What should we do about bin Laden?

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
There are tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of people across the globe who feel terrorized by the actions of the US government, or agents of the US government. I'm sure in their eyes we are.

Do these same tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions feel the same way when they're taking our money???

Stephanie wrote:So when are you going to answer my questions?

About invading Israel. Sorry but I don't see that happening. Israel is considered a friend of American and the chosen people of God so I doubt the US government will be invading the promised land anytime soon.

Just what money are you speaking of? The money we supply to rebuild the infrastructure we've bombed in Iraq? Or perhaps you mean all the money we're sending to the dictor in Pakistan? Could you be speaking of the money we've sent to Africa that is lining the pockets of war lords? I'm sure there are many who consider us sponsors of terrorism for the billions of dollars we provide to Israel they are using to ethnically cleanse the so-called holy land.

I'm referring the trillions we've sent out in unconstitutional foreign aid ALL over the world.

I'm certain in many cases the answer is yes, citizens of other nations do think of the US government as terrorist when they arm and fund dictators, war lords, and rogue nations who practice ethnic cleansing and refuse to comply with their internationally recognized borders.

And I am certian they think that will taking our aid and money.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

Well, no, Zig, and I think that was too much of an influence on Bush's decision.

On the contrary, I don't think 1441 had any influence on Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Bush determined to do what he was going to do, period- and that was to invade Iraq. That was the neo-con gang's plan- to invade and occupy Iraq- in the planning for years before it actually happened. Then he and his now after the fact defenders set about to find any excuses they could to cover Bush's naked warmongering ass. Like leaves in the woods, that U.N. resolution just happened to be handy.

If you have proof that this occurred, you should take it to Congress and begin the impeachment process of GWB.

Impeachable? Hell, Congress was absolutely complicit in the deception- whether by overt cooperation or willful ignorance by default.

But some of the evidence of what the neo-cons had been planning for years- including plans for Iraq beyond just dealing with Saddam Hussein- is here:

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role inGulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (Page 26 of PDF file)

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (PAGE 63 of PDF file

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search=%22Pearl%20Harbor%20site%3Anewamericancentury.org%22
[/size][/size]

Congress had access to the same information the President as well as to the links you posted. IMO, as horrendous as GWB's actions were, Congress had the constitutional responsibility of keeping him in check and they not only failed, the failed willing and gave their constitutional duty away.

Aaron wrote:Congress had access to the same information the President as well as to the links you posted. IMO, as horrendous as GWB's actions were, Congress had the constitutional responsibility of keeping him in check and they not only failed, the failed willing and gave their constitutional duty away.

An so we agree that Congress did not perform its constitutional duty, and that GWB's actions were horrendous.

So is it Ziggy for calling attention to it, or is it GWB through his horrendous actions as president, who "disrespects" the office of the President / Commander-in-Chief?

In your view, his actions are horrendous. In his and 70+ percent at the time of those actions, they weren't. Where the disrespect comes in is because you feel they are horrendous, you call him names such as moron monkey boy. Like it or not, the man is OUR President and nothing save impeachment is going to change that. His actions may bring disrespect to himself but not his office the same way that Clintons uncontrollable urges reflected on him and not the office he held.

You can't separate the office and the man though and that is your shortcoming.

Aaron wrote:In your view, his actions are horrendous.

And in yours too, apparently.

Where the disrespect comes in is because you feel they are horrendous, you call him names such as moron monkey boy.

No, I have never called him any such names. I have called him a liar- a deliberate plotter and schemer who would rather lie than to tell the truth that would serve him and the nation better anyway. That is not calling him a "moron monkey boy"?
But since you bring it up, do you think that Bush is a "moron monkey boy"?

I have simply pointed out that his lies got us into this Iraq mess, that some of us said so back when it (the PR blirz to "justify" the invasion of Iraq) was happening, and that the truth would have then and would today serve him better anyway. There are things worse then calling someone a liar- and that includes to be one.

Like it or not, the man is OUR President and nothing save impeachment is going to change that. His actions may bring disrespect to himself but not his office the same way that Clintons uncontrollable urges reflected on him and not the office he held.

You have got to be kidding. Clinton's lies and White House sexual antics brought far more disrespect to "the office" than all the Ziggys in the world ever could.

Jeez. I am reminded of Arch Moore when he said that "nothing stinks" at the statehouse when he was governor- but that even if it did that it would be uncouth of the Gazette to speak of it. Arch Moore tried to pretend that the office he held should be looked upon as a throne to protect him from political criticism.

You can't separate the office and the man though and that is your shortcoming.

The Constitution does not "separate the office and the man". Like it or not, we are a Republic, not a Monarchy. The "office" of the President is not a throne of a King.

I don't think I've ever said I thought his actions were horrendous, at least not in the manner that you do. I think he made really poor decisions but I honestly think they started before 9/11. I think Cheney was the wrong decision for VP and Rumsfield was a horrible decision as S.O.D. I think GWB is a pretty smart person that took the advice of the wrong people. Had he listened to people like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, I think we would have been much better off and I also think that not only history would look back on him as one of the better Presidents (I still believe that will be the case 30 to 50 years from now), but we would today as well.

He's certainly not a 'MMB' and I don't believe he's a purposeful liar as you do. Were that the case, I'd say impeach him, which I honestly believe Congress would have done by now. As it is, he listened to the intelligence of the day just as they did and most know that, they know that it was they that dropped the ball just as much if not more so then he did and that is why he's not been impeached.

And who said anything about the constitution separating the man and the office. That just shows me that you don't get it if you think I want to equate the office of Presdient with that of a king.

Aaron,

I agree that Bush was deceived (perhaps even willfully deceived), but that he had a bunch of information that was available to both him and the Congress, from the French of all places (among others), which he interpreted to mean that Iraq was becoming a threat.

Iraq was clearly not the threat the President thought it was and he should probably admit as such, but this call for impeachment stems from what may be an irrational hatred of the man that came well before the Iraq War.

Mike, me thinks both Aaron and Ziggy are really great at expounding on their "hindsight" of how problems should have been addressed and solved.

Their "addressing" consists of ........ "ignore all potential problems", ......... and their "solving" consists of ......... "it should have been done different than what was done".


.

SheikBen wrote:Aaron,

I agree that Bush was deceived (perhaps even willfully deceived), but that he had a bunch of information that was available to both him and the Congress, from the French of all places (among others), which he interpreted to mean that Iraq was becoming a threat.

Iraq was clearly not the threat the President thought it was and he should probably admit as such, but this call for impeachment stems from what may be an irrational hatred of the man that came well before the Iraq War.

I agree Mike, a hundred million percent. I think this goes back to revenge for what Clinton went through and for Gore having the election stolen, in thier minds.

I think Dems only concern is bringing down GWB and that takes precedance over EVERYTHING, including National security.

I think Dems only concern is bringing down GWB and that takes precedance over EVERYTHING, including National security.

It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he has distorted the truth, fear-mongered and led us into an UNPROVOKED war.

Can't people just dislike him because he is an incompetent boob?

P.S. Aaron, I see you belittled Steph for a little typo (she dropped the "h" out of "anything"). In light of that, it warms my heart to point out that "precedance" is spelled with an "e", not an "a". Glass houses, etc.

TerryRC wrote:I think Dems only concern is bringing down GWB and that takes precedance over EVERYTHING, including National security.

It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he has distorted the truth, fear-mongered and led us into an UNPROVOKED war.

Can't people just dislike him because he is an incompetent boob?

P.S. Aaron, I see you belittled Steph for a little typo (she dropped the "h" out of "anything"). In light of that, it warms my heart to point out that "precedance" is spelled with an "e", not an "a". Glass houses, etc.

Tooché

TerryRC wrote:I think Dems only concern is bringing down GWB and that takes precedance over EVERYTHING, including National security.

It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he has distorted the truth, fear-mongered and led us into an UNPROVOKED war.

Can't people just dislike him because he is an incompetent boob?

They could but that's not it. Take Clinton. He sat around and did pretty much nothing while Newt and company ran the counrty and look at the approval ratings. I think for the most part I think it's 2000, the fact that Gore lost and Bush won and they hate him.

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:I think Dems only concern is bringing down GWB and that takes precedance over EVERYTHING, including National security.

It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he has distorted the truth, fear-mongered and led us into an UNPROVOKED war.

Can't people just dislike him because he is an incompetent boob?

They could but that's not it. Take Clinton. He sat around and did pretty much nothing while Newt and company ran the counrty and look at the approval ratings. I think for the most part I think it's 2000, the fact that Gore lost and Bush won and they hate him.

When you can't defend Bush's many blunders, you just try to demonize his critics. That's really smart of you ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:I think Dems only concern is bringing down GWB and that takes precedance over EVERYTHING, including National security.

It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he has distorted the truth, fear-mongered and led us into an UNPROVOKED war.

Can't people just dislike him because he is an incompetent boob?

They could but that's not it. Take Clinton. He sat around and did pretty much nothing while Newt and company ran the counrty and look at the approval ratings. I think for the most part I think it's 2000, the fact that Gore lost and Bush won and they hate him.

When you can't defend Bush's many blunders, you just try to demonize his critics. That's really smart of you ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

I'm not defending anything. I just don't agree with yours or TC's views. I know that despite his many blunders, had the outcome in 2000 been different, we would be MUCH MUCH worse off then we are now.

Were my choice Bush vs Gore knowing everything I know right now, I would still vote for Bush.

I think for the most part I think it's 2000, the fact that Gore lost and Bush won and they hate him.

If I had wanted Gore, I would have voted for Gore. I didn't, and I still wouldn't. (Same goes for Kerry in 2004.)

I'm not defending anything. I just don't agree with yours or TC's views. I know that despite his many blunders, had the outcome in 2000 been different, we would be MUCH MUCH worse off then we are now.

We have different definitions of the word "know". I think the word you want is "believe".

I didn't vote democrat in any of those races, BTW. It isn't a partisan issue with me.

As an aside, I also know a few fundamentalist christians that voted for him on a religious/moral basis. The good news is that I doubt they will ever vote on such a basis again. They are disturbed about the place to which this president has led us.

No.

Had I meant believe, I would have typed believe.

There is no doubt in my mind that Gore's response would have been the same as Clinton's was to the Cole incident. Or Somila. Or any number of other incidents.

This I know.

RC,

You see, when Aaron dons his black cape and red tights, he becomes omniscient.

Stephanie wrote:RC,

You see, when Aaron dons his black cape and red tights, he becomes omniscient.

It's an all black outfit Steph.

Sheesh.

I see now that you agreed with Bill Clinton's response to the terrorist attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000 that killed 17 United States Sailors? Note that this attack happened during the height of the 2000 election and that GWB stated he would react 'swiftly and severely' against those responsible while Al Gore said he would go to the UN for an international investigation.

By November 1, 2000 I was no longer a Democrat and was casting my vote for GWB.

What do I 'believe' Al Gore would have done in September, 2001 after an Al Qeada terrorist attack killed American citizens? I 'believe' he would have done the same thing he he stated he would do after a direct Al Qeada terrorist attack against the United States Military that killed American soldiers.

Yeah, I'm very comfortable with know.

No.

Had I meant believe, I would have typed believe.

There is no doubt in my mind that Gore's response would have been the same as Clinton's was to the Cole incident. Or Somila. Or any number of other incidents.

This I know.

You can know that there is no doubt in your mind. The rest of it is only a matter of belief, under any sane definition.

Aaron wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that Gore's response would have been the same as Clinton's was to the Cole incident. Or Somila. Or any number of other incidents.

This I know.

But didn't you tell us that you opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq? So apparently you would have been OK with Gore's response- as you have speculated it to be.

Since we're just speculating, there is no doubt in my mind that were Bush able to turn back the clock 6 years, knowing what we do about the Iraq war now, he would have avoided the invasion of Iraq like the plague- like the plague it has become.

This I know.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that Gore's response would have been the same as Clinton's was to the Cole incident. Or Somila. Or any number of other incidents.

This I know.

But didn't you tell us that you opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq? So apparently you would have been OK with Gore's response- as you have speculated it to be.

Since we're just speculating, there is no doubt in my mind that were Bush able to turn back the clock 6 years, knowing what we do about the Iraq war now, he would have avoided the invasion of Iraq like the plague- like the plague it has become.

This I know.

So now you're saying Iraq attacked us?