O.K. John got an idea. Let's bring all our troops home, where ever they may be. Remove all military influence from across the globe. Then we'll close the borders so that no one goes in or out. Which by the way means if your not a U.S. citizen you can get to packin'. Then we'll resrict the air space around the US so that no one can fly over us and possibly do harm. Once we are all buttoned up, forget the rest of the world they can do what they want. Then we'll focus on "the home front." But it is at this point some one, possibly like yourself, finds something wrong there too. Perhaps the President didn't have the proper color shirt on to match his shoes. Meanwhile, the rest of the world, being unattended, goes to hell in a handbasket, because the US isn't there to babysit, and anyone who knows a little history can see that that is all we have done for the past 100 years. Yes, of course there were alterior motives to some of the things that have transpired, but aren't there always? Bottom line - You can't please everyone. Your always going to find some one with a difference of opinion. And of course everyone knows what they say about opinions. Thanks for the debate John it's been fun, but I wasted enough time on this discussion, because obviously you think your way and I think mine, and we are not going to change one another's opinion. We could fire back and forth at one another for a year, and to what end? We would still be where we are today, two people sitting at their computers with nothing better to do than critize something someone else has done because for what ever reason we think we have all the answers. Let me leave you with a little humor that goes a long way in all aspects of life - "Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." Have a good one.
How long do you think it will be before God tells President Bush to put an end to everyone's suffering? What do you think "the empty war head" will do? Pretty scary! Pretty pitiful. Take a Valium Joe, and stop watching FOX. Breathe deeply and read the writing of Madison and Jefferson. Then go out and vote to put an end to our, yes, our! campaign of global terrorism - get the bush out. Then we can hope he will be indicted, tried and convicted and have time to think about what He has done!
Thanks for the humour, Joe. It is appreciated! These are serious times and dabates will be intense as the election nears and our kids in uniform continue to be killed overseas. I respect your opinions, Joe. But, I feel you and I can learn from each other's points of view. That is democratic discourse. Best wishes. Bush-b-gone in '04!
For everyone who says we should impeach bush I think that is a load of it. First of all you say we should impeach him for lying. Hmmm Thinking back wasnt there a DEMOCRATIC president caught in a lie. Yes yes there was his name was Bill Clinton. You see Mr. Clinton lied UNDER OATH and thats illegal. Bush, even if he did lie, which I dont personally believe he did, should not be impeached. If we impeached every political leader for lying out of oath, there would be about 3 or 4 politicians at the white house right now. If the people of Richmond are smart they will all Vote Bush 2004.
Bill may have lied about having sex with an intern. Yes! Isn't that now part of history? Bush lied to Congress (which is a crime) to gain support for and to conduct an illegal war. Every person around the world who saw his State of the Union address in 2003 heard him do it! What was the product of his lie(s)? It was the deaths of thousands of human beings and very likely the near bankrupting of our country. I think most people can see the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. come voting time in November.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031204A.shtml
9/11 Nonsense
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 17 March 2004
The attacks of September 11 have become, morosely, a political football. The Bush for President campaign is running commercials that display burning towers and the faces of brave firefighters, said firefighters being played by actors. Despite outraged howls from real firefighters, who were joined in rage by family members of 9/11 victims, the commercials continue to run. Bush believes his leadership in the aftermath of the attacks should be a campaign issue, and so there it is.
In truth, however, September 11 became a political football on September 11. Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, blamed the Clinton administration. "The decision to get down and dirty with the terrorists, to take their threat seriously and counter them aggressively, was simply never taken," wrote Sullivan. Senator Orrin Hatch referred in 1996 to the terrorist threats, threats which compelled Clinton to attempt the passage of a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill that would have gone a long way to stopping 9/11, as "Phony threats." After September 11, he joined the 'Blame Clinton' chorus.
During his administration, Clinton offered legislation that would give the Treasury Secretary broad powers to ban foreign nations and banks from accessing American financial markets unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations that would expose and terminate terrorist cash flows. The legislation was killed by Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm, who was chairman of the Banking Committee. At the time, he called the bill "totalitarian." It was revealed later, of course, that Gramm killed the bill because it would have blocked Enron officers from laundering stolen stockholder money through the same offshore conduits the terrorists were using. Gramm, from Texas, was beholden to Enron, and killed the bill at their behest. Of course, he joined the 'Blame Clinton' chorus after the attacks, and never mind the facts.
There was Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming the attacks on gays, feminists and the ACLU a couple of days after the horror. They claimed the attacks were God's justice being levied against America for tolerating such people. No one quite explained the glaring hole in this logic - if the terrorists were acting as an instrument of God's justice, doesn't that mean the terrorists themselves are blameless instruments of the Lord? - but in the end, the message was clear. Liberals like Clinton were to blame for the attacks.
The list goes on. September 11 became a political football on that very day, and it has since been punted all over the playing field. The GOP has tried relentlessly to throw the blame at Clinton, but on Tuesday, the game took a bizarre new turn. According to an editorial in the New York Post, John Kerry is to blame for the attacks of September 11. Yes, you read that right. John Kerry did it.
The article, written by Paul Sperry and titled "The Warning Kerry Ignored," claims that Kerry was given a warning some months before the attacks of security problems at Logan Airport, where two of the planes originated, and failed to handle them properly. He sent the warning, received from an FAA agent in Boston, to the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General. According to this FAA agent, and according to Sperry, this wasn't good enough. Because of Kerry's failure, the article argues, 3,000 people are dead.
Hm.
The Bush administration received a blizzard of warnings before September 11 that something huge was about to happen. The security agencies of Germany, Israel, Egypt and Russia delivered specific warnings about airplanes being used as bombs against prominent American targets. FBI agents were raising alarms in Minnesota and Arizona. Donald Kerrick was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration. He stayed on into the Bush administration. He was a three-star General, and absolutely not political. He has reported that when the Bush people came in, he wrote a memo about terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The memo said, "We will be struck again." As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings. No one responded to his memo. He felt that, from what he could see from inside the National Security Council, terrorism was demoted.
Richard Clarke was Director of Counter-Terrorism in the National Security Council. He has since left. Clarke urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of al Qaeda. Richard Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Clarke is at the center of what has since become a burning controversy: What happened on August 6, 2001? It was on this day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. According to reports, the briefing stated bluntly that Osama bin Laden intended to attack America soon, and contained the word "hijacking." Bush responded to the warning by heading to Texas for a month-long vacation. It is this briefing that the Bush administration has refused to divulge to the committee investigating the attacks.
There was not a single Republican member of Congress who ever raised a single question or put a query to the Clinton National Security Council about its efforts against terrorism before the attacks. When the Clinton team left office, their National Security group conducted three extensive briefings of the incoming Bush people. The attitude of the Bush people was, essentially, dismissive, that it was a "Clinton thing." Condoleezza Rice has admitted that the massive file on al Qaeda and bin Laden left for her by outgoing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger went completely unread until the attacks had taken place. This happened despite the fact that Berger told her during one such briefing, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
One FAA agent delivered a security warning that was forwarded to the proper agency by the Senator who received it. Meanwhile, dozens of alarm bells were blaring in the White House, and especially in the Oval Office, about impending attacks using airplanes against prominent targets. This particular chapter of the 9/11 blame game would be uproariously hilarious if it were not so completely absurd.
William Rivers Pitt is the senior editor and lead writer for truthout. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.
Just a note . . .
First, comparing lying about an intern to "lying" to congress ehh? Be fair now when you point out that lying to congress is a crime. So also is adultery. Which then begs the question:
If a wife can't trust her husband to be faithful what makes that man any more trustworthy to a nation?
Secondly, posting links will be sufficient.
Thirdly, your post reads that it was posted on March 16, however your document says that it was written the next day. I smell discrepancy here.
@jÜц_Ø®Ñj
How many people died as a result of Clintons lie about Monica? How many people died as a result of Bush's lie about the WMD in Iraq?
Making love has always been the saner thing to do I think than making war.
Bush keeps saying that the US is safer with Sadam gone - almost 600 US deaths should be evidence enough that that is bogus!
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destructions, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
Bill Clinton 1998
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is only the nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”
Tom Daschle 1998
Blah blah blah blah blah . . . .
And the list goes on and on with quotes of people who also seemingly shared the very same lie. Before you go and attempt to patronize people with you political rhetoric, at least be aware of unmistakably and undeniable facts. This was not some lie that Bush just thought up with his circle of repugnant friends. It also happened to be supported by a many other people not associated with the Bush “regime”.
“How many people died as a result of Clintons lie about Monica? How many people
died as a result of Bush's lie about the WMD in Iraq?”
Well it’s nice to see people justify lies by the outcome of those very lies. When will people like you learn that there is no such thing as a little white lie. A lie is a lie. Wrong is wrong. Is this really a hard concept?
“Bush keeps saying that the US is safer with Sadam gone - almost 600 US deaths should be evidence enough that that is bogus!”
I believe Bush said the US was safer, not troops sitting in a hostile environment. Hello? Did I really need to point this one out?
@jÜц_Ø®Ñj