ever i feel at any given time, without having to look over my shoulder, wondering if the Government/ Bush is watching my every step? And i know the argument that we/ He needs to be able to know this to protect us, or if i didnt have anything to hide then why should i be conserned. But those are NOT valid enough answers to go unchecked while He thoughs MY rights to the wind!
Do you think that President Bush and his administration are infringing on our Constitutional rights?
Definitely, the constitution of this once great country has become a joke, your rights are guaranteed to you only as long as it is convenient.
Reply:President Bush and his Administration are sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws passed by Congress. That said there are endless law suits including many that must go to the Supreme Court for resolution because not everyone can agree on exactly what the laws permit, especially if there are political gains to be made.
Reply:You know what? I think we should just abolish the intelligence commitee that protects america just because they are trying to make sure terrorists aren't planning another attack by listening in on our private conversations *gasp*, don't be so ignorant.
Reply:I dont believe the Adminsitration is infringing on our constitutional rights. I believe they having been legally doing what is in the best interest of the American public
Reply:Of course they are, but unfortunately many people don't care. NO ONE has explained why the administration discarded the FISA requirement to obtain judicial approval for wiretaps, either before OR AFTER! Conveniently, he and his supporters don't mention that there was no reason to violate FISA because if the wiretaps were valid they would be retroactively approved.
The argument that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be concerned does not wash. If you really believe this, then please push for public disclosure of the administration's decision-making. Why we went to war, who helped write the energy bill, who leaked the Plame identity, etc. I'd also like to allow the IRS to spy on our private business records because only cheaters would have something to hide. I'm sure that you have no objections to bedroom spying either if you are not breaking any laws.
Most of us support the legitimate search for intelligence information, but I certainly do not support the indiscriminate and unmonitored invasion of privacy that violates constitutional protections. Security is not an excuse to trample our rights.
Reply:Yes I do, in the name of terror.
Reply:The president is doing what he thinks is right and I agree there are certain measures needed to protect us unfortunately I beleive they will be people in the law enforcement agencies that will abuse the powers he has given them
Reply:Its getting down to the wire on excessive executive power.
Even the American Bar Association said these warrentless domestic wiretaps are illegal.
The Republicans had better hope they don't lose controll of the House of Representative. I see committees, hearings, investiations and more, much more headed their way.
Don't you just love the two-party system?
Reply:Whoaaaa.. chill out dude. Unless you are a suspected terrorist you have nothing to worry about. The government is LEGALLY allowed under the FISA act of 1978 to wiretap susptected terrorist. If the governement didnt do this (spy on suspected terrorists), it would be irresponsible.
Reply:Yes...I'm not a terrorist but his methods are to combat evil is by being more evil than the evil you're fighting
Reply:yes i do
they suport and beleive in the constitution,
yet it seems they are blind to what it really stands for.
I think he is close minded and ignorant
leather boots
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why does his administration and him need to know the where abouts and private information of every one? Is it not our constitutional right to be and go freely where ever i feel at any given time, without having to look over my shoulder, wondering if the Government/ Bush is watching my every step? And i know the argument that we/ He needs to be able to know this to protect us, or if i didnt have anything to hide then why should i be conserned. But those are NOT valid enough answers to go unchecked while He thoughs MY rights to the wind!
Do you think that President Bush and his administration are infringing on our Constitutional rights?
Definitely, the constitution of this once great country has become a joke, your rights are guaranteed to you only as long as it is convenient.
Reply:President Bush and his Administration are sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws passed by Congress. That said there are endless law suits including many that must go to the Supreme Court for resolution because not everyone can agree on exactly what the laws permit, especially if there are political gains to be made.
Reply:You know what? I think we should just abolish the intelligence commitee that protects america just because they are trying to make sure terrorists aren't planning another attack by listening in on our private conversations *gasp*, don't be so ignorant.
Reply:I dont believe the Adminsitration is infringing on our constitutional rights. I believe they having been legally doing what is in the best interest of the American public
Reply:Of course they are, but unfortunately many people don't care. NO ONE has explained why the administration discarded the FISA requirement to obtain judicial approval for wiretaps, either before OR AFTER! Conveniently, he and his supporters don't mention that there was no reason to violate FISA because if the wiretaps were valid they would be retroactively approved.
The argument that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be concerned does not wash. If you really believe this, then please push for public disclosure of the administration's decision-making. Why we went to war, who helped write the energy bill, who leaked the Plame identity, etc. I'd also like to allow the IRS to spy on our private business records because only cheaters would have something to hide. I'm sure that you have no objections to bedroom spying either if you are not breaking any laws.
Most of us support the legitimate search for intelligence information, but I certainly do not support the indiscriminate and unmonitored invasion of privacy that violates constitutional protections. Security is not an excuse to trample our rights.
Reply:Yes I do, in the name of terror.
Reply:The president is doing what he thinks is right and I agree there are certain measures needed to protect us unfortunately I beleive they will be people in the law enforcement agencies that will abuse the powers he has given them
Reply:Its getting down to the wire on excessive executive power.
Even the American Bar Association said these warrentless domestic wiretaps are illegal.
The Republicans had better hope they don't lose controll of the House of Representative. I see committees, hearings, investiations and more, much more headed their way.
Don't you just love the two-party system?
Reply:Whoaaaa.. chill out dude. Unless you are a suspected terrorist you have nothing to worry about. The government is LEGALLY allowed under the FISA act of 1978 to wiretap susptected terrorist. If the governement didnt do this (spy on suspected terrorists), it would be irresponsible.
Reply:Yes...I'm not a terrorist but his methods are to combat evil is by being more evil than the evil you're fighting
Reply:yes i do
they suport and beleive in the constitution,
yet it seems they are blind to what it really stands for.
I think he is close minded and ignorant
leather boots
Since most Americans and most people worldwide are against Bush than those who support him, for that reason..?
for that reason, why do many bush-supporters say that only terrorists and their supporters are against Bush and his policies?
Only this minority, which I mentioned, does not see the corruption the Bush administration endorses.
I, personally, can't support a man who has had it proven that his administration must have forged the papers which said that Saddam was buying Uranium from Niger, Africa. But that is just a taste of the reality that the majority knows.
Since most Americans and most people worldwide are against Bush than those who support him, for that reason..?
They say that because they have been brainwashed.
Only this minority, which I mentioned, does not see the corruption the Bush administration endorses.
I, personally, can't support a man who has had it proven that his administration must have forged the papers which said that Saddam was buying Uranium from Niger, Africa. But that is just a taste of the reality that the majority knows.
Since most Americans and most people worldwide are against Bush than those who support him, for that reason..?
They say that because they have been brainwashed.
The Russian government has complained to Bush that Condie can't read or write in Russian. She lied on her on
resume, calling herself a Russian expert to get the job of Sect of State. President Putin has called Condi completely illiterate in Russian. She has even been accused of purchasing her own papers for college to obtain her Doctorate. It's a fact! She can't read or write in Russian. Putin was offended by Condi and asked her not to come back to Russia. Why does this not bother Bush
when his Sect of State lies blatantly? PS She can't speak Spanish at all either and that's on her resume too.. What's wrong with Bush why doesn't he care about her incompetency and blatant lying?
The Russian government has complained to Bush that Condie can't read or write in Russian. She lied on her on
Links to your accusations???
Of course not
Yet another conspiracy theory
Reply:Accusetory statements like this require substantiation. I've searched the Internet and can find no evidence to support your claims. Either provide proof or retract.
Reply:Why would Bush care? His daddy got him in the Alabama air national guard and he couldn't even be bothered to show up for that!
Reply:That's old news.
She read a couple classic Russian poems and declared herself an expert.
The Bush administration when they were in the early organizational stage touted her as a Russian expert. They were thinking political expert But Codi took Russian literature in Grad School.
Bottom line She is doing a very good job escalating the Mideast war.
Think about it. Arabs do not do business with women Women are not allowed to speak in public. Bush sends a woman to humiliate them. It must tweak their brain to have a Black Woman prance in and start telling them what to do.
Go big Red Go
Reply:She can't recall having a meeting with Tenet either, yet he and FBI members recall the meeting happening and the events of the meeting. What was the consequence?
Reply:Well slap her Butt and give her a time out!!
Reply:What a joke!!!! You are soooo full of shti!!! Condi has an amazing education and she IS in fact fluent in at least three languages. You have no proof, where is you reference for the 'fact'???!!! Fake azz!
Reply:Other than your unsupported babblings, you think you could scare up some actual support for your allegations?
You see, adults require facts and evidence in order to make judgements. We don't consider incoherent rantings like yours as anything but garbage.
when his Sect of State lies blatantly? PS She can't speak Spanish at all either and that's on her resume too.. What's wrong with Bush why doesn't he care about her incompetency and blatant lying?
The Russian government has complained to Bush that Condie can't read or write in Russian. She lied on her on
Links to your accusations???
Of course not
Yet another conspiracy theory
Reply:Accusetory statements like this require substantiation. I've searched the Internet and can find no evidence to support your claims. Either provide proof or retract.
Reply:Why would Bush care? His daddy got him in the Alabama air national guard and he couldn't even be bothered to show up for that!
Reply:That's old news.
She read a couple classic Russian poems and declared herself an expert.
The Bush administration when they were in the early organizational stage touted her as a Russian expert. They were thinking political expert But Codi took Russian literature in Grad School.
Bottom line She is doing a very good job escalating the Mideast war.
Think about it. Arabs do not do business with women Women are not allowed to speak in public. Bush sends a woman to humiliate them. It must tweak their brain to have a Black Woman prance in and start telling them what to do.
Go big Red Go
Reply:She can't recall having a meeting with Tenet either, yet he and FBI members recall the meeting happening and the events of the meeting. What was the consequence?
Reply:Well slap her Butt and give her a time out!!
Reply:What a joke!!!! You are soooo full of shti!!! Condi has an amazing education and she IS in fact fluent in at least three languages. You have no proof, where is you reference for the 'fact'???!!! Fake azz!
Reply:Other than your unsupported babblings, you think you could scare up some actual support for your allegations?
You see, adults require facts and evidence in order to make judgements. We don't consider incoherent rantings like yours as anything but garbage.
Instead of Dan rather proving bush was lying with planted [by GOP] fake documents why does bush come up with ?
some documents that prove that he did serve bravely in the national guard and was never arrested for drugs and drunk driving as well as school records that prove he has a high I.Q.? you whould think that some of those papers would be saved for future generations to study and admire?! i mean john kerry and al gore had documents that proved they were in vietnam why is there absolutely nothing what so ever that proves bush did anything in his early years?! i mean most kids have some kind of trophies that show their accomplishments over the years! right? right?! RIGHT!
Instead of Dan rather proving bush was lying with planted [by GOP] fake documents why does bush come up with ?
How is the psych ward these days? Didn't they tell you to stop playing on the computer and take your meds? On no, here they come to drag you away again.
Reply:the papers you are talking about were from an enemy of Bush's named Bill Burkett who had several different stories as to how he came to have them. All he was trying to do was discredit Bush before the 2004 election. As far as how smart Bush is you can find his scores are higher than John Kerry's but that not saying much. As for John Kerry's service in Vietnam he was only there for about four months and received three purple heart citations. There were alot more people that served there longer and never received a purple heart. Either he was very brave, very stupid, or something is very fishy about those citation.
Instead of Dan rather proving bush was lying with planted [by GOP] fake documents why does bush come up with ?
How is the psych ward these days? Didn't they tell you to stop playing on the computer and take your meds? On no, here they come to drag you away again.
Reply:the papers you are talking about were from an enemy of Bush's named Bill Burkett who had several different stories as to how he came to have them. All he was trying to do was discredit Bush before the 2004 election. As far as how smart Bush is you can find his scores are higher than John Kerry's but that not saying much. As for John Kerry's service in Vietnam he was only there for about four months and received three purple heart citations. There were alot more people that served there longer and never received a purple heart. Either he was very brave, very stupid, or something is very fishy about those citation.
What would Alexander Hamilton say about George W. Bush if he was alive today?
What would the first Secretary of the Treasurer of the United States of America and one of the authors of The Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton say about President of the United States of America George W. Bush if he was alive today?
What would Alexander Hamilton say about George W. Bush if he was alive today?
This is a good question. I'm going to guess Hamilton, who wanted a strong National government, would like the economic condition of the U.S., but would frown upon the interventionist type policies we've adapted as far as war is concerned, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc. I don't know. I'd like to ask him.
Reply:Before of after he got up off the floor from laughing that we ever elected this moron?
Reply:BUSHIE BOY....YOU SUCK AS A PRESIDENT!!! AND THEN HE WOULD LAUGH AT US FOR EVER ELECTING HIM!
Reply:Although there is no brain activity, George W. Bush IS alive today. It's a Terry Schivo kind of thing.
Reply:Alexander Hamilton was the great Treasury Secretary ever.
If he was alive he'd slap Bush for the reckless spending of our nation! 250 billion dollar a year deficits will destroy our nation.
Reply:"Learn to think continentally."
Reply:YOU went to college?!
Reply:Hamilton to Bush: "I challenge you to a duel, you cur!"
Reply:He'd wonder how his pooch got screwed.
Reply:The duel is on!
Thanks Roland!
Reply:that what the constitution means to you?????
Taxes
What would Alexander Hamilton say about George W. Bush if he was alive today?
This is a good question. I'm going to guess Hamilton, who wanted a strong National government, would like the economic condition of the U.S., but would frown upon the interventionist type policies we've adapted as far as war is concerned, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc. I don't know. I'd like to ask him.
Reply:Before of after he got up off the floor from laughing that we ever elected this moron?
Reply:BUSHIE BOY....YOU SUCK AS A PRESIDENT!!! AND THEN HE WOULD LAUGH AT US FOR EVER ELECTING HIM!
Reply:Although there is no brain activity, George W. Bush IS alive today. It's a Terry Schivo kind of thing.
Reply:Alexander Hamilton was the great Treasury Secretary ever.
If he was alive he'd slap Bush for the reckless spending of our nation! 250 billion dollar a year deficits will destroy our nation.
Reply:"Learn to think continentally."
Reply:YOU went to college?!
Reply:Hamilton to Bush: "I challenge you to a duel, you cur!"
Reply:He'd wonder how his pooch got screwed.
Reply:The duel is on!
Thanks Roland!
Reply:that what the constitution means to you?????
Taxes
Why would Clinton have backed NAFTA a GHW Bush planned policy?
GHW Bush had been working on this globalist movement for years!
Here's the link from his own library:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/pap...
When will people realize that it isn't Republican vs Democrat anymore?!?!?!?!
It's Elite globalists vs the average American citizen and the other people of the world who can be subjugated!!!!!
Clinton--Bush--Clinton--Bush it makes no difference in the global economy only in the role government runs or doesn't run social programs!!
Why would Clinton have backed NAFTA a GHW Bush planned policy?
I agree with your points totally. If Ron Paul is not the nominee of the Republican Party I will probably vote for a 3rd party candidate in November of 2008.
The average beer drinking american seems to have no clue how big special interest money affects the decisions of our lawmakers and elected officials in Washington DC. They are swayed by 30 second TV ads while the high paying jobs are being moved overseas.
Reply:more people can name the finalists on American Idol but not tell you about NAFTA or the Security Prosperity Partnership. They don't know what the Trans Texas Corridor is either. But the majority of the population knows when the new season of"Lost" returns. Go figure!
Reply:Of course.. :) Look at China.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. And people refuse to see it!!!!
Reply:Bill Clinton did some good things but he was basically a big business Republican on economic matters. We have had twenty five years of "trickle down" Reaganomics - one reason for why the middle class is disappearing and we see growing income inequality between the rich and the working class.
Reply:Excellent point about NAFTA which Bush Jr also supports.
Yet, strangely, people still flock to register as a Dem or Repub. Why? Since both parties are corrupt, why do people pledge undying devotion to either?
Here's the link from his own library:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/pap...
When will people realize that it isn't Republican vs Democrat anymore?!?!?!?!
It's Elite globalists vs the average American citizen and the other people of the world who can be subjugated!!!!!
Clinton--Bush--Clinton--Bush it makes no difference in the global economy only in the role government runs or doesn't run social programs!!
Why would Clinton have backed NAFTA a GHW Bush planned policy?
I agree with your points totally. If Ron Paul is not the nominee of the Republican Party I will probably vote for a 3rd party candidate in November of 2008.
The average beer drinking american seems to have no clue how big special interest money affects the decisions of our lawmakers and elected officials in Washington DC. They are swayed by 30 second TV ads while the high paying jobs are being moved overseas.
Reply:more people can name the finalists on American Idol but not tell you about NAFTA or the Security Prosperity Partnership. They don't know what the Trans Texas Corridor is either. But the majority of the population knows when the new season of"Lost" returns. Go figure!
Reply:Of course.. :) Look at China.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. And people refuse to see it!!!!
Reply:Bill Clinton did some good things but he was basically a big business Republican on economic matters. We have had twenty five years of "trickle down" Reaganomics - one reason for why the middle class is disappearing and we see growing income inequality between the rich and the working class.
Reply:Excellent point about NAFTA which Bush Jr also supports.
Yet, strangely, people still flock to register as a Dem or Repub. Why? Since both parties are corrupt, why do people pledge undying devotion to either?
Wow, is Bush Really the Decider?
He signs papers that laws apply to everyone - except him, including torture??
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...
Wow, is Bush Really the Decider?
what kind of sick f*ck does something like that? for a "born again christian, a compassionate conservative, a uniter - not a divider" he sure seems hell bent on destroying just about everything. but, i guess the idea of the biblical apocalypse might be something he'd like to bring on.
Reply:He's almost done..... but what a trail of mess he's leaving us with...
Reply:I read this too...George Bush is a scary man! All of these lovely Christian folks that he has fooled...God bless them, but he is a ego maniac.
Reply:according to him, he is. he's made some whopping decisions, hasn't he? I wonder if he read the by-laws, congress must approve any major decisions. makes me think that perhaps Laura has been reading to him all this time and she just didn't feel like reading that long, drab stuff to him.
Reply:SCARY! HUU?
Reply:If that's his agenda, he must be friends with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He's makes laws that apply to everyone except him, including torture to the death. Two Americans have died in his organization. Get to know him:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/20...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...
Wow, is Bush Really the Decider?
what kind of sick f*ck does something like that? for a "born again christian, a compassionate conservative, a uniter - not a divider" he sure seems hell bent on destroying just about everything. but, i guess the idea of the biblical apocalypse might be something he'd like to bring on.
Reply:He's almost done..... but what a trail of mess he's leaving us with...
Reply:I read this too...George Bush is a scary man! All of these lovely Christian folks that he has fooled...God bless them, but he is a ego maniac.
Reply:according to him, he is. he's made some whopping decisions, hasn't he? I wonder if he read the by-laws, congress must approve any major decisions. makes me think that perhaps Laura has been reading to him all this time and she just didn't feel like reading that long, drab stuff to him.
Reply:SCARY! HUU?
Reply:If that's his agenda, he must be friends with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He's makes laws that apply to everyone except him, including torture to the death. Two Americans have died in his organization. Get to know him:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/20...
Who thinks Bush is the most liberal President since FDR?
Look at what Liberals stand for.
Big Government. Bush has increased federal jobs by more than the last four presidents combined.
Big Spending. Greater increase in spending than even Bill Clinton.
Deficit spending. Deficit has doubled under him
Intrusion into our personal liberties. See front page of today’s papers for recording of "ALL" of our domestic phone calls.
Involving us in foreign wars. Iraq nuff said.
Guess he is against gay marriage so that make him a good compasionate conservative.
Who thinks Bush is the most liberal President since FDR?
The current Republican administration has given us the biggest INCREASE in spending on social programs in our history, besides the increases in defense spending. For example, 15 MILLION MORE people are on Medicaid now than when George W. assumed office in January, 2001, and this has become our most expensive entitlement program. If that ain't liberal, what the hell is?
Reply:I think he is the biggest crook since Al Capone.
Reply:Obviously, you're not a liberal. That's about all you've proven.
Reply:I believe that LBJ would have to claim that dubious prize.
Reply:I guess he is most weird president!
Reply:Impeach bush %26amp; Cheney.....
Reply:I wouldn't say he's the most liberal as much as he is the stupidest.
Reply:Spending is rediculous...
the personal liberties thing... I think that's more of a Republican trait (see Nixon), usually dems support liberties to the fullest (see ACLU)
Little wars also seem to be a republican thing (see GW Bush and Kuait, Reagan and Grenada and Panama... of course they were smart enough to get out as soon as it was over)
Reply:Bush is a bum , just a silly wee bully with a huge country to do his fighting for him , wasnt he a draft dodger? No one in his units remembers him??? Sounds about right.
Reply:He does seem to be more of a democret on domestic issues
Reply:Liberal does not mean big government in fact Clinton cut the size of the Government. Liberals just believe that the government should help the citizen. Conservatives think the government should help business.
So no Bush has not been a Liberal President.
Big Government. Bush has increased federal jobs by more than the last four presidents combined.
Big Spending. Greater increase in spending than even Bill Clinton.
Deficit spending. Deficit has doubled under him
Intrusion into our personal liberties. See front page of today’s papers for recording of "ALL" of our domestic phone calls.
Involving us in foreign wars. Iraq nuff said.
Guess he is against gay marriage so that make him a good compasionate conservative.
Who thinks Bush is the most liberal President since FDR?
The current Republican administration has given us the biggest INCREASE in spending on social programs in our history, besides the increases in defense spending. For example, 15 MILLION MORE people are on Medicaid now than when George W. assumed office in January, 2001, and this has become our most expensive entitlement program. If that ain't liberal, what the hell is?
Reply:I think he is the biggest crook since Al Capone.
Reply:Obviously, you're not a liberal. That's about all you've proven.
Reply:I believe that LBJ would have to claim that dubious prize.
Reply:I guess he is most weird president!
Reply:Impeach bush %26amp; Cheney.....
Reply:I wouldn't say he's the most liberal as much as he is the stupidest.
Reply:Spending is rediculous...
the personal liberties thing... I think that's more of a Republican trait (see Nixon), usually dems support liberties to the fullest (see ACLU)
Little wars also seem to be a republican thing (see GW Bush and Kuait, Reagan and Grenada and Panama... of course they were smart enough to get out as soon as it was over)
Reply:Bush is a bum , just a silly wee bully with a huge country to do his fighting for him , wasnt he a draft dodger? No one in his units remembers him??? Sounds about right.
Reply:He does seem to be more of a democret on domestic issues
Reply:Liberal does not mean big government in fact Clinton cut the size of the Government. Liberals just believe that the government should help the citizen. Conservatives think the government should help business.
So no Bush has not been a Liberal President.
Why does Bush only pay attention to bad 'intel' reports about Iraq?
Starting with the WMDs and now this....
WASHINGTON - Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.
The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."
Democrats said the newly declassified documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the very challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_o...
Why does Bush only pay attention to bad 'intel' reports about Iraq?
Because he is usually responsible for helping to fabricate the bad "intel". The good intel never sees the light of day until someone forces the government years later to release it, after all the damage has been done.
Reply:Because sometimes, reality just conflicts with his agenda.
Reply:Cause he is dumb.
Reply:Bexause he's a Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde character in need to fulfil his inner montrous and evil desires.
Reply:you mean Bush KNEW this war would be hard and he told us it would?! good God! he should have done what Clinton did..nothing! you're an idiot
Reply:Why do you only pay attention to that lame liberal media lies? Is that the best you can do or do you have any military background that makes you smarter than he is?
Reply:Bush doesn't just listen to it - he helps make it up. He is a liar and has been lying to us from day one.
He tries to pass this BS to us in his pitiful speeches. He thinks we still believe him.
His only agenda in Iraq was to gain control of the massive oilfields there - and he will use any method at his command to do it. So far, it has cost us almot 3500 dead soldiers, tens of thousands profoundly wounded and disabled. Then there are almost a million dead Iraqi's, many more wounded, millions of refugees.
He has destroy Iraq's infrastructure, hospitals, schools, homes, roads, utilities.... and he continues to do it - and our recently elected "do-nothing" Congress permits it. Mr. Bush will continue his pursuit of the oilfields until somebody stops him....and no one has the cajones to do it.
Reply:I don't see anywhere that the top analysts said we shouldn't do it or that it wasn't worth it. It just says it would be a "long, difficult , and probably turbulent process."
Reply:why should he trust any of them now?
Reply:After reading the first few lines of Iraqi history even I, a dumb American, knew that Iraq would never become a Mesopotamian Switzerland.
I can's stand the Swiss.
boots
WASHINGTON - Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.
The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a "long, difficult and probably turbulent process."
Democrats said the newly declassified documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the very challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_o...
Why does Bush only pay attention to bad 'intel' reports about Iraq?
Because he is usually responsible for helping to fabricate the bad "intel". The good intel never sees the light of day until someone forces the government years later to release it, after all the damage has been done.
Reply:Because sometimes, reality just conflicts with his agenda.
Reply:Cause he is dumb.
Reply:Bexause he's a Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde character in need to fulfil his inner montrous and evil desires.
Reply:you mean Bush KNEW this war would be hard and he told us it would?! good God! he should have done what Clinton did..nothing! you're an idiot
Reply:Why do you only pay attention to that lame liberal media lies? Is that the best you can do or do you have any military background that makes you smarter than he is?
Reply:Bush doesn't just listen to it - he helps make it up. He is a liar and has been lying to us from day one.
He tries to pass this BS to us in his pitiful speeches. He thinks we still believe him.
His only agenda in Iraq was to gain control of the massive oilfields there - and he will use any method at his command to do it. So far, it has cost us almot 3500 dead soldiers, tens of thousands profoundly wounded and disabled. Then there are almost a million dead Iraqi's, many more wounded, millions of refugees.
He has destroy Iraq's infrastructure, hospitals, schools, homes, roads, utilities.... and he continues to do it - and our recently elected "do-nothing" Congress permits it. Mr. Bush will continue his pursuit of the oilfields until somebody stops him....and no one has the cajones to do it.
Reply:I don't see anywhere that the top analysts said we shouldn't do it or that it wasn't worth it. It just says it would be a "long, difficult , and probably turbulent process."
Reply:why should he trust any of them now?
Reply:After reading the first few lines of Iraqi history even I, a dumb American, knew that Iraq would never become a Mesopotamian Switzerland.
I can's stand the Swiss.
boots
Is the Bush Administration guilty of treason?
"U.S. Web site said to reveal nuke info
Government posted secret Iraqi papers
By Willliam J. Broad
New York Times News Service
Published November 3, 2006
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war.
The Bush administration did so under pressure from congressional Republicans who said they hoped to leverage the Internet to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say present a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology...
Such sloth in government is not to be tolerated. They've violated the trust of all our allies and friends around the world.
Is the Bush Administration guilty of treason?
are you guilty of not having a brain ??? yep
Reply:It was reported that the document contained many errors and was intentionally misleading in many basic aspects, to waste the time of those who studied it Report It
Reply:Dude just get over yourself. It was probably a late night for you smashing out Internet porn babies all over your keyboard and you are just cranky. Use your time for something else that is productive like hanging yourself in a closet or jumping in front of a fast moving train or bus.
Reply:You need to get a bit of education... go to your local library and find all the details you want. You can build your own. If you can get the necessary materials.
Government posted secret Iraqi papers
By Willliam J. Broad
New York Times News Service
Published November 3, 2006
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war.
The Bush administration did so under pressure from congressional Republicans who said they hoped to leverage the Internet to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say present a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology...
Such sloth in government is not to be tolerated. They've violated the trust of all our allies and friends around the world.
Is the Bush Administration guilty of treason?
are you guilty of not having a brain ??? yep
Reply:It was reported that the document contained many errors and was intentionally misleading in many basic aspects, to waste the time of those who studied it Report It
Reply:Dude just get over yourself. It was probably a late night for you smashing out Internet porn babies all over your keyboard and you are just cranky. Use your time for something else that is productive like hanging yourself in a closet or jumping in front of a fast moving train or bus.
Reply:You need to get a bit of education... go to your local library and find all the details you want. You can build your own. If you can get the necessary materials.
Will Bush Mention the NEXT BIG Iraqi Bloodbath? Will More US Troops Die, as well?
Bush wants to embed US Troops among these Iraqi jokers -- I don't think so . . .
Read how : Deaths of Five US Soldiers Signifies Problems With Security -- Has Iraqi 'Friendly Fire' Killed More US Troops?
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/pos...
Will Bush Mention the NEXT BIG Iraqi Bloodbath? Will More US Troops Die, as well?
Whenever they show Bush walking to his plane he is always smiling and waving so no he will not mention the next big blood bath and he just doesn't seem to care our troops are dying. How can Bush know what it is like to lose a loved one when he never has. I had a freaken nervous break down when my father died, went through several suicide attempts and was put on antidepressants for three years. There is NO way he can grasp these troops have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children that will grow up without a parent. Anyone who thinks fighting Iraq at the cost of ALL that is delusional. Damn that was so fun when my father died and I enjoyed it so much. Karma will bite Bush in the butt one of these days.
crusinthr
I AM GLAD YOU FIND DEATH SO IRRELEVANT
YOU ARE REPORTED.
Reply:He has never mentioned or acknowledged ANY bloodbath in Iraq. Iraq is just a country on a map that he feels the need to stamp his foot on. And yes, many more American troops will die to satisfy his megalomania. I think Bush's "friendly fire" (invading a country on the pretext of helping it), has killed more people than the Iraqis could have ever done without his "intervention"
Reply:No he''l keep his head int the sand and babble incoherently.
Reply:Bush is an arrogant idiot who doesn't have a clue about how to be a president and actually work for the people instead of the corporate entities that actually rule the global realm.
Read how : Deaths of Five US Soldiers Signifies Problems With Security -- Has Iraqi 'Friendly Fire' Killed More US Troops?
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/pos...
Will Bush Mention the NEXT BIG Iraqi Bloodbath? Will More US Troops Die, as well?
Whenever they show Bush walking to his plane he is always smiling and waving so no he will not mention the next big blood bath and he just doesn't seem to care our troops are dying. How can Bush know what it is like to lose a loved one when he never has. I had a freaken nervous break down when my father died, went through several suicide attempts and was put on antidepressants for three years. There is NO way he can grasp these troops have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children that will grow up without a parent. Anyone who thinks fighting Iraq at the cost of ALL that is delusional. Damn that was so fun when my father died and I enjoyed it so much. Karma will bite Bush in the butt one of these days.
crusinthr
I AM GLAD YOU FIND DEATH SO IRRELEVANT
YOU ARE REPORTED.
Reply:He has never mentioned or acknowledged ANY bloodbath in Iraq. Iraq is just a country on a map that he feels the need to stamp his foot on. And yes, many more American troops will die to satisfy his megalomania. I think Bush's "friendly fire" (invading a country on the pretext of helping it), has killed more people than the Iraqis could have ever done without his "intervention"
Reply:No he''l keep his head int the sand and babble incoherently.
Reply:Bush is an arrogant idiot who doesn't have a clue about how to be a president and actually work for the people instead of the corporate entities that actually rule the global realm.
Why does Bush ignore the Constitution?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th amendment to the constitution
President Bush is determined to spy on us without a court order. Let's get something straight; neither I nor any other liberal I know of has any serious objection to government eavesdropping in the legitimate pursuit of criminal activity, including potential terror attacks.
Here's the problem. Bush first said that warrants were obtained for all wiretapping; that was false. Now he says that we're at war and he doesn't need a warrant. But why won't he explain his reasons to an appropriate court and get a warrant? How are we to know that he's not spying simply because he has a "gut feeling"? Or for political reasons or even for personal enrichment? Should I trust him? Should anybody? The constitution says that we don't have to; he must satisfy a court that there is probable cause to believe that the person being wire-tapped might be doing something wrong.
I don't trust the government that much - regardless of who the President is - that's why the constitution says what it says.
If a President has that kind of authority over us then the nation the founders created is dead and we are merely feudal vassals. It makes little difference to the serf whether he's enslaved by a domestic tyrant or a foreign one, the revolt will be the same.
Why does Bush ignore the Constitution?
"Why does Bush ignore the constitution?"
Because Bush can not read.
Reply:Can* Report It
Reply:The fact is that Bush has never pledged his allegiance to the United States.
When he swore to defend and uphold our once-great nation's Constitution, his fingers were crossed behind his back.
He makes more money from his buisness dealing with the Saudi Royal family than he does as president.
Three guesses who he really pledges allegiance to...
Reply:Bush ignores the constitution because in his little pee brain he is the decider... the supreme ruler.
Reply:Why don't you tell that to the American family of Elian Gonzales. Clinton did a lot worse with a lot less reason. BTW, what's your plan for making sure we know what the terrorists plan to do? Most of you Bush haters are all complain, no answers.
Reply:Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.
But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.
This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."
Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."
Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.
A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."
Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.
That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.
Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."
While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.
Here are just some of Baer's key points:
In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.
Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.
The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."
After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.
Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.
But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.
In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]
In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.
But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.
During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."
The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.
Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.
"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.
Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."
Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?
Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.
Editor's Note: Get your copy of "See No Evil" at a great price – CLICK HERE NOW.
Reply:You're going to have to point out telecommunications language in the Constitution to make a valid point. And since telecom is federally regulated, why wouldn't the federal government have access to the lines to secure our safety?
Unless of course, you are a criminal with something to hide.
Reply:First, the spying is on international communications to or from suspected terrorists. They're not spying on your call to your Aunt Betty in Nebraska.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It gives the job of waging war to the Commander-in-chief, otherwise known as the president. Part of waging war is conducting intelligence on your enemies. If a terrorist in Sudan picks up his phone and calls his fellow terrorist in NY to discuss their plans to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, and the gov't is monitoring the caller's (in Sudan) phone line, is that violating the 4th amendment of the person in NY?
Another argument I've heard is that the 4th amendment is aimed at preventing abuses from law enforcement, not to stop the gov't from national security activities.
Added:
I'm not wrong.A panel of 5 former FISA judges "said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. " See the full article below
President Bush is determined to spy on us without a court order. Let's get something straight; neither I nor any other liberal I know of has any serious objection to government eavesdropping in the legitimate pursuit of criminal activity, including potential terror attacks.
Here's the problem. Bush first said that warrants were obtained for all wiretapping; that was false. Now he says that we're at war and he doesn't need a warrant. But why won't he explain his reasons to an appropriate court and get a warrant? How are we to know that he's not spying simply because he has a "gut feeling"? Or for political reasons or even for personal enrichment? Should I trust him? Should anybody? The constitution says that we don't have to; he must satisfy a court that there is probable cause to believe that the person being wire-tapped might be doing something wrong.
I don't trust the government that much - regardless of who the President is - that's why the constitution says what it says.
If a President has that kind of authority over us then the nation the founders created is dead and we are merely feudal vassals. It makes little difference to the serf whether he's enslaved by a domestic tyrant or a foreign one, the revolt will be the same.
Why does Bush ignore the Constitution?
"Why does Bush ignore the constitution?"
Because Bush can not read.
Reply:Can* Report It
Reply:The fact is that Bush has never pledged his allegiance to the United States.
When he swore to defend and uphold our once-great nation's Constitution, his fingers were crossed behind his back.
He makes more money from his buisness dealing with the Saudi Royal family than he does as president.
Three guesses who he really pledges allegiance to...
Reply:Bush ignores the constitution because in his little pee brain he is the decider... the supreme ruler.
Reply:Why don't you tell that to the American family of Elian Gonzales. Clinton did a lot worse with a lot less reason. BTW, what's your plan for making sure we know what the terrorists plan to do? Most of you Bush haters are all complain, no answers.
Reply:Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.
But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.
This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."
Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."
Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.
A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."
Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.
That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.
Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."
While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.
Here are just some of Baer's key points:
In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.
Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.
The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."
After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.
Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.
But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.
In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]
In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.
But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.
During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."
The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.
Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.
"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.
Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."
Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?
Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.
Editor's Note: Get your copy of "See No Evil" at a great price – CLICK HERE NOW.
Reply:You're going to have to point out telecommunications language in the Constitution to make a valid point. And since telecom is federally regulated, why wouldn't the federal government have access to the lines to secure our safety?
Unless of course, you are a criminal with something to hide.
Reply:First, the spying is on international communications to or from suspected terrorists. They're not spying on your call to your Aunt Betty in Nebraska.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It gives the job of waging war to the Commander-in-chief, otherwise known as the president. Part of waging war is conducting intelligence on your enemies. If a terrorist in Sudan picks up his phone and calls his fellow terrorist in NY to discuss their plans to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, and the gov't is monitoring the caller's (in Sudan) phone line, is that violating the 4th amendment of the person in NY?
Another argument I've heard is that the 4th amendment is aimed at preventing abuses from law enforcement, not to stop the gov't from national security activities.
Added:
I'm not wrong.A panel of 5 former FISA judges "said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. " See the full article below
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)