View Full Version : vote: bush vs kerry
Bridgette
04-13-2004, 08:38 PM
What makes YOU so different than your grandparents ?
Education. The education levels in this country are vastly higher than in 1941.
Bridgette
04-13-2004, 08:46 PM
It's not jealousy - it's hatred. They feel the same way about us that you feel about them. That's why it gets us no where. We just say the same things about each other and fester the hatred.
This is pretty much what I was getting at with the earlier post.
Santos
04-13-2004, 09:05 PM
The attack on Pearl Harbor was launched by a state sanctioned military force (Japan), while the 9/11 attacks were committed by stateless terrorist organizations. Attacking any particular country isn't going to do much good because Al Qaeda is a stateless organization spread all over the world.
And attacking Iraq for 9/11 is like the U.S. attacking Mexico in 1941 as retribution for Pearl Harbor, it simply doesn’t make sense.
I believe most Americans understand the need for military force, but most Americans knew or now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was not aligned with Al Qaeda in any way, and did not possess WMD’s. While we are tied down in Iraq, fighting a war that has almost nothing to do with terrorism, “real” terrorists are still out there planning to attack us.
IMO, the Bush administration is taking us in the wrong direction and is following a path that will make us more venerable to terrorists.
Farrah_Holiday
04-13-2004, 09:14 PM
I wanted to add a few more points here..
Iraq was originally invaded because Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives later,there still is no sign of these alleged weapons.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/wmd-a22.shtml
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page279.asp
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062503.html
Furthermore, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been very close for many years. They even named one of their sons after the original G.Bush.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm
DancerWealth
04-13-2004, 09:15 PM
And attacking Iraq for 9/11 is like the U.S. attacking Mexico in 1941 as retribution for Pearl Harbor, it simply doesn’t make sense.
I disagree. Attacking Iraq now is no different than when we attacked Italy during WWII.
DancerWealth
04-13-2004, 09:18 PM
I wanted to add a few more points here..
Iraq was originally invaded because Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives later,there still is no sign of these alleged weapons.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/wmd-a22.shtml
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page279.asp
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062503.html
Furthermore, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been very close for many years. They even named one of their sons after the original G.Bush.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm
The WMDs existed. I don't have one millisecond of doubt about that. The fact that we haven't found them in my opinion is irrelevant and they are probably sitting in Syrya right now. May I point out that the Clinton administration actually was the first to say that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Many people tend to forget that little fact.
DancerWealth
04-13-2004, 09:37 PM
First, I want to say that I really respect Melonie and DW's opinions. I'm in no way trying to silence you, just add my opinion. I know when it comes to current topics and politics it can get sticky and occationally when I make a post like this on topics like this, people who disagree sometimes shrink away.
Agreed. I tend to be much more conservative politically than the bulk of my friends. It doesn't mean that I never talk to them after we get into a political debate. Hell, my own wife and I share much different political views and I love her for it. I'd much rather talk with someone who is educated with a different point of view than someone who walks in the footsteps of the sheep before them.
There were other lessons from WWII, remember sending the Japanese to "detainment" camps and proving ourselves the only country willing to drop an atom bomb...willing to win at any cost.
My fathter was an escapee from the Nazi concentration camps. My grandfater bared a branding tatoo from one of them and I had over 50 relatives be executed or gassed by the Germans in WWII. My father, his sister and my grandparents were the only ones who escaped Germany during that era...the rest were killed. They had to live in a ghetto in Shanghai occupied by the Japanese at times awaiting secret legal transport to the U.S. When my father got here, just a few years later he was drafted to go to Korea where he served and also witnessed his best friend get killed four feet away. I have never seen a patriot who respects and loves this country more than my father, and I tell you this because I share in his beliefs. If some maniac wants to murder our familes and destroy our way of life, let them be warned. If you bomb my neighborhood, I'm going to destroy your city. If you bomb my city, I'm going to level your country. If you attack my country, beware, because I have no compuction whatsovever about retaliation in eppoch proportions. I'm not saying we need to go carpet-nuke the middle east tomorrow. Far from it. And yet these coward terrorists who care nothing other than to walk onto a buss filled with women and children and detonate a bomb need to be put on notice that we're not putting up with their crap anymore. Has America made mistakes in the past? Of course! I'm embarrased by the fact that we put Japanese citizens of the United States into prison camps. It's terrible. Does that mean we're doing the wrong thing by occupying Iraq. No, in my opinion it isn't. Even Libya is starting to see the light now because they know we have them in our sights.
Never solving anything until both sides are willing to give and talk.
Talks never work in some situations. It didn't work against Hitler and it didn't work here. Hussein wouldn't let the weapons inspectors in for YEARS! I think it's obvious to a first grader why. He thought we were bluffing when we were negotiating. It looks like that turned out to be a very tragic mistake on his part.
My original post was intented to help explain why our occupation in Iraq isn't helping the "War on Terror" or keeping terrorist attacks away from us, rather it's breeding hatred. I realize there are times to fight, but there are also times where fighting makes the situation worse.
I agree to some degree, and not completely in this situation. These people would contine to fly planes into buildings to this day if we didn't do something. Yes, we have rallied some people to start hating us more, and we've also prevented a mad-man from mass-mudering familes in his own country as well. I've got news for everyone...more attacks are on the way, and by us doing what we did and what we are continuing to do, we thwart those events from happening. By us rolling over and playing dead, it solves nothing. I find it very interesting how in Israel, the points where they are attacked the most is when they roll-over and play dead during negotiations. When they have an occupied city bus blow up from some terrorist and they decide to retaliate by leveling a town, it's amazing how the attacks on Israel stop for a while.
I'm sure "terrorists" and "thugs" see us similar to how we viewed Germany in 1942.
Quite the contrary. I'm sure the terroist thugs see us similar to how Nazi Germany saw us or Feudal Japan saw us. That's the distinction.
Again though Pryce, I love the fact that in spite of our political differences, we continue to help one another grow and ultimately have the end result in mind. Your opinion, in spite of being different than my own in this respect, is greatly appreciated and always accepted with open arms!
DancerWealth
04-13-2004, 09:41 PM
I wanted to add a few more points here..
Iraq was originally invaded because Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives later,there still is no sign of these alleged weapons.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/wmd-a22.shtml
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page279.asp
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062503.html
Furthermore, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been very close for many years. They even named one of their sons after the original G.Bush.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm
No offense Farrah, but you might as well start quoting from Provda and the Communist Manefesto as well. I'd counter with articles on the oposite side of the political spectrum, but even Rush doesn't swing that far right to balance out these sources. :)
... it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
http://www.zenarchery.com/archives/000917.html
Farrah_Holiday
04-13-2004, 09:49 PM
I wanted to add a few more points here..
Iraq was originally invaded because Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives later,there still is no sign of these alleged weapons.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/wmd-a22.shtml
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page279.asp
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062503.html
Furthermore, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been very close for many years. They even named one of their sons after the original G.Bush.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm
No offense Farrah, but you might as well start quoting from Provda and the Communist Manefesto as well. I'd counter with articles on the oposite side of the political spectrum, but even Rush doesn't swing that far right to balance out these sources. :)
No offense taken..Did you read any of the links ?
I posted both sides of the arguement. 1 link is to the CIA's website and the other is the British government's.
I graduated with a degree in Poli Sci/Pre Law..so I love discussing both with a passion. Having said that, I by no means claim to know everything and make it a point to respect everyone's point of view.
DancerWealth
04-13-2004, 10:16 PM
No offense taken..Did you read any of the links ?
I posted both sides of the arguement. 1 link is to the CIA's website and the other is the British government's.
I did, and thank you.
I graduated with a degree in Poli Sci/Pre Law..so I love discussing both with a passion. Having said that, I by no means claim to know everything and make it a point to respect everyone's point of view.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm no expert on politics, nor do I claim or desire to be. I'm just one guy with a point of view and I too love and respect other's who not only share my viewpoint, but also disagree with it sometimes as well. It's what makes for stimulating conversation which is always a wonderful thing!
Bridgette
04-13-2004, 11:18 PM
The WMDs existed. I don't have one millisecond of doubt about that. The fact that we haven't found them in my opinion is irrelevant
Wow a fine example of swallowing whatever you're told by your leaders. (following the herd) Aren't these weapons fairly large and difficult to hide? Where have they been all this time? I suppose Osama bin Laden has them stuck up his ass as he trapses around the desert....?
and they are probably sitting in Syrya right now.
Well that solves it! How about we do like I said earlier and just level the whole region? That ought to assure everyone they are safe! Yeah
May I point out that the Clinton administration actually was the first to say that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Many people tend to forget that little fact.
The debate here is about Kerry vs Bush, not Clinton, but no matter. This seems to be a pattern when Bush says or does something stupid - point fingers at Clinton, "but HEeeee said it fiiiirrst!" Like a bratty kid who can't accept responsibility for his own actions. Seriously, it doesn't matter who said it first, if they can't be found, where the hell are they? And Bush is the one who's lead us over there to trash countries with NO RESULTS.
DancerWealth
04-14-2004, 12:14 AM
Aren't these weapons fairly large and difficult to hide? Where have they been all this time? I suppose Osama bin Laden has them stuck up his ass as he trapses around the desert....?
No, they aren't large and they aren't difficult to hide. He could have stashed them into an area probably the size of a 7-11 and it could be underground or in any other hiding spot. Being that it could be hidden in a location the size of California, no, they probably aren't easy to find. In addition, they already have found tons of evidence that Hussein was producing them. They have uncovered WMD weapons factories and they have found in numerous locations artillery shells that have residue of chemical weapons. Again, the Bush administration was not the first to publicly claim Hussein was making them...Clinton said it frequently so if you are going to claim the Bush administration made this up, be sure to point the same finger at the previous administration as well. Also keep in mind that Saddam was willing to have us invade his country rather than let weapons inspectors go into his country as per the agreement and terms of surrender he signed ten years ago. The same agreement he broke on over a dozen times in the eight years prior to Bush taking office.
The debate here is about Kerry vs Bush, not Clinton, but no matter. This seems to be a pattern when Bush says or does something stupid - point fingers at Clinton, "but HEeeee said it fiiiirrst!"
Really? Can you quote me some sources on this? Bush has been quite humble in blaming the previous administration for the mess he inherated. If I were him, I'd be using the Bully Pulpit every single day reminding the American public what a disaster the previous administration caused for this country. I agree that this is a Bush/Kerry debate, but if you are going to rail against what Bush is doing, you have to look at where he came from. The great economy that Clinton inherated and then screwed up with his tax increases that Bush is now finally fixing, the foreign policy that virtually didn't exist that triggered this mess to begin with, the massive downscalling of our military and intelligence agencies, etc. Look at where we are now...we have the largest economic increase in over a decade, we're fighting the war on terror quite successfuly in my opinion, we even have the Missery Index so low, that Kerry has to invent a whole new one because he can't admit that fact. It's the lowest since Carter. Even Tax Freedom Day is the earliest it's ever been since the late 60s! All I can say is, it's nice the adults were in power for the last few years.
DancerWealth
04-14-2004, 12:43 AM
Some additional food for thought:
Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
President Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
President Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
The problem he presents to the world is that he has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons. And they would be working to produce nuclear weapons if they had any weapons grade plutonium. We know that from the people who have defected, we know that from what he's done in the past.
President Bill Clinton in a speach to the Council on Foreign Affairs, June 17, 2002
Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003
When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime
Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso of Portugal October, 2003
Weluckyfew
04-14-2004, 12:48 AM
<<< I find it very interesting how in Israel, the points where they are attacked the most is when they roll-over and play dead during negotiations. When they have an occupied city bus blow up from some terrorist and they decide to retaliate by leveling a town, it's amazing how the attacks on Israel stop for a while.>>>
sounds so common sense...except that I don't think it's right.
Israel negotiated the Oslo agreements, and there was peace! there were several years of peace - until Israel stopped implementiing the agreement.
Itwas when they broke the agreement and when they backed the Palestinians into a corner and gave them a horrible take -it or leave-it offer , that's when violence erupted again. And it's often said that the agreement gave Palestinians almost all the land they wanted, the truth (in the fine print of course) is that it gave them land broken into non-continuous sections, seperated by security zones and Israeli-only raised highways. They were not offered a nation, they were offered a collection of isolated reservations (with Israel still controlling the water rights? I know that sounds like a nitpicky question but remember this is desert we're talkign about, and Israel controls the water rights now) And all of this at a time when illegal settlements were skyrocketing. Oddly enough they turned to violence.
Yes, I'm appalled when a terrorist blows up a bus. I'm also appalled when Palestinians are killed by an Israeli missle or a tank. If you'd like to donate a tank or missile to the Palestinians I'm sure they'd be happy to target military only. You say that we have the right to retaliate overwhelmingly, using any means necessary - isn't that what the Palestinians are doing?
The Palestinian death toll from the uprising is much higher than the Israeli death toll....and that's not factoring in the insanely high infant mortality rate caused by the crushing poverty they live in.
Weluckyfew
04-14-2004, 01:04 AM
<<<The great economy that Clinton inherated and then screwed up with his tax increases that Bush is now finally fixing, the foreign policy that virtually didn't exist that triggered this mess to begin with, the massive downscalling of our military and intelligence agencies, etc. Look at where we are now...we have the largest economic increase in over a decade, we're fighting the war on terror quite successfuly in my opinion, we even have the Missery Index so low, that Kerry has to invent a whole new one because he can't admit that fact. It's the lowest since Carter. Even Tax Freedom Day is the earliest it's ever been since the late 60s! All I can say is, it's nice the adults were in power for the last few years. >>>
I am NO fan of Clinton, but ...Clinton inherited a great economy then screwed it up? Really, took him 8 years to screw it up? What, that Bush I economy was so strong that it kept churning through 8 years of horrible Clinton policies? I don't think he had much to do with it booming or dying, that was the internet bubble.
Foreign policy didn't exist? A lot was going on (not enough, but as much as with other presidents), unfortuantely the Right was too busy trying to prove that Clinton killed Vince Foster and trying to impeach him for lying about sex. Clinton has a LOT to take blame for, but so do those on the Right who were on SUCH a witch hunt they were determined to bring him down no matter what the cost. When he retaliated by bombing the Sudan factory the Right screamed he was just trying to divert attention from his impeachment - good job, they cowed him into not taking any more action.
Massive downscaling of the military?
Thank Clinton for a Speedy Victory in Iraq
by Lawrence J. Korb, former asst secy of defense under President Ronald ReaganWhile it is understandable that President George W. Bush and his secretary of defense are receiving plaudits for the relatively swift military victory in Iraq, the fact of the matter is that most of the credit for the successful military operations should go to the Clinton Administration.
As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted, the battle plan that led to the Americans success was that of General Tommy Franks, an Army officer appointed to head the Central Command by the Clinton Adminstration. More important, the military forces that executed that plan so boldly and bravely were for the most part recruited, trained, and equipped by the Clinton administration.
The first Bush defense budet went into effect on 10/1/2002, and none of the funds in that budget have yet to have an impact on the quality of the men and women in the armed services, their readiness for combat, or the weapons they used to obliterate Iraqi forces.
Given the way that Bush and his surrogates disparaged Clinton's approach to the military in his campaign, this is ironic. The president and his advisers claimed that Clinton had diminshed the armed forces' fighting edge by turning them into social workers and sending them too often on "useless" nation-building exercises. These same people also claimed that Clinton had so underfunded the military that it was in a condition similar to that which existed on the eve of Pearl Harbor.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2000, Vice President Cheney summed up the Bush team's sentiment toward what Clintion had done to the military. He went around the country telling the military and the nation that help and additional support were on the way for our troops.
Anyone examining the facts would know that these claims were bogus. The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the outgoing administration of President Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by Dick Cheney and Sec'ty of State Colin Powell, who were then serving as secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff respectively.
Clintons' last secretary of defense, William Cohen, a former Republican Senator from Maine, turned over to Rumsfeld a defense budget that was higher in real terms than what James Schlesinger had bequeathed to Rumsfeld when he took over the Pentagon the first time in 1975 at the height of the Cold War.
Not only did Clinton spend a large amount of money on the military; most of it was spent wisely. In the first Persian Gulf War, less than 10 percent of the bombs and missiles that were dropped on Iraq were smart weapons. That number jumped to 70 percent during this war because the Clinton administration ordered large quantities of upgrade munitions that made these 'dumb' weapons smart. The Clinton administration also invested heavily in the technology that gave the on-scene commanders a much more vivid picture of the battlefield than a decade ago.
It was the Clinton adminstration that improved the accuracy of the Tomahawk cruise missile and upgraded the Patriot missiles, which was so much more effective this time than the original Patriot in the first Persian Gulf War. The Clinton adminstration also kept the quality of our military personnel high by closing the gap between the military, and private sector compensation, a gap that the first Bush admininstarion had allowed to grow, and improvng retirement and health benefits for military retirees.
So if this latest military effort warrants a victory parade for the troops, lets inist that Clinton and his secretaries of defense are invited. They deserve it. And if the Bush adminstration wants to learn how to rebuid the nation of Iraq, they might ask their precessors how to go about it.
Lawrence J. Korb. former asst secy of defense under P:resident Ronald Reagan.
Oh, and as for all your quotes, no one is saying he wasn't bad, we're saying he wasn't a big enough threat to justify the scale of what we did to get rid of him, and what we're still doing and will be doing for years. We had other options.
DancerWealth
04-14-2004, 01:18 AM
Oh, and as for all your quotes, no one is saying he wasn't bad, we're saying he wasn't a big enough threat to justify the scale of what we did to get rid of him, and what we're still doing and will be doing for years. We had other options.
Agreed. However what some are saying in here was that the WMDs didn't exist. As for the rest of your post, you make some good points. I'm not going to quote them point for point because quite frankly, it's 1 AM and I'm exhausted after having a long day. :) You are right though, the Vince Foster thing was rediculous and IMHO, Clinton should have been impeached long before he was for lying to Congress. Why they hammered on that issue so long was kind of beyond me. The economy was kind of on a downswing already from Bush I (who I'm not a huge fan of either) but it was still strong and holding. He essentially inherated a great economy from Reagan and Clinton inhearated it from Bush. I don't think Bush I did anything to make the economy good other than just keep the status quo.
Weluckyfew
04-14-2004, 01:43 AM
Wealth, I understand, sleep well.
But three things for the morning - lol -- what did Clinton lie to Congress about?
Also, Tax Freedom Day - makes a good press release but what does it really mean? How is it calculated? Overall taxes are lower, but how much of those savings went to the top 5%? If a billionare is paying millions less then that drives the "average" down. "Average" is such a tricky term, if I'm in a room with Bill Gates then the average person in that room has $10 billion.
And the flip side to low taxes, I don't think they should be low right now. We have record deficits and an unsustainable debt. We don't need to be cutting taxes we need to be paying our bills.
And the economy, come on, you're trying to give Reagan credit for the economy being strong in 1999?
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 02:07 AM
Dancerwealth:
jjjjeeeezzzz...turn off your radio!!! Rush and Hannity are LYING TO YOU! -- lol
Enough said.
Melonie
04-14-2004, 03:19 AM
Wouldn't it be easier and cleaner to create a new Israel in a more neutral territory? There were offers before, I'm sure there would be now. The Jewish community here may not be too pleased and the current elected official may not be re-elected, but big freakin deal! Throughout history Jews have proven to be quite profficient at surviving and flourishing under worse circumstances. I realize this is wishful thinking but hey, I don't see anyone doing anything better.
Bridgette, you and I agree as to the REAL irritant in the middle east - the presence of Israel. I also agree with you that, short of radically challenging the official power structure of modern day "Persia" i.e. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, that the other option leading to middle east stability is withdrawl of active support for Israel. Backing away from support of Israel and letting the "chips fall where they may" would indeed lead to a quicker end to Islamic terrorism, an end to deaths of US soldiers etc. It would also lead to the end of Israel.
However, backing away from support of Israel would also motivate many behind the scenes factors which could have a PROFOUND negative effect on the life of the average US citizen. How about US$:Euro = 1.5 , prime interest rate = 10% , DOW = 6000 . If Jewish banking and investing interests were to decide that the US was now a poor place to lend and invest the hundreds of billions of dollars they manage, and that Europe for example was a much better place to invest, the US economy would be in the toilet in less than a month. Every US president since Harry Truman has faced this issue, and every one has decided to back Israel !
As a testament to the behind the scenes power exercised in support of Israel, I find it extremely curious that the subject of Israel is rarely reported in the news (well, beyond the latest bus bombing anyhow), and even more rarely raised as a topic for political discussion in any US media.
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 05:46 AM
However, backing away from support of Israel would also motivate many behind the scenes factors which could have a PROFOUND negative effect on the life of the average US citizen. How about US$:Euro = 1.5 , prime interest rate = 10% , DOW = 6000 . If Jewish banking and investing interests were to decide that the US was now a poor place to lend and invest the hundreds of billions of dollars they manage, and that Europe for example was a much better place to invest, the US economy would be in the toilet in less than a month. Every US president since Harry Truman has faced this issue, and every one has decided to back Israel !
Excellent point Mel.
As a testament to the behind the scenes power exercised in support of Israel, I find it extremely curious that the subject of Israel is rarely reported in the news (well, beyond the latest bus bombing anyhow), and even more rarely raised as a topic for political discussion in any US media.
Yes I also find that interesting. :o
Shhannon
04-14-2004, 06:33 AM
Bush is bad. Kerry is good. But, Kucinich had the best ideas. Some I didn't agree with. Like foriegn trade policies. I want our country to be left alone by the money hungry psycho! Yeah Clinton had his faults. It seems that everytime a republican(i.e. Bush 1) gets into office they screw things up. Then here comes the democrat(Clinton) to save our asses. Funny how time has proved that the past 100 years.
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 07:49 AM
Something I found. A little food for thought from the opposite side of the crap Limbaugh spews.....
George W. Bush's 50 greatest accomplishments
1. I attacked and took over two countries.
2. I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US treasury.
3. I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy)
4. I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
5. I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
6. I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
7. I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
8. In my first year in office I set the all-time record for the most days on vacation by any president in US history. (tough to beat my dad's, but I did)
9. After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failire in US history.
10. I set the record for most campaign raising trips by an president in US history.
11. In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
12. I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
13. I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.
14. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any other president in US history.
15. I set the record for fewest pres conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
16. I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
17. I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constituution than any other US president in history.
18. I cut health-care benefits for war vetrans.
19. I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against ant person in the history of mankind.
20. I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
21. I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
22. Members of my caninet are the richest of any administration in US histiry. (the poorest mulitmillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her)
23. I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
24. I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
25. I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
26. I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the US.
27. I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Reagan was hard to beat, but I did it!!!)
28. I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations to remove the US from the HnmanRights Commission.
29. I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from Elections Monitoring Board.
30. I removed more checks and balances and have the least congressional oversight of any presidential administration in US history.
31. I renderd the entire United Nations irrelevant.
32. I withdrew from the World Court Of Law.
33. I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
34. I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 elections.
35. I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for the most corporate campaign donations.
36. The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of EnronCorporation)
37. I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
38. I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack ( and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).
39. I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
40. I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
41. I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stabilty.
42. I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
43. I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US laws by not selling their huge investments in corporations that later made bids for gov contracts.
44. I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
45. I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the Civil War.
46. I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. RECORDS AND REFERENCES
47. I have at at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine ( Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
48. I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war. I refused to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
49. All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records of any SEC investagation into my insidertrading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
50. All minutes of meetings of any public corportaions for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. Any records or minutes from meeting I ( or my VP ) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
I realize this is not exactly the most valuable piece for a proper political debate, but hey, if we have to read through Limbaugh-esque bantering, might as well have some from the other side as well.
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 08:28 AM
This is interesting.
Will this be how it ends up this year as well?
Weluckyfew
04-14-2004, 08:36 AM
Well, I hate bush too but I think a lot of the economic problems weren't his fault - the economy was going down the tubes already in 2001, then 9/11 gave it quite a shock. Since then I think his policies helped the economy...short term. How could they not, he slashed taxes and raised spending. If you stop paying your bills AND run up your credit cards you'll have a really high standard of living...until you run out of credit. That's the problem we're going to have.
As for Israel, some of this discussion is making me a little queasy, when I hear talk about the Jewish bankers running the country I start to think that next people ar going to talk about how they eat babies and secretly defile young virgins (lucky devils!) The reason Israel yields influence here is because there are 5 million Jewish people in this country and they have a very wel established lobby. You can say the same about Cubans, our entire Cuban policy (which is ridiculous and unique in the world) is dictated buy the strongly influential Cuban-American lobby.
Hate to disappoint any dark fantasies, but Israel will never be "pushed into the sea." For one thing they have nuclear weapons. Fopr another no one in the Middle East can stand up to their conventional forces.
And for Melonie's idea about Arab nations joining together to attack them, it's pure fantasy. Arab leaders (none of them elected) are all filled with self-interest. Read a history of the 1967 war and the Yom Kippur war - Arab nations attacked but NOT together, it wasn't coordinated. They were each out for thier own gain and Israel was able to pick them off one by one ()
And as much as I despise Israeli actions concerning the Palestinians, Arab nations are FAR worse violators of human rights. And even with how they deal with the Palestinians Arab nations are hypocritical - they aren't doing anything concrete to help the Palestinians becasue as long as their population is fired up to hate the Jews they won't take the time to look at how bad their own governemnt is - it's the classic trick of using an outside enemy to rally the population, we do it all the time here
I agree with you that Israel needs to be forced (throuigh the withholding of our massive financial/military support) into a fair solution with the Palestinians, but the idea that Israel will cease to exist is very unrealistic, and in my opinion is also very undesirable.
cardinal
04-14-2004, 08:40 AM
. How about US$:Euro = 1.5 , prime interest rate = 10% , DOW = 6000
We could be facing worse, if OPEC starts to trade oil in Euros instead of Dollars
ace_barker
04-14-2004, 08:44 AM
. It seems that everytime a republican(i.e. Bush 1) gets into office they screw things up. Then here comes the democrat(Clinton) to save our asses. Funny how time has proved that the past 100 years.
[/quote
Really, let's look at the 2 before clinton then. Jimmy Carter was absolutely a joke as President. I think mortgage rates were about 30% if memory serves me right and inlflation in the 20% range. LBJ escalated the heck out of Viet Nam.
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 08:59 AM
Well, I hate bush too but I think a lot of the economic problems weren't his fault - the economy was going down the tubes already in 2001, then 9/11 gave it quite a shock. Since then I think his policies helped the economy...short term. How could they not, he slashed taxes and raised spending. If you stop paying your bills AND run up your credit cards you'll have a really high standard of living...until you run out of credit. That's the problem we're going to have.
I agree alot of the economic problems were not his fault. It was mainly the bursting of the 'new economy' bubble.
I also agree that Bush's tax cuts and increased spending have resulted in a weak boost to the economy, but not much really. Unemployment is still up (look at the right numbers), ask the folks still hunting jobs or working far below their qualification levels after all this time.
You are absolutely correct that Bush's policy of lower taxes, raise spending through the roof is going to be very damaging to the economy over the long run. You just can't lower your income and flex the credit forever. Eventually the credit gets maxed out and you have to either raise your income or lower spending, or both! I realize people hate paying taxes but the country can't be run with no money!
Sitri
04-14-2004, 09:34 AM
Interesting. this is what is currently be sent.
I haven't read it all yet but thought I would share it.
From: Robert C Trawick
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004
Subject: A MESSAGE TO MY FELLOW VETERANS AND FRIENDS FROM A NAM VETERAN
Forwarded by Maj Jerry Van Wagner, AUS ret
Battalion advisor, Nam 64-65
FORMER GREEN BERET TACKLES KERRY AGAIN!
By Don Bendell.
1. Thank you, John Kerry, for helping make us Vietnam veterans war
heroes now, but you also were the primary reason that the American public
grabbed sturdy unbending brooms of judgment and swept us into the closet of
silenceand shame for so many years. Now, with your latest unreported
insanity, you are getting ready for our society to grab those same stiff brooms
and sweep our brave, noble young men and women fighting against the War on
Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, into that cold, dark cell ofheartbreak and betrayal, like we Vietnam veterans had to endure in silent dignity. I cannot and will not watch this country go through that again.
2. The hardcore America-hating, Israel-hating, jihad-spouting Muslim
clerics in the mideast are very excited and passing around a front page
newspaper story from the very anti-American TEHRAN TIMES in Iran. In
the country that is home of the world's toughest theocratic dictatorship,
an e-mail from Democratic Presidential nominee, you, John Forbes Kerry,
sent to the paper by your campaign committee, although they deny
sending it, was printed word-for-word on the front page of Iran's main
newspaper.
Your message states emphatically that, if elected President, you,
John Kerry plan to, within 100 days, not only end the War on Terror, but
travel to the mideast and elsewhere and apologize for our actions and the
actions of President Bush in the War on Terror. It says that you plan to
apologize to friends and foes alike.
That is right, folks. John Kerry will say he is sorry, and in his mind, all those jihad extremists, who have vowed to kill all Americans wherever we are, will simply forgive us, hold hands
with Kerry, start singing "Kumbaya," and all will be right in the world.This is insane!
3. Senior writer Kenneth R. Timmerman in the March 1st edition
of INSIGHT, tells about the massive campaign contributions to the
Kerry-for-President campaign by three Iranian businessmen living in the
US, who are lobbying for the US lifting of sanctions on Iran and
accepting the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-American Tehran regime and the
close ties of one to the chairman of Mobil Oil.
4. Pro-democracy dissidents in Iran are shocked and appalled at your
remarks, and have reported that in Iran and other Mideastern countries,
that all the extremists and anti-west mullahs who strongly supported
the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, USS Cole, Marine Barracks,
and anyplace Americans congregate, want you to become our President, but
they are scared to death of George W. Bush. Just think, The
Democratic candidate for President, you, John Forbes Kerry, is endorsed by the Al
Q'Aida, Hezbollah, PLF, and Hamas.
5. But on February 27, 2004, in a speech at UCLA , you, while
trying to talk tough, despite voting against all major weapons systems for the
past 18 years, stated that you will continue the War on Terror, but
would use our police forces, and especially those in foreign countries, and
you would also put our troops back under the powder blue flag of the
UnitedNations. You recently made comments about Bush making troops fight
without Kevlar vests, but you, Senator Kerry, voted against buying them while you
were in the Senate.
6. Like the Kama Sutra, Senator, you change positions constantly.
You're not going to end the War on Terror, but instead use police to
handcuff terrorists and read them their rights; then a week later, you
are going to end the War on Terrorism and apologize to everyone we have
offended, such as Iran. What is it going be next week, Kerry? You
flip-flop more than a beached tuna on steroids.
7. You convinced TV reporters Chris Wallace on Fox and NBC's Tim
Russert that a photograph circulating the web and news showing you a few
rows away from Jane Fonda at a September, 1970 Anti-War Rally at Valley
Forge, was simply a coincidence and that you and Hanoi Jane barely knew
each other. But, in fact, Senator, there were only 8 speakers
that day, including Fonda, Donald Southerland, and Bella Abzug, and Hanoi
Jane funded that rally, and the keynote speaker was you, John Forbes Kerry,
executive committee member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
8. We must be Americans first, and think about our political
parties after that. Sometimes we lose sight of that. I have six grown children
and two are democrats. I voted for Jimmy Carter. This is not about
politics. It is about standing up to the ultimate playground bully, and not simplycowering and kissing his shoes.
9. I left it "all on the field" in the jungles back there when I
was medevaced out of Vietnam in March of 1969 and sent back to hospitals in
"The World." Although You, Mr. Kerry, painted all of us Vietnam veterans
with the yellow brush of My Lai and Tiger Force, most of us, draftees
and lifers alike, actually poured our hearts out in the tropical rain
forests and in the rice paddies, thoroughly gave it our all, and acted as
warriors who had honor.
I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg rightnow and a daughter-in-law on orders for Iraq. I am not going to stand by and watch them go through the same treatment we did, because some of our well-meaning fellow Americans choose to wear blinders and believe things just because they heard it on the network news or simply not care enough to get involved.
10. I am not a "baby-killer, torturer, or murderer," John Kerry. I am a Vietnam veteran and an American who will not soon forget, or ever want to see again, any more jets loaded with fuel and screaming, innocent Americans slamming into our buildings on our very own soil.
I have shed enough tears for ten lifetimes. We all have. I will never again let my fellow countrymen get away with making American veterans feel like bastard step-children.
11. Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are
condemned to repeat it."
12. John Kerry, I now call on my "Band of Brothers," those
who have heard the sound of guns and cries of orphaned children, those who
hate war more than anyone who has not been there, to join me in this
difficult battle ahead. Republicans, democrats, independents, and the
apolitical, I call on the 25,000,000 veterans of this country to help me confront
this evil facing our great nation, not with guns and bombs, but with
our voices, our votes, our computers, and with all our fighting spirit.
13. My fellow veterans, your families, survivors, and neighbors:
God bless you and God bless America.
14. You want proof of all I have to say. Here are the references:
15. Want more proof? Read the very exposing February 27, 2004
article, on page 8, of the NY Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, founder of Time
Books and publisher of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's best-selling book, "On WATCH ".
Also read what the man who pinned the Silver Star on John Kerry had to
say about him. The article is entitled "Setting Straight Kerry's War
Record
Don Bendell is a former Green Beret Captain, who served in
Vietnam on an A-Team and in the Top Secret Phoenix program in
1968 and 1969, as well as in three other Special Forces Groups!
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 10:14 AM
That is full of emotion and patriotic grandstanding, but IMO, not much else.
Sitri
04-14-2004, 10:34 AM
And the point is that most of the rhetoric on both sides is in fact opinions and emotion.
I even heard on NPR today that people were posting on the American Idol website complaining about the speech postponing their T.V. program and that "Clinton" would not have done that...
What kind of country have we become where our T.V. programs are more important than our political society. Where we can send our brothers, sisters, and friends over to another country to fight for us but we can't personally be inconvenienced by missing our favorite T.V. show.
Yes, the press conference was boring at times last night, but we shouldn't have to depend on someone else forming our opinions. Neither one of these candidates is perfect, but as president, neither one of them is fully responsible for everything that happens in this country.
I am glad to see this kind of debate, but IMO it isn't fair to dismiss one side that has emotion and patriotism when the other side has it as well. That is the game.
At least this one has links to its references and you can go to the source of the formation of the emotion and the opinion. That is at least taking the time to back it up.
And, I am not saying I am buying into this piece 100%. I am sharing it for debate.
From the land of hanging chads,
Sitri
SCGirl
04-14-2004, 11:21 AM
wow....it seems like everyone has their own oppinion and people seemed to be very well informed. I'm so happy that such an intelligent thread was started and kept going--it really helps inform some of us who haven't had the time to find out about these issues through other venues.
That said, I'M STILL PISSED ABOUT AMERICAN IDOL!!!! :D
Melonie
04-14-2004, 02:26 PM
We could be facing worse, if OPEC starts to trade oil in Euros instead of Dollars
Actually, the world price of oil has always been based on supply and demand with the exchange rates of different currencies factored in. It's no random co-incidence that the US$ has fallen 20% against the Euro and the Yen, and that US$ crude oil prices have risen by 20% during the same time period. The same is true of gold, wheat, or any other worldwide commodity.
Clinton's strong dollar policy did result in holding down US$ prices for oil, gold, wheat etc. It also opened the door for foreign manufacturers to vastly underprice US manufacturers. This set in motion the China manufacturing syndrome, the India services syndrome, the "Benedict Arnold" corporate move syndrome, and a bunch of other stuff meant to cash in on an "overpriced" US$. But it also made life very comfortable for low income US registered voters, who were able to buy cheap gasoline, cheap groceries, cheap Chinese manufactured products at WalMart etc., and to vote democratic !
Bush has made a determined policy effort to weaken the US$ versus other major currencies, and in the process to restore profitability to US based manufacturers, to slow down the exodus of US corporations and US service jobs, and to try and establish some stable future for US employers versus having their heads beat in by underpriced competition of foreign made products. However, this must also translate into more expensive basic commodities, and higher prices at WalMart, which makes life a bit less pleasant for low income registered voters. I guess Bush figures that most of the low income people who are complaining are also very likely to vote democratic in any case, so to hell with them !
If there's one thing which Bush has had the cojones to actually do from a political standpoint, it's to face up to the fact that certain segments of US registered voters are never going to vote for him, and as a result to stop pandering to the complaints and wishes of this group. Blacks or gays or environmentalists for example have voted 90+ percent democratic in all recent elections. Thus Bush is "smartly" paying next to no attention to the black or gay or environmentalist communities, and is instead cozying up to the hispanic and business communities instead. This is a major departure from Bush's father or Ronald Reagan who threw some bones to the black and environmental communities and as a result alienated some of their core of conservative support. You can't draw an analogy for gays back then, because at that time openly engaging in gay activities bordered on being illegal.
Based on the surprise result from the conservative community regarding Mel Gibson's "Christ", increasing poll numbers for Bush after the televised 9/11 hearings etc, IMHO we're going to see a large unexpected conservative turnout this November in support of Bush which will assure his re-election. This is likely to leave overwhelmingly democratic supporting groups like blacks, gays, environmentalists etc. totally out in the cold for the next 4 years in regard to progress at the federal level.
Sitri
04-14-2004, 03:07 PM
Melonie,
Your analysis is right on the money. I for one can't figure out why we can get the blend of the human rights aka "live and let live" attitude combined with a viable economic policy.
What you reference as the Walmart approach is true with corporations shipping jobs overseas so that the few of us who have a job can buy stuff cheap. I would rather pay more for american made products and see more americans buy them!
It is ironic that "Buy American" is a union phrase which has in fact been undermined by a strong american dollar as promoted by the previous administration.
There are actually many articles that reveal how Walmart is affecting our economy.
This is a truly revealing look at walmart.
Quote
Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.
So, when you start looking at candidates you start asking yourself.
Do I want a party that will tell me what I want to hear and then do the opposite, or do I want a party that will do stuff that I don't agree with but will actually do it?
I am between the dog and the fire hydrant on this one. Does anyone have this as an Avatar?
Sitri
04-14-2004, 03:16 PM
O.K. and now you really got me started.
And this one is against the republicans and the democrats.
Explain to me why someone who works their ass off and makes $100,000 a year is labeled rich by both parties. That is just a good income! You can't be the idle retired rich with $100k / year.
At the same time, the government sliced and butchered the inheritance taxes so that all of the people that managed to cash in on the dot com boom can pass all this money down to their kids.
Then these kids grow up contributing nothing to the economy while we work our asses off to pay social security and income taxes.
The exception is Paris Hilton who is known to make adult movies and lead the "Simple Life" LOL
Melonie
04-14-2004, 03:29 PM
If you're looking to post interesting tidbits, here's food for thought. Considering that John Kerry exported his 25 year old blonde bombshell "paramour" off to Kenya before the US press could start asking politically painful questions though, one would hope JFK would have better priorities if he ever assumes the Oval Office. Of course his predecessor who also had the initials JFK did the same thing, but at least he went for the "big time" a la Marilyn Monroe ! That was philandering of presidential proportions, and I can respect that !
I would guess that the point of this article is that if Slick Willie had worried a bit less about having his Willie polished that 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq could possibly have been avoided with one easy presidential decision in 1996.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, April 3, 2004 12:33 p.m. EST
Bin Laden Arrest Offer Spurned as Clinton Met Lewinsky
At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.
On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."
During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.
Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.
Then came the bombshell offer:
"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.
Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.
A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.
On Feb. 4, 1996, for instance - two days before Ambassador Carney's key meeting with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the president was focused not on Osama bin Laden, but instead on the 23-year-old White House intern.
Their rendezvous that day included a sexual encounter followed by a leisurely chat between Clinton and Lewinsky, as the two "sat and talked [afterward] for about 45 minutes," according to the Starr Report.
Later in the afternoon that same day, as Sudanese officials weighed their decision to offer bin Laden to the U.S., Clinton found time to call Lewinsky "[to say] he had enjoyed their time together." If there were any calls from Clinton to the State Department or Khartoum that day, the records have yet to surface in published reports.
The Feb. 4 encounter with Lewinsky followed a period of intense contact detailed in the Starr report in interviews with the former White House intern, including a sexual encounter on Jan. 6, 1996, several sessions of phone sex during the week of Jan. 14 - 21, and another sexual encounter on Jan. 21.
Sudan's offer to the U.S. for bin Laden's extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.
On March 3, Sudan's Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa met secretly with Ambassador Carney, another State Department official and the CIA's Africa bureau Director of Operations at an Arlington, Va., hotel, according to Miniter's book.
Erwa was handed a list of issues the U.S. wanted taken care of if relations were to improve. The list included a demand for information on bin Laden's terrorist network inside Sudan.
Erwa replied that he would have to consult with Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir about the list. When he returned for a March 10, 1996 meeting with the CIA's Africa bureau chief, "Erwa would be empowered to make an extraordinary offer," writes Miniter.
On instructions from its president, the government of Sudan agreed to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to U.S law enforcement at a time and place of the Clinton administration's choosing. "Where should we send him?" Erwa asked the CIA representative.
President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.
"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," Clinton confirmed during a February 2002 speech to a New York business group.
"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
As chronicled in the Starr report, however, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky proved to be a growing distraction around this time.
Two weeks before the secret meeting between Erwa, Carney and the CIA bureau chief, the president summoned Lewinsky to the White House to inform her that he "no longer felt right" about their relationship and it would have to be suspended until after the election.
Lewinsky explained, however, that Clinton's decision to put their relationship on hold did little to change its basic character, telling Starr's investigators, "There'd continue to be this flirtation when we'd see each other."
The Starr report noted, "In late February or March [1996], the president telephoned her at home and said he was disappointed that, because she had already left the White House for the evening, they could not get together."
The call, Lewinsky said, "sort of implied to me that he was interested in starting up again."
On March 10, 1996, as Sudanese Defense Minister Erwa was making his extraordinary offer for bin Laden's arrest to the CIA's Africa bureau chief, Clinton met with Lewinsky in the White House.
The Starr report:
"On March 10, 1996, Ms. Lewinsky took a visiting friend, Natalie Ungvari, to the White House. They bumped into the president, who said when Ms. Lewinsky introduced them, 'You must be her friend from California.' Ms. Ungvari was 'shocked' that the president knew where she was from."
Though there was no physical contact that day, three weeks later, on March 31, 1996, Clinton resumed his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
It was around this time, the president later admitted, that he was involved in delicate negotiations to try to persuade Riyadh to take bin Laden, after refusing to accept his extradition to the U.S.
"I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton admitted in the 2002 speech. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
On April 7, 1996, Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon. Around the same time, the administration's hunt for bin Laden finally seemed to begin in earnest. Just weeks after Clinton spurned Sudan's bin Laden offer, for instance, the CIA created a separate operational unit dedicated to tracking down bin Laden in Sudan.
But it happened too late to capture the 9/11 mastermind. On May 18, 1996, bin Laden boarded a chartered plane in Khartoum with his wives, children, some 150 al-Qaida jihadists and a cache of arms - and flew off to Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
Melonie
04-14-2004, 03:56 PM
Explain to me why someone who works their ass off and makes $100,000 a year is labeled rich by both parties. That is just a good income! You can't be the idle retired rich with $100k / year.
At the same time, the government sliced and butchered the inheritance taxes so that all of the people that managed to cash in on the dot com boom can pass all this money down to their kids.
Then these kids grow up contributing nothing to the economy while we work our asses off to pay social security and income taxes.
The exception is Paris Hilton who is known to make adult movies and lead the "Simple Life" LOL
The answer to your question is right in front of you ... pure self interest. John Kerry is the richest man in government with assets in excess of $200 million dollars, with some 40% of current senators also being millionaires. Behind direct self-interest comes indirect self interest, given that the major contributors to both political parties are also multi-millionaires.
As far as earning $100k a year gross being rich goes, in New York you'd be lucky to hang onto $60K after federal, state, local, SSI and medicare taxes. That level of after tax income won't even qualify you for a mortgage on a typical NYC home.
In political terms, it's politically palatable to attack the top earning 10% of the US population (= adjusted gross income above $100,000 or so) to curry favor with the lower earning 90%. Even though the top earning 10% group actually pays 65% of all tax dollars collected, they only represent 10% of registered voters. Of course the uber-rich millionaire 1%ers like John Kerry can afford to enter into exotic tax shelters, trusts, tax free gov't bonds etc. so that they actually wind up paying much less in taxes on a percentage basis than someone who earns $100K. A bunch of interesting stats in this area can be found at .
PS I hope that Paris Hilton was savvy enough to hang onto the "back end" rights to her video (no pun intended LOL).
Bridgette
04-14-2004, 05:38 PM
I have to wonder, if Clinton had agreed to the offer of having bin Laden arrested, wouldn't that have brought an uproar here at home? Not trying to say it shouldn't have been done, but I'm thinking there would have been quite a bit of protest here about arresting foreigners with what likely would have been seen as little reason. Or do you think most Americans wouldn't have cared about the possible unwarranted arrest of some 'crazy Arab religious fanatic'. What would we have done with him if we HAD taken him back then? Would it have been a 'quiet' arrest that the general public wouldn't have known about, or a public event generating a media spectacle? I know this is getting way off topic, but I'm very curious about what might have happened IF....
tampafldancer
04-14-2004, 06:40 PM
melonie.. I LOVE YOUR POSTS. You always have something interesting to say!
Vicki-Valentine
04-14-2004, 10:06 PM
I will never vote to re-elect the idiot chief. Re-defeat BUSH in 2004!!!!!!!!
#1. I am pro-choice and the whole fallacy of Partial Birth Abortion has pissed me off to no end. Nothing better than having a white Republican male make choice about my reproductive health.
#2. Religion has NO PLACE in government and Bush seems to enjoy having his wiener tickled by the religious right. I don't give a shit if someone wants to give me the bullshit line about how this country was founded on Christian Principles. Christianity is a minority in the world. And I'm here to tell you that it is possible to make a decision without pulling out a book written by sheep herders 2000 years ago and than retranslated a thousand times. Without religiosity, a person can still make informed decisions.
#3. His IDIOTIC idea of changing the constitution to ban gay marriage. There are more important things in this world than worrying about the gays destroying marriage. There is not ONE SINGLE LEGITIMATE argument to ban gay marriage. Homosexuality is against the bible? Wrong answer. I speak fluent Hebrew and I can tell you that there are actually positive views of gay relationships in the Bible (Naomi/Ruth) and that there is only one line referring to homosexuality in the bible in a negative light. Additionally there is absolutely NO hebrew word for homosexuality in the bible. Everything is implied.
Gays marrying will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Yeah right. Two people in love with eachother is going to ruin the world. Newsflash: if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
Vicki-Valentine
04-14-2004, 10:11 PM
George W. Bush Resume (courtesy of Buzzflash)
Past work experience:
Ran for congress and lost.
Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
Accomplishments as president:
Attacked and took over two countries.
Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.
Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Records and References:
At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.
Refused to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
Vicki-Valentine
04-14-2004, 10:20 PM
"IMHO, Clinton should have been impeached long before he was for lying to Congress"
Wrong. He did not lie. He stuck his dick in the mouth of a pudgy Jewish girl. He did not have sexual intercourse. Therefore he did not lie.
Secondly, the President has no effect on the economy. So the fact that we had a booming economy with Clinton, and now with this idiot chief we had:
The biggest drop in stock market history
The largest deficit in the history of the United States
and you are saying this has NOTHING to do with the President? Gimmie a Break. Let me buy you a clue.
Melonie
04-15-2004, 03:38 AM
Lucky, I didn't say it ... NewsMax did ! Personally, my only comment was about JFK versus JFK where I gave Kennedy his due respect for doing his presidential peter polishing with the hottest blonde bombshell in Hollywood at the time. I didn't elaborate on Kerry's 25 year old paramour being shipped off to Kenya to avoid negative US press coverage - anybody who is interested in elaboration can look up back issues of the Boston Globe. Also, Clinton's record on anti-terrorism pretty much speaks for itself (with former Clinton admin members like Janet Reno filling in any blanks at this week's hearing - "we have to take advantage of fortunate accidents"), with or without any dick related distractions.
Also, never for a moment did I say that Jews are evil. What I did say is that America's unconditional support for Israel is a major contributing factor as to why Islamic extremists hate us, and that Jews have a "disproportionate" presence in the worldwide banking and investment industry such that the decision by a relative handful of them could potentially result in massive negative economic effects on the USA. Personally, I support America's position on Israel, even if it means fighting a war in other parts of the middle east partially because of that position. Check out the latest tidbit ... ... which should be good for a few new Islamic terrorist attacks ! (you'll have to cut and past the link in a new browser window, cuz the semicolon spazzes out the BBS link interpreter)
Sitri
04-15-2004, 04:52 AM
Please, Bill Clinton was so obsessed with Lewinski that he couldn't make any decisions at all? What, he just sat around the Oval Office in a funk 24 hours a day just dreaming of getting a hummer. That's just pathological. "Mr President, we HAVE to have a decision on Bin Laden" "Penis....needs....love. Bring....woman...now....must service...the....presidentail...staff." That's EXACTLY what you're saying happened.
Pryce, i hope you yank this post and ban me from the thread., i really can't contain myself - lol sorry
Thank you for finally saying it out loud.. Admiting the problem is half of the solution.
montythegeek
04-15-2004, 06:52 PM
"IMHO, Clinton should have been impeached long before he was for lying to Congress"
Wrong. He did not lie. He stuck his dick in the mouth of a pudgy Jewish girl. He did not have sexual intercourse. Therefore he did not lie.
Secondly, the President has no effect on the economy. So the fact that we had a booming economy with Clinton, and now with this idiot chief we had:
The biggest drop in stock market history
The largest deficit in the history of the United States
and you are saying this has NOTHING to do with the President? Gimmie a Break. Let me buy you a clue.
Both of those concepts need to be expressed in percentage terms and the dubious distinction for those records when expressed in percentage terms belongs to none other than FDR. The 1943 deficit in the Federal Government was 54.6 billion when the enire GDP was 180.3 billion of nearly 30% of GDP. The percentage change in The stock market record was 1933= on top of the 1929 crash's decline.
I am not getting in this fight, just correcting a false impression created by bad data.
ace_barker
04-15-2004, 08:10 PM
He commited perjury. A judge ruled he had to answer a question regarding sex with the fat jewish woman and when he answered he perjured himself. When you are the chief law enforcement official in the country you have to tell the truth when the judge says answer that question.
Oh yes you forgot to list that George Bush liberated 51,000,000 people to date. But I guess you only want to hear the BS that he went AWOL when in the Texas Air Guard even though it has been proven over and over and over that he served his term.
Devastating Divyne
04-16-2004, 03:07 AM
Of all the things that Bush has done I absolutely lost any respect or good will that I had toward him as a leader and person when he went along with the okey doke and allowed Lacey Peterson's death to be his big "shazam" to get the same legislation that he's been trying to pass on abortion, thats been slammed for several years, passed in the form of the "unborn victims act". Basically abortion is a crime now, in technical terms and certain situations.
For me this crap was the last straw. Of all the other stuff, this hit a nerve with me. Of all the problems in America for him to be concerned about, he turns some pregnant chick's murder into an abortion law crusade to satisfy family groups and bible thumpers. Political manipulation at its best. Well, I guess Bush should just keep up the bad work until he gets voted out of office. No point in hoping he'll change, so here's to hoping he leaves.
Melonie
04-16-2004, 03:53 AM
For me this crap was the last straw. Of all the other stuff, this hit a nerve with me. Of all the problems in America for him to be concerned about, he turns some pregnant chick's murder into an abortion law crusade to satisfy family groups and bible thumpers. Political manipulation at its best. Well, I guess Bush should just keep up the bad work until he gets voted out of office. No point in hoping he'll change, so here's to hoping he leaves.
I'm in complete agreement with you on this one regarding the other potential implications of the Laci Law, as I was one of the first to point out the potential legal overtones of officially granting an unborn fetus legal rights as a person. IMHO the new legal rights of an unborn fetus are going to cause major problems in the future in regard to abortion as we know it.
However, Bush didn't take an active part in this. In fact, most of the Laci Law's most ardent supporters were liberal senators from Laci's home state of California. The fact that these liberals didn't realize the potential legal ramifications in other areas during their effort to garner California re-election votes by voting for the Laci Law should be held against THEM, not the president. All that Bush had to do is to stand aside, give his own quiet support to the bill, and let the liberal "crossover" votes in the house and senate accomplish the task for him.
I will admit that Bush is taking a very active role in calling for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage being only between a man and a woman. However, if you'll recall, the liberal California and Massachusetts judges basically pushed him into this position. When a state supreme court ORDERS a state legislature to pass a certain law which the elected representatives of that legislature do not approve of, somebody has to do something or else democracy itself is threatened!
The purpose of courts and judges is to INTERPRET the laws voted into effect by legislatures, but what is happening in many cases is that the judges are legislating from the bench. In the past this was mostly confined to judges ruling certain laws unconstitutional thus throwing them out, but the MA supreme court case clearly crossed into new territory by ordering the MA legislature to pass a bill containing X content about gay marriage by a certain date.
ace_barker
04-16-2004, 07:20 AM
Of all the things that Bush has done I absolutely lost any respect or good will that I had toward him as a leader and person when he went along with the okey doke and allowed Lacey Peterson's death to be his big "shazam" to get the same legislation that he's been trying to pass on abortion, thats been slammed for several years, passed in the form of the "unborn victims act". Basically abortion is a crime now, in technical terms and certain situations.
For me this crap was the last straw.
All that is being done is if someone MURDERS a pregnant woman then they are going to be tried for 2 murders and not one so our beautiful justice system will actually put them away for a long time. Bush has nothing to do with this movement. Blaming him is a joke. The House makes laws, blame the senators and congressmen. They are the ones who fly under the radar screen too often while the president gets the blame. Education is my favorite whipping boy subject. The average amount of money spent per child is $7000.00. Of that money I believe 8% is federal money. The governors are always bitching for more federal money and blaming the President. Hey Congress put it in the budget for the President to sign (and keep the pork off the bill). I think the federal government should get out of the education end and let the governors balance their budgets. Feds can lower amount collected equal to that 8% and the states can raise fees to get that 8%. It's all politics and the press should make people aware of this but too many reporters are in bed with the political parties
Richard_Head
04-18-2004, 04:44 PM
He commited perjury. A judge ruled he had to answer a question regarding sex with the fat jewish woman and when he answered he perjured himself. When you are the chief law enforcement official in the country you have to tell the truth when the judge says answer that question.
Okay, he committed perjury about getting a BJ, who gives a shit and why did we spend millions upon millions of dollars to find this out? Couldn't that money have been better spent elsewhere? Couldn't the president have been dealing with more pressing issues then testifying about getting a BJ?
What this has to do with Bush vs Kerry I also don't know.
Question for the Bush fans out there, what do you think about the administrations fight against porn, how do you rationalize this with your obvious interest in strip clubs?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/porno030828.html