READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO - Ex-CIA Officer Pillar Explains Misuse of Pre-War Intelligence"
(42 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 9:56 am PT...
Yes, this is another reason that Pat Roberts, chair of the senate intelligence committee, and brown noser of the regime, will not keep his promise and go into Phase II.
That is where the prez is investigated for what was said and done as the lead up to the Iraq invasion. The Dick was of course orchestrating the whole thing.
The republican cover up masters are hard at work trying to put a lid on their unmitigated garbage.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 10:49 am PT...
We know all this, that intelligence was manipulated to justify the war. Now what we need to do is get some people with backbone into Congress to delve into this whole thing as Pat Roberts SAID he would (which he won't). Keep those damn e-voting machines out of the elections this year and we have a chance. Let's make sure that we don't lose the only political weapon at our disposal, the voting booth.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 12:39 pm PT...
We did lose the voting booth. It's the reason why all of this is taking place, to begin with.
It's going to be a major battle to get it back again.
**'Expose Tom Feeney'**
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:04 pm PT...
Bob Bilse: Exactly! It's what I've been saying forever. Their actions PROVE they control the vote booth, and our votes don't count. Otherwise, Republican-controlled or not, they'd be throwing out Bush. Republicans do whatever they want, because they are not accountable to the voters, because they control the vote machines. Their actions are actions of those who know they are not accountable to the voting public. Exactly!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:07 pm PT...
So are you guys up for the battle and how do you want to fight it?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:27 pm PT...
I am wondering why there isn't MSM coverage of the vulnerability and probable hacking which has been going on in previous elections. The successful Harri Hursti "hack"(Leon County, Fl) SHOULD be front page news IN ALL NEWSPAPERS IN THIS COUNTRY.
It's like chasing one's tail into an infinite circle....the people have absolutely NO voice in this government any longer with the loss of their only method of demonstation: the voting booth. This has been corrupted and the big whigs in Washington don't have the courage to do anything about it. We the People have become powerless and voiceless. Interesting that the Edward R. Murrow movie (Good Night and Good Luck) is up for an academy award this evening, isn't it? It's quite germane today and the phrase that tells the tale...."Good Night and Good Luck" is quite an apropos description of precisely where we find ourselves today.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:36 pm PT...
Iraq is old news. There's nothing we can do to pull out the troops there because boots are going to be needed for the neocon's next adventure, which is Iran.
Check out the story about John Bolton beating the wardrums over Iran this morning while addressing 4,500 Zionists in New York (Newsweek).
Bolton says the U.S. and the European majors are ready to do the job now rather than wait for U.N. sanctions.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:45 pm PT...
Roger: The MSM & electronic voting machines are together as the "co-#1" problems. If the MSM reported on it, they'd be gone. Probably the best thing to do is be active in getting rid of electronic voting machines and telling as many people as you can about the fraud on electronic voting machines. The MSM can be taken care of, by independent news on the internet & LINK TV & FSTV on television. There has always been a problem with the MSM. The vote machines are probably the #1 problem. Support anything to do with people actually doing something about the vote machines, like Bev Harris @ BlackBoxVoting.org & Brad. If you have time, get out & get active in your community with local vote authorities.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:49 pm PT...
Independent media MUST go overboard publicizing the pre-election polls & exit polls. Blast them far and wide, as much as possible wherever possible. So when the "final count" comes in, we do something immediately, not a year later. I think the MSM is not going to change, but there's alternatives. There are no alternatives to the electronic voting machines. The fraud is not publicized by the MSM, so independent media MUST go overboard publicizing the pre-election polls & exit polls.
Like this one: Right now, Casey is ahead of Santorum by double-digits. I'm predicting a 51%-49% victory. But right now, independent media is not doing a good job publicizing that Casey is ahead of Santorum by double-digits in polls. Do you know that? That answers my question. It's not being highly publicized. It's not too early to do so.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 2:54 pm PT...
I see the Huffington post thinks the Oscars are more important than vote fraud. There's my point.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 3:24 pm PT...
Lemme get this straight.. Election issues (not VOTER fraud) have been being discussed for a long damn time.. and Huffington Post somehow magically doesn't care anymore because of one blog about the oscirs?
Explain how you come to the logical conclusion "Huffington post thinks the Oscars are more important than vote (sic) fraud".. I'd be curious how one action means totally discounting some other ideology (when the action is not denouncing the ideology or anything related)..
Also, saying Repugs are only doing this because they are not accountable to voters is to over simplify things. If they can keep heat off the OBVIOUSLY criminal actions of the President, then can "protect the institution" under Republican guard. Repugs don't investigate other repugs not because they aren't accountable to voters, but because they have a strict code of "watching each other's backs", even if they are killing 10s of thousands of people.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 4:44 pm PT...
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 5:25 pm PT...
Pablo, us Liberal elites don't have any bad credit, hell we don't need no steenkeng credit
You should advertise over at the Free Repubic web site
They'll figure out how to take every dime from you,
their all entrepreneuers (Can't even spell the stupid word), thats another word for crook
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 5:53 pm PT...
Thanks but I'm still having trouble convincing my brother it's happening. If it's not being reported by MSM and Faux News it's not real although this morning he did ask me about McPherson so that's progress. I think people are so disgusted with the system that they really feel helpless they can't do anything about it, so they don't. We need a mass phone-in campaign to C-Span or something. Trying to get people en masse to march on Washington might be difficult although more convincing. I have written my legislators. No response except for the polite "Thanks for writing" crap. Any good suggestions out there we can all sink our teeth into?
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 3/5/2006 @ 11:01 pm PT...
You're right, Roger. If they don't see it on TV, it doesn't exist, and they think you're a wild-eyed radical when you talk about it. Many, many people don't like to "look behind" everything. It's too much work.
That is what empowers trolls to write the garbage they spout here, and other blogs. TV's non-message backs them up! If TV won't expose all of this corruption, then millions of people won't "buy" the reality of it.
TV is a powerful tool. That is why there are so many millionaire televangelists. Too many are easily duped by the idiot box.
If they don't report what is happening, it's as damaging as when they do.
It would be a far better world if Clint Curtis could get the air time Ann Coulter does. His message is a helluva lot more important.
**'Expose Tom Feeney'**
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 3/6/2006 @ 4:24 am PT...
Well, I'm on a mission to get my family to see the truth. I'm contacting the governor of Maryland today to corroborate the article I just read on Voters Unite. They posted a letter from Gov. Ehrelic and now I see that they are scrapping the Diebold machines. I believe it but I need to have that added weapon to convince my brothers. Then I'll show them the article. They won't have a choice but to believe then. And has anyone out there been contacted for this lobbying mission in early April and is anyone going?
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 3/6/2006 @ 9:05 am PT...
The fact that Pillar is now at Georgetown University proves where his political leanings go: left and liberal. Career FedGov employees like me usually stay put and don't quit just because the party you don't like is in power and making decisions you don't like. He said that he didn't quit because he might be wrong. But I think that he didn't quit because he was protecting his career/assests.
I was disappointed to hear him say that, as a CIA-analysist, he saw no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. But other officials there mention the harboring of Al-Qaeda officers in Iraq and giving them medical treatment for injuries. Also, one big terrorist guy was caught in Iraq and is looking out through cell bars now.
As for voting, you guys didn't like the punch-card voting machine either, so if you think that the Diebold machines can be abused, then what the heck to you want? Paper vote and a signature next to it? Votes were abused in Chicago in the 1960 election when the Mayor had dead people voting for Kennedy. The loosing canidate could have contested the election (like GoreJr did in 2000) but he chose not to for the sake of the country. That loosing canidate in 1960 was Richard Nixon.
I served in the military for a while too, both active and reserve, before joining civil service with DoD. While I was military, I learned which politcal party takes care of the military and who doesn't. Democrats can claim whatever they want in speaking, but their votes in Congress are what proves their convictions. I saw first hand who supplies and supports the military and who doesn't. So even though my Mom was raised a Democrat (and has not bothered to change even though she does not vote Democrat anymore), I will never be a Democrat.
Have you heard that the San Francisco city council voted against having the WWII battleship USS Iowa as a museum there? One councilman suggests that the USA does not even need a military anymore and he said so on a national TV debate. This decision angered US Sen. Dianne Fienstein (D-CA), former mayor there, who said it's no longer the city she knew. The USS Iowa represents WWII history. But the city council voted against it as a protest of the current war in Iraq. How silly of them! This is the face of your modern Liberal Democrat party!
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 3/6/2006 @ 12:35 pm PT...
"I served in the military for a while too, both active and reserve, before joining civil service with DoD. While I was military, I learned which politcal party takes care of the military and who doesn't. Democrats can claim whatever they want in speaking, but their votes in Congress are what proves their convictions. I saw first hand who supplies and supports the military and who doesn't. So even though my Mom was raised a Democrat (and has not bothered to change even though she does not vote Democrat anymore), I will never be a Democrat."
Forgiving that this is a trolling post that doesn't talk to the topic (much), lemme say this. I also used to be in the millitary (active and reserve).. In case you MISSED IT, YOUR Repukes are the ones that just ripped the funding out from under the VAs.. hello? AND, your Repukes are the ones that didn't get the armor to the troops in Iraq but they sure did get the money to the companies making it.. YOUR tax dollars getting into corporate hands, but the efforts not benefiting the troops.
"I was disappointed to hear him say that, as a CIA-analysist, he saw no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. But other officials there mention the harboring of Al-Qaeda officers in Iraq and giving them medical treatment for injuries. Also, one big terrorist guy was caught in Iraq and is looking out through cell bars now."
So, he and a LOT of other people said there was NO EVIDENCE of a connection, but because now, 3 years later, al Qaeda is there is some how retroactive proof? And we had al Qaeda in the U.S.. uh.. duh? they supposedly attacked us with big comercial airliners? Does that mean "we're harboring terrorists"? Uh.. no?
Your logic is flawed.. your points ignorant and invalid.. go troll someplace else.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 3/6/2006 @ 2:30 pm PT...
I was in the military, too. A 6 year stint was mandatory minimum, 3 years active, 3years inactive reserve. So actually I was in for 6 years. Doesn't make me an expert on the military, just my post where I was (in Mannheim,Germany). What makes one intelligent on the subject is looking at varied sources of information which most of the post-ers here have done. Seems you haven't. Or at least not enough. Most people are waking up to the corruption that is being passed off as leadership. Most of you republican trusses also impugn our patriotism which I find extremely offesive. You use the argument that we are at war (which we aren't, even Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" or have you forgotten that) and that any dissent is unpatriotic and aiding the enemy. Any nitwit president can start a war. It takes REAL strength to avoid one. It would mean standing up to the military industrial complex. Use of the military should be avoided unless impossible. This Iraq thing was a choice that didn't have to be made in this manner, this soon and to this extent. Many other things could have and should have been done before going into Iraq was even CONSIDERED. It was unnecessary and has, as a result, damaged our image abroad and fueled the fire of extremism, putting us in MORE danger, not less. If you are so gung ho about this war and are under 40, go back into the military and fight. They'll take you and probably even give you a piece of body armor to protect you against those IEDs, you know, the ones that are blowing arms and legs off anybody within 100 ft. Yeah, have that happen to you and we'll see how much you back these motherf$%^ers.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 4:13 am PT...
Mike J #17
The way you explain politics is like someone explaining a ride at the county fair.
You get on and hang on for dear life, doing anything and saying anything to keep you from falling off.
The founding fathers of our nation would be shocked to hear you say you have mature patriotism.
They never once heard the terms republican nor democrat. Nor department of war (now dod).
They would have found your position very, very strange and it would have outraged them.
All of their work and toil to keep people safe by keeping government in its cage. And you let the monster out of the cage and feed it. Not knowing that it will certainly turn on you.
Unless of course, you are that monster. A cell in the monster telling the monster how good it is.
Get off. Get real. Get true. Get a grip on the danger lurking in your ideology.
Take politics one issue at a time ... not one party at a time.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 8:38 am PT...
So Mike J. you had no problem with the Cuts that were inacted by Bush Sr. of the military and carried out through Dick Cheney? You must remember back then they claimed it was okay because the cold war was over. Most of the republicans voted for the cuts along with democrats when Clinton was in office as he was only carrying out some of the cuts Bush Sr. called for. You have to remember Republicans still had a good amount of control during the Clinton years and they approved the "gutting" of the military that people seem to love blaming Clinton for. Where is your false indignation over your republican representatives that helped cut the military?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 10:31 am PT...
I know what you mean Big Dan.
It seems like nothing we do to fight fascism works.
We already had 200,000 march on Washington in Sept.'05 to protest the war & to impeach Bush--it barely made a blimp on the radar because it wasen't reported much.
Our opposing party representatives are not leading the charge, no matter how many petitions we've signed or phone calls, letters--they have failed in their duty to our nation.
Democrats keep sending me e-mails saying they need money to fight the Republicans.
I told Kennedy & Kerry they were elected to do their jobs without the citizens having to pay them extra for it & to stop using scare tactics to try & get 'mo money.
Kennedy was born into his money & position & Kerry married it--but most of the rest of us have to work for it.
The sad part is these jackasses are our only hope.
I used to be gung ho but even I am getting discouraged.
Most people don't have the time to research all this. They work, come home, eat & relax. They are troubled by what they hear of it, but they have financial, health, family worries etc. that take precedence, especially now that the price of everything has shot up--making ends meet is not as easy as it once was.
Besides, maybe they did write a letter or call, but nothing came of it.
The polls are rigged--that's not the answer.
Somone on this blog remarked on the way tens of thousands of people in India came out to protest Bush's visit--& they said--Why aren't WE?
That remark struck me.
We should all be dropping work on the same day & marching in the streets--mad as hell with what our country is doing in our names & demanding a change. There are more of us than them.
Most would never do it.
There's another prison with torture in Afghanistan--even bigger & worse that Abu Graib (sp?)
That could be any one of us there.
Did you see the Bev Harris entry back over on the "troll" thread?
She had links to reports that the federal court system is hiding the names, the crimes, the punishments, plea bargains etc. from the public. It used to be a transparent system, by law it should be transparent, but no more.
So--our citizens are being arrested & dealt with in secrecy.
Are they arresting criminals--or are they arresting voting rights advocates, activists, & whistleblowers?
It's a dark development.
Are we next? Like in dictatorships where any one who goes against the government & is succeeding at it gets arrested & thrown in jail?
It appears so.
Why else the secrecy?
I cannot help but feel the similarities between our government & Nazi Germany.
There too, it began in small ways so no-one got alarmed right off. People heard rumors of what was going on, but no proof.
They controlled the media too.
First the Jews had to wear a patch on their clothing to outwardly mark them as Jews, then they had to close their shops early. Then they made them close all together, then they stayed in one area, then they got loaded on the trains...
I've personally heard some people are planning to leave this country & move their families to another before it gets any worse & then, like the Jews, they CAN'T leave.
New Zealand seems to be popular.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 10:52 am PT...
I'm trying to be positive.
I think the best place to begin to focus activist efforts is on the FCC.
No one knows any of the stuff going on because they don't hear it on the nightly news, & neocon talk radio bombards them with disinformation about it all day. It's like being bainwashed.
If more people knew--I say KNEW IT, not wondered if it were true--they would be up in arms.
If we could make the FCC go back to their old rules, we would once again have real reporting & competition between stations.
The FCC knew full well what would happen when they changed that rule which said one person could only own a few outlets. That's why they made the rule in the first place! To prevent what we have today.
Plus, they need to put back the Fairness Doctrine, which said they had to present both sides of an issue.
Now, they only pretend to present both sides. How they do it is another whole subject. Let's just say, it's subtle.
Yea...if only we could.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 11:58 am PT...
Don't give up yet. If we can get our elections back this November there may be hope. There are a lot of ex-military running as democrats. Now I'm not into either party but as you said, they're all we got. Forget the label. They are passionate about the state of affairs in this country and that's what we need. And not many have signed on but we need to support John Conyers in his efforts to impeach Bush. We do need to call and write and yes, take to the streets. 200,000 did get a response, albeit small. Let's make it a million and the trend will snowball. As you said, people have their personal lives to care about but if this continues, that will be small potatoes.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 2:13 pm PT...
I'm not suprised to be attacked personally. I actually expected it because that is how most of you operate. This un-personal forum makes it easy. Not sticking to the topic? I answered my opinion about Pillar's interview and his motives. My discussion about voting was a response to the others on this forum not sticking to the topic, or did you not notice Roz (#6), Lou Marino (#7), Big Dan (#8,#9,#10), and even yourself #11, and Roger #16. (I'll ignore the advertising and response to it). So you ignore your own off-topic post but condem me for part of my post where I reply to another post. I think the words that describes you are hypocrite and rude. I'm offering my opinion, just as you are. That is not any more "trolling" than you are. I suppose you can't stand to have your precious liberal opinions questioned. Apparently the only free speech that you want to hear are the opinions that agree with you. Go read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Oops! I'm off-topic again....
I had the same enlistment, 3 years active and 3 years Reserve. Then I added on 4 more years of Reserve, for a total of 10 years (3 active and 7 reserve). Sure, I'm not a total military expert either and don't claim that, only my experience as you do. "Trusses"? I have not characterized you that way. Go elsewhere in the site and find the post from last year about Specialist Young. In my recent post there I stated to him and others that I do not question your patriotism (without evidence, I'll add). I also don't approve of those who do, without reason. I guess that people from your side and my side make assumptions about each other, don't we?
"Any nitwit president can start a war.", you say? Hmm, like Kennedy-Johnson's Vietnam and Clinton's Bosina? Avoiding war? Is that not what the United Nations is for? A place for nations to bring their differences to before they escalate to war. But of course 12 years and 17 UN resolutions is not enough for you.
Ok, so let's say you are the President. What would YOU do after 9-11-2001? What do YOU do when the world's military intelligence community says that Saddam's Iraq is trying to get more WMD's? He used them on the Kurds before. He had thousands of people killed every year. He let his son kidnap a teen girl each month from the schools and rape her. I guess you would no nothing and let those people be killed by their own "government" i.e. dictator. Yes, they are dying today but at the hands of murderous terrorists. The people will continue to speak out and protest against terrorism there. I saw a interview yesterday with a Col. McMasters there who was given a letter of thanks by the mayor of an Iraqi town with many of the townspeople in present.
"Many other things could have and should have been done before going into Iraq was even CONSIDERED". Yea, like what? More UN resolutions? More weenie babble from the UN liberals?
You said to get back in the military. I'm actually almost 41 now, so I don't think I can get back in. Recently I have thought that I should not have left the Reserves in 1997. I would be involved in these conflicts today and be doing my part, but if I make it, that would be only one more year before making 20 years. So I should have stayed in. I regret getting out, do you?
IED's seems to be the only way that the terrorists can kill our troops since they can't engage our troops in open conflict and survive. But I have confidence in the success of our troops over this enemy. Do you? To be a liberal Democrat in opposing this conflict in Iraq, Democrats almost have to hope that the US looses this fight. I'm not going to assume that you hope that. But I will ask the question: Do you hope that the US wins in Iraq? Ignore how we got there for now, just answer the question, please.
Who cares what people in other countries think of us? I know you'll have fun with that one! But I really don't care... You sound like the French..... oh and Sen.John Kerry (who voted for the war funding before he voted against it). I also think that you could respond without resorting to foul language or implying it with !@#$%^&*().
Lastly, most soldiers injured and the families of those killed understand the reason for their sacrifice. For every Specialist Young and Cindy Sheehan, you have twice or three times as many families who understand that if we don't fight them over there, the terrorists will come here again. Boston or Baghdad, San Diego or Samarra, you decide which city you would rather have US troops fighting the terrorists in. Your city, perhaps?
Dredd: (you're next)
I do take politics by issues. When I first registered to vote at 18, I didn't know anything about Democrats or Republicans either. So I registered Independent and voted the person, not the party. As I learned about the parties when I was in the military, it just so happens that most (not all) of the issues that the Republican party has are issues that I agree with and most (not all) of the issues that the Democrat party has are issues that I disagree with. Perhaps you don't understand that.
Are you the one holding onto the Democrat ride at the fair? Perhaps most of their issues are ones that you agree with. So there. Exactly what I'm doing.
Since moving to another state and registering as Republican, I have voted for Democrats over Republicans before when I thought the person's positions and experience were better. Have you voted Republican since being a Democrat? Hmm?
How do you pretend to speak for the founding fathers? Are you really that old?
I read the founder's documents, including some of the Federalist Papers when I have time. Do you?
I think the your problem is your ideology of mis-understanding what it takes to defeat our enemies. Since you are so old (joke), perhaps you remember Neville Chamberlin. Policies of appeasement only help your enemy get stronger. That enemy is your monster who will get bigger and bigger as you feed it your lack of fortitude. Then, that enemy you allowed to grow, will turn and attack you. Just ask the Jews, the Polish, and the French of WWII. Go ahead. Take that chance with your family. But don't you dare take that chance with my family!
Actually, I was in the military during that time of Pres.G.H.W.Bush's cuts. I didn't like them at that time and I didn't like the fact that the cuts continued during Pres.Clinton's term. That was part of my decision to leave the military in 1997. But lately I have wished that I had stayed in the Reserves. Did you agree with everything that Pres.Clinton did? Republican control? They did not have the majority of the US House and US Senate until 1995, so not while Pres.G.H.W.Bush was in office. So the only control was as the minority party, as the Democrats are today. I understand that some Republicans voted for the cuts. What are you then talking about? So I don't have any false indignation about that. However, perhaps you have false assumptions about something that I didn't mention. I'm not a one-issue voter, are you? So even though I didn't like the cuts, I stayed Republican for all the other issues as well.
Oops, I'm off-topic again and it's your fault. I wonder if Savantster will rebuke you as well as me. Probably not, just me. (hehe).
Talk about off-topic! Charlene is all over the place. Watch out for Savantster!
Have any of you actually listened to a full hour of talk radio or do you just repeat what you hear from other liberals about it? Hey, liberals are on talk radio too, but Air America isn't doing so good. Why is that? Perhaps it's because nobody wants to hear their hate.
Their hate drives them too far from reason and drives the reasonable people away leaving only an audience of unreasonable liberal Kool-Aid drinkers.
Oh, and in Charlene's post, she mentions people moving out of the country. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. For every one of you that leave, there is 1000 more coming in, legally and illegally. If the US is such a bad place, then why are people risking their lives to come here across the desert and the Caribbean?
Ask Mr. Pillar since he is your hero of the moment. (See, I got back to the topic at the very end).
Have a "nice" day!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 6:09 pm PT...
First, I am neither a republican or a democrat. I am registered independant. Second, I am glad I am not part of the military anymore because of the way it has been used and abused. I had no problems with the first Gulf War nor did I have any problems with going into Bosnia. Not even Afghanistan. Iraq was unnecessary. For the amount of money that has been spent to date the ports and Coast Guard could have been built up for security first. The FBI could have been modernized to do their job efficiently to root out terror cells instead of just blanket spying to find that needle in a haystack. The equipment and training of the military could have been improved before they were sent into such an uncertain conflict. Diplomatic ties could have been improved instead of pissing everybody else off. (BTW, if we are to live in a global world, the opinions of other countries people matters quite a bit.) Our economy and especially middle class could have been strengthend instead of weakened by putting people to work in high tech equipment production to reduce the number of casualties in the theater of conflict. Our entire country could have been asked to tighten their belts but instead good jobs are being sent overseas, many of which are going to China, a country we definitely don't want to get into a war with but is looking more likely all the time. Wealthy people could have been asked to give back some of the money that they surely don't need to support our troops.
Another thing. I live in New York. Long Island actually. We are a tough breed here. We'll stand up to these people if it were necessary and we are not afraid of what they can do to us. If our government acted responsibly, 9/11 never would have happened in the first place. War is not the answer, all the time, to aggression. Outsmarting the terrorists, products somewhat of our own failed foreign policies, is the better answer. Open war with a shadow seems pointless to me.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 7:50 pm PT...
I didn't answer your question. I do NOT HOPE they lose in Iraq but can you tell me what winning looks like? These guys are not going to stop blowing things up. And there is a case to be made for a man or country to fight their own battles. If the ones that side with the idea of democracy really want it, we can supply them all the arms they want to fight for it themselves. But that won't happen and you know it and our presence there is just making things worse. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation which is why we never should have gone in there in the first place. I'm sure with all that brain power in the White House a better course of action could have been thought of. (Or not.) One more thing. The president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of THIS land. Seems to me that he hasn't done too good a job honoring that oath.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 8:37 pm PT...
Thanks, Roger. That was nice.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 3/7/2006 @ 9:43 pm PT...
Mike J. Are we not in agreement that for most of Clinton's presidency the Republicans had a fair control over congress? Do remember Clinton entered office in 93 and from 93 to 95 democrats had control but during the years after Republicans had the majority. I have listened to both sides of talk radio and I have heard equal amounts of hate for the other side expounding from both sides. To claim its merely the liberals is rather disengenuous. Come now look at all the hate thrown at deepthroat by G. Gordon Liddy and other right wing radio hosts. Again try not to lump everyone on this site as a liberal it kind of lowers your argument. Let's just start by asking which policies of the current administration do you not agree with? Also can you honestly say with a straight face that the current administration is actually doing whats best for america and that they are true conservatives?
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 3/8/2006 @ 6:09 am PT...
Anytime Charlene. Just remember, we're the good guys whether we win or lose. All the others are going to heck for betraying the very thing they profess to endorse which is God's word. I'm not a religious man but I know a hypocrite when I see one and Bush and his cohorts are the biggest ones I've ever seen.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
The Old Turk
said on 3/8/2006 @ 10:35 pm PT...
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 2:15 pm PT...
Roger, thanks for giving me a good response from your side. Looks like I incorrectly assumed you were a Democrat. But you do sound liberal, or do you not like that label? My wife grew up in Queens NYC, so I've heard from her and her family how quite Democrat and liberal that area is. You've got carpetbagger Hillary, after all.
The military "used and abused" upset you? I remember how Pres.Clinton used the military as Meals-On-Wheels. But you supported the Bosina war? It was to stop a conflict between ethnic groups. But you don't support the Iraq war, which was partly to stop Saddam's oppression and murder of people who did not belong to his exact ethnic group. The other part was to stop him getting more WMD's like he had used against the Kurds.
Maybe you are right about living in a global world if we want help against terrorism. My 1st reaction is that I don't care what other countries think. But I do think that we need to do what's right for our country 1st and other countries 2nd. Didn't you find it disappointing when other countries like France and Germany, not only didn't help us after 9-11 but also worked against us at the UN and were against us going into Afganistan? Whenever their is a big disaster, like the Pacific tsunami, other countries call us for help. But when it's our turn that we need help, France, Germany and a few others said no. France especially ticked me off. Did you know that there are over 660,000 American soldiers buried in France in American cemeteries from both WWI and WWII? Some of my Dad's ancestors fought in WWII Europe and one died in the Guadalcanal Pacific Naval battles of 1942.
Good jobs going overseas? Wow, I agree with you on that one. But you can blame NAFTA for the big push on that. Who signed and pushed for NAFTA? Who pushed for "Most Favored Nation" trading status for China? Who helped Loral Hughes Space company sell improved missle technology to China? Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. I have a co-worker here who is from China, but lived here 10 years. I workout with him at the fitness center and he tells me things about China and his parents back there. I used to try to only buy American, but it's hard anymore.
"If our government acted responsibly, 9/11 never would have happened in the first place." - Roger
Now I totally disagree with you again. Are you actually doing what I have heard from the far-far-left liberals? Are you actually blaming US for the attack on America by terrorists? That's crazy! That thinking would then blame FDR's administration for the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Don't blame the victims! Blame the people who did it!!!!
What about the 1993 WTC attack? What about the Bali bombing that killed many Australians? What about the bombing of the USS Cole? Those all happened before 9-11. Then go back to the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebannon. A Hezbolla terrorist supported by Iran and Syria was responsible for that. Terrorism has existed for a long time. It will not stop with words or good deeds, we've tried.
Blanket spying? I hope you understand that the NSA is not listening to you talk to me. They are only listening to calls from OUTSIDE the country to someone inside the US and only if that person is on a watch list for terrorist activity or in a country that supported terrorism. That's not blanket spying or even "domestic spying" that the MSM describes it as.
I can tell you what winning looks like. It's when the terrorists in Iraq are dead or locked up. It's when common Iraqis don't have to fear being killed by the crazy fundamentalists just because they are in the market or walking down the street. The terrorists plant IED's by the road to kill US troops and sometimes the bomb goes off at the wrong time and kills Iraqi people instead. Then there was the US platoon giving candy to Iraqi children and a terrorist attacked those troops killing some of the children. You would think that the terrorist would wait until the children were out of the way, but no they don't care. Then there are the terrorists who kidnap and kill Iraqi government officials and blow up the mosques of the other sect. How do you get them to stop? Give them flowers? No, we find them and kill them. So victory is achieved when the terrorists are stopped.
And the new Iraqi army is being prepared to fight for themselves. Each month they are getting better and more Iraqi units are operating without US troops help. But many people on your side don't believe that.
You talk about being tough. Your area certainly suffered much on and after 9-11. We, as a people, have to be tough enough to get the job done. Freedom is not free. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It can also be said that America is the land of the free BECAUSE of the brave. Retired Marine General Paul Kelly (28th Commandant of the Marine Corps) said in a speech last month, "God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Lastly, even though I think that Pres.Bush 43 has done a good job against terrorism and elsewhere, I'll tell you where I disagree with him. Border Security. Not nearly enough has been done at the Mexican border and more could be done at the Canadian border too. Iraqis have been caught sneaking across the border. They hope that they are mistaken for Mexican. So I think that Pres.Bush is holding his oath against terrorism, but he's not on border security. He is against the building of a solid wall at the border, but I'm for it. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have not done much about border security either. Some Congressmen have bills and ideas, but they can't get a majority vote out of Congress. Why is that?
Have a "nice" day!
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 3:02 pm PT...
Of course I remember that Republicans won the Congress in 1995. I voted for it, I celebrated it! I referred to it in my post too, perhaps you didn't read all of it. Try again.
The Democrats had Congress and the Presidency for those two years and didn't get squat done for national security, but they managed to cut the military. Then those cuts were continued that I did't like, as I already said.
Well, I'm glad you acknowledge the hate-radio on the left. But don't begrudge attacks on deepthroat by G. Gordon Liddy. C'mon. Mark Felt was responsible for Liddy being in prison. Sure, Liddy should not have done what he did for Pres.Nixon. But I remember hearing an interview with Liddy after deepthroat was exposed as Mark Felt, that Liddy and others had suspected him, but were not sure. Liddy also was angry at Felt for giving FBI information to the Wash.Post's Bob Woodward. Felt was #2 at the FBI at the time and 1st gave info to Woodward about the shooting of George Wallace.
Then when Hoover died and Felt was not picked by Pres.Nixon to head the FBI (since he was the #2 man), Felt was furious and took his revenge by giving Woodward the Watergate break-in info that the FBI was investigating. So can you really blame Liddy for his anger at Mark "Deepthroat" Felt?
As I explained to Roger above, I agree with most of the admistration's policies, but I disagree with the lack of actual improvement that border security really needs.
Gotta go! Have a nice day.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 5:29 pm PT...
Perhaps I misjudged you a bit but don't misjudge me either. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton? Why do the people that disagree with us always bring him up as THE guy who made America vulnerable to terrorists? It started WAY before then. He didn't start the cycle of corruption that is speading through our government. We could go through history with each president and find all sorts of stuff about each one of them. This debacle has been brewing for a long time. The joke "How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving" wasn't original during the Clinton era.
Take Reagan. The bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon. Carter with the hostages in Iran. Bush 1 and the first Gulf war. You mean to tell me that NO ONE could figure out in all that time between then and now that steel doors on the cockpits of airplanes would reduce the likelyhood of a hijacking? Come on. Economics trumped common sense and we paid a dear price for it, far above the cost of having put them in in the first place. That's what I meant by the idea that if the government had been doing their job which is suppossed to be providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. Now they are promoting the general welfare abroad while real wages are declining in America. They give tax breaks to corporations that move their operations to foreign countries. They give tax breaks to all sorts of corporations at the expense of the common man. That's not promoting the GENERAL welfare, that's promoting corporate welfare. You think that's a good idea?
As far as the NSA spying thing is concerned, you have no idea what they're listening to. No one knew what Nixon was doing until his fools got caught doing something stupid. Now under the guise of fighting terrorism they have completely secreted the spying program, not allowing anyone to take a CLOSE look at it and there is every indication that it is NOT confined to overseas communication. If Bush had leveled with us and made the WH SOMEWHAT transparent he would have more support but instead he has done the exact opposite. Secrecy promotes curiosity as to what they are actually doing and I've seen many panel discussions and debates, watched Congress shut out the democrats completely, seen the way Karl Rove, the political pitbull operates so shamefully, and on and on, that Bush and the republicans have invited dissent to their handling of almost every situation that comes their way. And what so many supporters of this administration do is classify opposing viewpoints as liberal, using the word as an epithet. Sorry Mike but I don't agree that this president has only one issue he hs failed on. I agree he has failed on border security but he has failed totally, in my opinion.
I support our troops. They're doing their job and I thank them for that. But they could have been deployed in a much better manner than they have been. See ya!
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 3/13/2006 @ 3:06 pm PT...
Well, that's why I don't totally agree with everything Republican and disagree with everything Democrat. I'd say that my percentages are about 90% to 10% across all issues.
I'm trying not to misjudge you after you said that you are not registered Democrat. But just like there are liberal Democrats (mostly) there are also liberal Republicans (not many) and liberal Independents. Then there are also conservative Republicans (about half), conservative Democrats (not many), and conservative Independents.
I just saw on a TV program about the history of the US Navy's Construction Battalion "SeaBees" and in it they showed that the Navy sailor who was killed in the Egypt (?) hijacking in the 80's was a SeaBee. The TV program then said that the Air Marshall program increased a lot after that and even more after 9-11. Someone should have publicly talked about reinforcing the doors long ago. Yes, terrorism has occured for a very long time, unfortunately. Do we let it continue or do we fight against it? Do we pull back and only be in defensive mode? Or do we show that the best defense is a good offense? I'm for peace through superior firepower. I'm not afraid of the "military industrial complex" as you have said.
There are some things that I'll agree with you on. but now I have to go. I'll post more here later....
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 3/13/2006 @ 11:40 pm PT...
Ok, I'm back, here's more...
Yes, Clinton 3x! You mention Clinton on terrorism which I did not. I wrote about Clinton on NAFTA, Clinton on MFN with China, and Clinton on China's rocktet technology. There's no terrorism there, but there is implications for national security and the economy. So why did you say terrorism when I didn't?
You start by talking about a cycle of corruption in government and move to presidental mistakes and lying. But as examples you mention three presidents and three incidents that did not involve corruption or lying as far as I am aware.
You posted earlier that you supported the Gulf War so why mention it in your post on corruption?
Providing for the common defense? Economics trumped common sense? Ok. There is now an idea to put anti-missle defenses on commercial aircraft like what fighter aircraft have now. But that would be very expensive for every aircraft. Are you in support of that?
Tax breaks for corporations. Well, if they don't "take the money and run" to move their manufacturing to Mexico or overseas. If they stay in the US and their industry is helpful to the economy then sure, why not?
What is it with liberals and Democrats in their hatred of the rich and big corporations? I never got a job from a poor person, maybe you have? Wealthy people start businesses and run corporations that provide jobs for the middle class and poor. If you tax the big corporations more per employee than you do the smaller companies, then big corporations might reduce the number of employees they have to get under the limits of the law. It would also stifle the incentives for smaller companies to work hard to become big companies. This is Econ 101 here.
"... there is every indication that it is NOT confined to overseas communication." --- Ok, you have evidence that the rest of us are not privy to? I understand what you say about secrecy promoting curiosity, but if that's the only thing that makes you think the NSA is not sticking to incomming calls from overseas, then aren't you jumping the gun a bit?
"... watched Congress shut out the democrats completely ..." --- Hey, that's politics. When the Democrats had the House for 40 years and the Senate too for most of that time, they shut out the Republicans many a time. The political pendulum is always swinging back and fourth. Sometimes it stays longer on one side than the other, but it eventually moves over to the other side. Maybe the prediction that Democrats have been making for 12 years that they would get the House back will finally be true. Not that I want it to be of course.
Just like lefties, here we go with hatred of Karl Rove. Maybe you just don't like the fact that he engineered a big political win for Pres.Bush in 2004. Hey, during the Clinton years, we thought that Paul Begala and James Carville were the "political pitbull" team, but they engineered Pres.Clinton's win. At least now Begala says that Pres.Bush was properly elected in 2004 and therefore has earned his right to his judicial appointments. I see comments on this site from lefties that say Pres.Bush was never elected. Sure the 2000 election with it's electoral college win but popular vote defeat for Pres.Bush gives his critics room to bark, but the 2004 election was won by 3.5 million votes, but some lefties here still claim never elected? Ha! As for Carville, he would not tone down with his outragious comments on CNN one day so much so and wait his turn, that Robert Novak walked off the set in the middle of the segment. Carville is a Democrat loose cannon for sure and can only win debates by yelling.
Now here are several points in my reply that you did not answer: I told you what winning looks like, about the terrorism that occured before 9-11, about being tough to get the job in Iraq done, and about the new Iraqi army improving to win their own battles. What is your opinion on those?
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 3/14/2006 @ 6:15 am PT...
I'm all for the Iraqi army standing up for Iraq. Fine. Since the problems are basically roadside bombs and small arms attacks, not tanks and the like, why can't they do it now? What does it take to fire a weapon? And they have the ability to infiltrate these cells and destroy it from within which, in my opinion, is the only way to defeat them. That's their tact. Pretend to be part of the army or police and attack from within. American soldiers will never be able to do this. they are just targets for these people. They stand out like a sore thumb.
The mentions of the three former presidents was to indicate that terrorism WAS in fact a growing problem and someone should have put two and two together but instead let the problem fester till 9/11. Poor planning on everyone's part.
And a strong military reaction to 9/11 was fine when we went into Afghanistan. We were all for it. But then the focus should have been on defense FIRST. Make sure that was strong before we took on any more military obligations abroad. Especially when the equipment wasn't up to snuff. It was unnecessary to do immediately and what Bush 1 did was the right thing, repel the invasion and get the hell out. It was smart, it was measured, it was in cooperation with the rest of our allies, it made sense. The present conflict makes no sense.
As far as the spying is concerned, you should do some more reading and stop watching Fox. Watch C-Span instead and listen to what they actually say, not quotes taken out of context and phoney opinions meant to twist your thoughts and play on your emotions. And since they (Frist and others) say that's it is constitutional, put the argument up to the Supreme Court. But they won't because they haven't got a majority of right wingers in yet. They're waiting till they can get someone else in there that believes in the supreme authority of the president. BTW, amendments to the Constitution SUPERCEDE the articles. They were specifically intended to clarify the main body of the document. The president has no inherent authority to dismiss the Bill of Rights. If you believe that he does in time of war, then all a president has to do is start a war (which Bush did) and do anything he wants. That makes him a dictator, not a co-equal branch of government. It removes the check on his authority.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 3/14/2006 @ 6:37 am PT...
Jason Leopold Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11
Don't know if this worked but you should check this article out Mike.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 3/14/2006 @ 7:17 am PT...
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 3/14/2006 @ 3:02 pm PT...
That was an interesting article, but am I suppose to just believe it because it's on the internet? If Pres.Bush did change the NSA wiretapping program for international calls right after he was sworn in, then maybe he knew something or was told something that terrorism would be a problem. Oh, but that goes to the wacko liberal theory that he knew about the 9-11 attack before it happened. :laugh:
I'm thinking that he was trying to do something to collect information about terrorists. Isn't that what you were saying? That the FedGov should have been doing something before 9-11?
If you want me to believe an article you read, please don't point me to some liberal site no better than this one. All of their videos are from the Democrat point of view supporting Democrats and interviewing them without Republicans too.
Get articles from the mainstream media and I'll be better inclined to take it seriously. It's true that I don't like CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, but at least I would say that they have *some* fact-checking process (unless you are working for Dan Rather).
Oh and I watched the video of Cindy Sheehan and the women getting arrested. Hilarious! That was a good laugh, so thanks for that. :laugh:
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 3/15/2006 @ 9:52 am PT...
It seems that you're not going to believe anything that is contrary to your point of view. There have been hearings where the republicans refused to allow the democrats to even use a proper room for their hearings and instead had to hold them in the basement. The republicans were invited to give their point of view but they REFUSED to participate. If their position is so strong, why don't they put them out in an open forum where they might not be in charge of the proceedings? Because they cant' stand up to the scrutiny. They have to speak in soundbites and orchestrated 'town hall meetings' where the only people in attendance are supporters. And if there is a question of constitutionality to the wiretapping,and there is, put it in front of the Supreme Court. That's what they're there for. But they won't do that either because they know they would lose. They haven't installed enough pro-imperial presidency judges yet. And if you watch C-Span maybe you'll catch one or two of these hearings with ex NSA and FBI people telling you that the wiretapping that's going on is beyond what they tell you in the open. Too many unanswered questions, too much secrecy and too many lies is why Bush's numbers are so low. I implore you to look deeper into the situation.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 5/2/2006 @ 5:36 am PT...
I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.