Hillary is a Mother all right. A Mother*&^% ing *$#@
Printable View
Hillary is a Mother all right. A Mother*&^% ing *$#@
I have had women bosses in my career! Mostly idiots who can't make decisions but sure can Monday Morning Quaterback.
What a fucking disaster for the country if this know-it-all gets in.
Of course, Christina will be running things down here in a couple of years as well.
End of the neo-con dream.
By Paul Reynolds.
World Affairs correspondent.
The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006.
Iraq was meant to be the showcase for a New American Century. The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown. "The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up. The idea of the "Project" was to project American power and influence around the world. The 1997 statement (written during the administration of President Bill Clinton) said:
"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." Among the signatories were many of the senior officials who would later determine policy under President George W Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby - as well as thinkers including Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podheretz and Frank Gaffney.
The neo-conservatives were called that because they sought to re-establish what they felt were true conservative values in the Republican Party and the United States. They wanted to stop what they felt were the isolationist tendencies that had developed under President Clinton, and even under the pragmatic President George Bush senior.
They saw the war in Iraq as their big chance of showing how the "New American Century" might work. They predicted the development of democratic values in a region lacking in them and, in that way, the removal of any threat to the United States just as the democratisation of Germany and Japan after World War II had transformed Europe and the Pacific. "Neo-conservatism has gone for a generation, if in fact it ever returns," says one of the movement's critics, David Rothkopf, currently at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, and a former official in the Clinton administration.
"Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened," he says. "The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. "Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration. "George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons' philosophy.
"It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world. After all, he gave up his dissolute youth and was born again as a new man, so it appealed to his character." In particular, two leading neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, attacked the Bush team in Vanity Fair magazine. Both had been on a Pentagon advisory board. Both had argued for war in Iraq.
In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'." Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said. He declared of neo-conservatism after Iraq: "It's not going to sell."
How a moron like Bush was elected leader of the world's most powerful nation.
Well, here is the answer. LOL.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9b427a37b[/url]
Dec. 28, 1:16 PM EST.
Edwards Making Another White House Bid.
By NEDRA PICKLER.
Associated Press Writer.
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Former vice presidential nominee John Edwards declared his candidacy Thursday for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, saying the United States needs a new spirit of activism and leadership for an unstable, chaotic world. Clad in blue jeans, an open-necked shirt and with his sleeves rolled up, Edwards chose the backyard of a victim of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans' devastated Ninth Ward for his unorthodox announcement.
"We want people in this campaign to actually take action now, not later, not after the next election," the former North Carolina senator said, sounding as much like a recruiter as a presidential campaigner. Edwards, 53, is calling for an increase in community service and cuts in poverty, global warming and troops in Iraq. He said he made a mistake in voting for a resolution to go to war with Iraq, but also noted that he didn't conduct the war. He said the Bush administration's leadership in Iraq has been a disaster and that it would be a mistake to send in more troops.
"The biggest responsibility of the next president of the United States is to re-establish America's leadership role in the world, starting with Iraq," Edwards said. "We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people," Edwards said. "The best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving."
Edwards said it's not just Iraq that is in chaos and in need of moral leadership from the United States. He said the United States should be leading an end to genocide in Sudan and to atrocities in northern Uganda. He also said the country should provide universal health care for all and end its dependence on foreign oil. He said he would tax oil company profits and eliminate President Bush's tax cuts to pay for his priorities.
"We need to ask Americans to be willing to be patriotic about something beyond war," he said. He said that will include a National Call to Action Day on Jan. 27 where Americans can contribute their time to help enroll children in government health care programs, fight for an increase in the minimum wage or other efforts. Edwards also criticized Bush for not doing more to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "If I'd been president, I would have had somebody coming into my office every morning, and I would say to him, 'What did you do in New Orleans yesterday?'" Edwards said.
In his message to supporters, Edwards listed his priorities to change America. Among them: "Guaranteeing health care for every single American," "Strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty," "Leading the fight against global warming," and "Getting America and the world to break our addiction to oil." Asked about how he will compete with Clinton and Obama, Edwards simply encouraged others to run if they want to serve like he does. "I want the best human beings possible to run for president of the United States," Edwards said. "We need a great president in 2009 because of all the problems and the challenges that we face."
Edwards has positioned himself as a serious contender. He's been strengthening his ties to labor and other Democratic activists behind the scenes, rebuilding a top-notch campaign staff and honing his skills. The efforts have made him the leading candidate in early polls of Iowa Democrats who will get the first say in the nomination fight. Edwards' advisers scheduled a six-state announcement tour between Christmas and New Year's Day with the hopes that news would be slow and he could dominate media coverage. Over three days, Edwards also planned to travel to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and his home state of North Carolina.
Edwards kicked off his campaign at the home of Orelia Tyler, 54, who has been living in a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer in her yard while her home was rebuilt. Edwards' challenge over the next year will be to show that he can keep up with front-runners Clinton and Obama, should they get in the race, in terms of fundraising and support. Unlike officeholders who may run, Edwards does not have a federal campaign account and will have to start raising money from scratch.
In 1998, in his first bid for public office, Edwards defeated incumbent Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N. C. A leading advocate for impeachment of President Clinton. Edwards launched a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and quickly caught the eye of Democratic strategists. Although he won only the South Carolina primary, his skills on the trail, his cheerful demeanor, and his message of "two Americas" - one composed of the wealthy and privileged, and the other of the hardworking common man - excited voters, especially independents and moderate-leaning Democrats.
As America heads to the polls again.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMmM4o83KhI&eurl=[/url]
Too much. LOL
[QUOTE=Thomaso276]I have had women bosses in my career! Mostly idiots who can't make decisions but sure can Monday Morning Quaterback.
What a fucking disaster for the country if this know-it-all gets in.
Of course, Christina will be running things down here in a couple of years as well.[/QUOTE]I don't have anything against a woman president in theory. Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister the UK has had in the last 60 years. But just as I wouldn't vote for a candidate just because he's a man, neither do I see any serious woman presidential candidates who would attract my vote - especially not just because they don't have Y chromosomes.
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]I consider him the best President of my lifetime! A tragic loss.[/QUOTE]We all gotta go sometime. The death of a 93 year old isn't a "tragic loss." He was blessed to live as long as he did and to retain his faculties to the end.
As president, he was a forgettable historical footnote whose principal achievement was his much-attacked pardon of Richard Nixon, which was the political equivalent of hara-kiri, but which was absolutely necessary.
[QUOTE=Papa Benito]He led us out of the traumas of Watergate and Viet Nam. He could work amiably with all, including Congress, yet still was able to veto 66 spending bills. He pursued foreign policy with a consensus. He favored limited government. He saw the best in people.[/QUOTE]De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
He took a nice fall and if I recall gave Chevy Chase a career boost.
Without attempting to demean President Ford during this time of mourning for many people I do wish to post a different perspective.
Not sure how he could be considered a great or even excellent president. He may have become one given time but even that is an unknow. He only had 2 years in office, did not have time or the opportunity to develop either a domestic or foreign policy.
However, he was the kind of politician that both sides could talk with and respect because he was a centrist. I voted for him and not Carter-at the time I was a Republican.
He is and will always be known as the president who pardoned Nixon--who's actions were clearly criminal. I have strong opinions about that!
And based on an enlightening article in interview Bob Woodward had with President Ford in 2005, Ford admitted that his real reason for giving Nixon a pardon was that he was his 'great' friend. He obsiously used the reason that it was 'for the good of the country- to heal us all' to sell his decision (refer to the Washington Post article by Bob Woodward this week-as reprinted in my local paper)
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=Stowe]
Not sure how he could be considered a great or even excellent president. He may have become one given time but even that is an unknow. He only had 2 years in office, did not have time or the opportunity to develop either a domestic or foreign policy. [/QUOTE]Just change the name here to read: John F. Kennedy.
[QUOTE=STOWE](refer to the Washington Post article by Bob Woodward this week-as reprinted in my local paper)[/QUOTE]Just because you read it in the Washington Post doesn't make it so - the same goes for it coming from Woodward's lips or finger tips.
[QUOTE=Stowe]
He is and will always be known as the president who pardoned Nixon--who's actions were clearly criminal. I have strong opinions about that! [/QUOTE]So?
Absolutely no good for the country would have come from having Nixon in the dock, being worked over by eager lawyers each out for their pound of flesh. The pardon was a Solomonic act, which is now admitted even by the most virulent of Nixon-haters.
I disagree. Nixon was a criminal and all his pardon indicated that being connected to the powerful lets criminals get away with criminal acts.
Everyone should face punishment for their criminal-everyone regardless of how rich or powerful they are.
I think this country would have survived his trial unless you think this country is so frail, so weak, to have collapsed under such an inquiry.
I supported Nixon back then but having learned more over the years have realized just how dangerous he was. I would definitely question the statement that "admitted even by the most virulent of Nixon-haters". There is absolutely no way to prove that so it leaves it a nothing more than a subjective claim.
And while I agree that one cannot believe everything they read (and I absolutely do not) I think it is safe to say that Bob Woodward is above reproach-I would like proof that he is some left-wing commie out to take down any/all Republicans. Of course, just the fact that he is part of the media automatically makes him a left-wing commie Democrat to many Republicans.
Ahh, the Republican propaganda machine over the last 20 years has done such a good job of brainwashing. In all honesty I am greatly impressed with that Republican machine-that all taxes are bad, all regulation is bad, big government is bad (yet they want THEIR big government to make constitutional amendments to regulate marriage, burning the flag, control what happens in the bedroom, a woman's right to choose). A bit hypocritical to me.
Show me that Woodword is such a person and I will definitely re-evalute my observation. His first book about Bush was fairly supported of the President.
Have to agree that the Kennedy situation was the same regarding the length of time in office- but why bring that up, I didn't? Kennedy took office through an election so he was prepared with a staff and a foreign & domestic policy which Ford did not have the opportunity to do. While it is just my opinion, Kennedy was more successful in his 2 years than Ford's primarily because of the Cuban missile crisis.
Interesting discussion.
Suerte.
Stowe
Reagan was the best president since WW2.
Reagan was the best before ww2 remember FDR and Truman let Russia take over half the world. This was the biggest mistake of all. Reagan corrected it while giving us an economy that Bush and Clinton rode.
[QUOTE=Stowe]I supported Nixon back then but having learned more over the years have realized just how dangerous he was. I would definitely question the statement that "admitted even by the most virulent of Nixon-haters". There is absolutely no way to prove that so it leaves it a nothing more than a subjective claim.
Ahh, the Republican propaganda machine over the last 20 years has done such a good job of brainwashing. [/QUOTE]I guess Karl Rove and the other evil Republican brain-washers have gotten to Teddy Kennedy too.
[quote=Teddy Kennedy]At a time of national turmoil, America was fortunate that it was Gerald Ford who took the helm of the storm-tossed ship of state. Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute former President Nixon. So President Ford made a courageous decision, one that historians now say cost him his office, and he pardoned Richard Nixon.
I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement.[/quote][url]http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Gerald+Ford/Remarks+by+Senator+Edward+M.+Kennedy.htm[/url]
Of course, Stowe displays the dangerous thing about haters - their passion and anger clouds their judgment.
Hunt.
Aren't you a bit hypocritical? Are you not the person who has got into a flame war with someone you posted as being a fag, a gay? If that isn't hate, what is? That was a personal and inflamatory attack, something I try to avoid by sticking to the issue. But I guess if you are unable to stick to the issue (and have nothing to support your position) you attack. As you did with me in your last post by avoiding a discussion and posting an inflammatory accusation as in: "Of coure, Stowe displays the dangerous thing about haters - their passion and anger clouds their judgment".
You just made an ass out of yourself with you last post. At least I can state that I have been open minded and flexible enough to have been both a Republican (until I was 38) and a Democrat, changing my party when they went in a radical direction - either party. I suspect that such flexibility and open mindedness are not in your parlance. Thus, the fact that I will not stick with a party regardless of their actions / positions (my party right or wrong mentality) indicates that "passion and anger" does not cloud my judgement.
And as usual you either did not read my post or did not wish to understand it-or could not understand. I supported and respected Ford until I read that he let his friendship take precedence over right or wrong. And I would have felt the same way if Nixon had been a Democrat and a Democrat would have pardoned him.
Unlike some people, I believe EVERYONE should be held accountable for their crimes regardless if they are a Republican or Democrat. Obviously, Hunt you do not.
Funny that you should post something that Kennedy stated since I suspect you absolutely detest him. Remember him and Chapaquitic? You will even use a Democrat to protect Nixon (or perhaps any Republican??). Again, the my party right or wrong mentality that the Demos had in the 60's and early 70's.
Just because Kennedy stated his acceptance of the pardon does not make it the word of God or right! I do not care if the Pope pardons him, he got away with a crime. My point was that a crime was committed and Nixon got off. I don't give a damn what Kennedy thinks!
Based on your position regarding the Nixon situation (and many others) any time a President commits a crime he should be pardoned since to hold him accountable will cause undue pain on the country. So in essense, that would make the President untouchable-all powerful. I am sure you did not feel that way with Clinton and Lewinsky?
I have said my piece on this issue. We have completely different points-of-view on this and most issues. That's what keeps things interesting.
Suerte.
Stowe
Posted on Dec. 31, 2006
By Chris Hedges.
Editor's note: The former New York Times Mideast Bureau chief warns that the radical Christian right is coming dangerously close to its goal of co-opting the country's military and law enforcement.
The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement. This effort signals the final and perhaps most deadly stage in the long campaign by the radical Christian right to dismantle America's open society and build a theocratic state. A successful politicization of the military would signal the end of our democracy.
During the past two years I traveled across the country to research and write the book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." I repeatedly listened to radical preachers attack as corrupt and godless most American institutions, from federal agencies that provide housing and social welfare to public schools and the media. But there were two institutions that never came under attack—the military and law enforcement. While these preachers had no interest in communicating with local leaders of other faiths, or those in the community who did not subscribe to their call for a radical Christian state, they assiduously courted and flattered the military and police. They held special services and appreciation days for all four branches of the armed services and for various law enforcement agencies. They encouraged their young men and women to enlist or to join the police or state troopers. They sought out sympathetic military and police officials to attend church events where these officials were lauded and feted for their Christian probity and patriotism. They painted the war in Iraq not as an occupation but as an apocalyptic battle by Christians against Islam, a religion they regularly branded as "satanic." All this befits a movement whose final aesthetic is violence. It also befits a movement that, in the end, would need the military and police forces to seize power in American society.
One of the arguments used to assuage our fears that the mass movement being built by the Christian right is fascist at its core is that it has not yet created a Praetorian Guard, referring to the paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse and eventually plunged ancient Rome into tyranny and despotism. A paramilitary force that operates outside the law, one that sows fear among potential opponents and is capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors, is a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements. Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built paramilitary forces that operated beyond the reach of the law.
And yet we may be further down this road than we care to admit. Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder of Blackwater, the private security firm that has built a formidable mercenary force in Iraq, champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U. S. Military. His employees, in an act as cynical as it is deceitful, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. These mercenary units in Iraq, including Blackwater, contain some 20,000 fighters. They unleash indiscriminate and wanton violence against unarmed Iraqis, have no accountability and are beyond the reach of legitimate authority. The appearance of these paramilitary fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, gave us a grim taste of the future. It was a stark reminder that the tyranny we impose on others we will one day impose on ourselves.
"Contracting out security to groups like Blackwater undermines our constitutional democracy," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Their actions may not be subject to constitutional limitations that apply to both federal and state officials and employees—including First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights to be free from illegal searches and seizures. Unlike police officers they are not trained in protecting constitutional rights and unlike police officers or the military they have no system of accountability whether within their organization or outside it. These kind of paramilitary groups bring to mind Nazi Party brownshirts, functioning as an extrajudicial enforcement mechanism that can and does operate outside the law. The use of these paramilitary groups is an extremely dangerous threat to our rights."
The politicization of the military, the fostering of the belief that violence must be used to further a peculiar ideology rather than defend a democracy, was on display recently when Air Force and Army generals and colonels, filmed in uniform at the Pentagon, appeared in a promotional video distributed by the Christian Embassy, a radical Washington-based organization dedicated to building a "Christian America."
The video, first written about by Jeff Sharlet in the December issue of Harper's Magazine and filmed shortly after 9/11, has led the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to raise a legal protest against the Christian Embassy's proselytizing within the Department of Defense. The video was hastily pulled from the Christian Embassy website and was removed from YouTube a few days ago under threats of copyright enforcement.
Dan Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans affairs, says in the video that his weekly prayer sessions are "more important than doing the job." Maj. Gen. Jack Catton says that his being an adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a "wonderful opportunity" to evangelize men and women setting defense policy. "My first priority is my faith," he says. "I think it's a huge impact. You have many men and women who are seeking God's counsel and wisdom as they advise the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the secretary of defense."
Col. Ralph Benson, a Pentagon chaplain, says in the video: "Christian Embassy is a blessing to the Washington area, a blessing to our capital; it's a blessing to our country. They are interceding on behalf of people all over the United States, talking to ambassadors, talking to people in the Congress, in the Senate, talking to people in the Pentagon, and being able to share the message of Jesus Christ in a very, very important time in our world is winning a worldwide war on terrorism. What more do we need than Christian people leading us and guiding us, so, they're needed in this hour."
The group has burrowed deep inside the Pentagon. It hosts weekly Bible sessions with senior officers, by its own count some 40 generals, and weekly prayer breakfasts each Wednesday from 7 to 7:50 a. M. In the executive dining room as well as numerous outreach events to, in the words of the organization, "share and sharpen one another in their quest to bridge the gap between faith and work."
If the United States falls into a period of instability caused by another catastrophic terrorist attack, an economic meltdown or a series of environmental disasters, these paramilitary forces, protected and assisted by fellow ideologues in the police and military, could swiftly abolish what is left of our eroding democracy. War, with the huge profits it hands to businesses and right-wing interests that often help bankroll the Christian right, could become a permanent condition. And the thugs with automatic weapons, black uniforms and wraparound sunglasses who appeared on street corners in Baghdad and New Orleans could appear on streets across the U. S. Such a presence could paralyze us with fear, leaving us unable to question or protest the closed system and secrecy of an emergent totalitarian state and unable to voice dissent.
"The Bush administration has already come close to painting our current wars as wars against Islam—many in the Christian right apparently have this belief," Ratner said. "If these wars, bad enough as imperial wars, are fought as religious wars, we are facing a very dark age that could go on for a hundred years and that will be very bloody."
Stowe,
Just about all, if not most, world leaders commit (war) crimes, the difference is some get hung for those crimes and some don't. Alot of people right now are talking about Bush and Impeachment, but what is the Democratic leadership doing? Are they trying to impeach him? NO. It would set a dangerous precedent for future US leaders, a future that COULD see them actually being prosecuted for their crimes.
Badboy
Not sure of your point. I think you missed my entire point.
To my knowledge Bush did not commit a crime. True, he was probably unethical and misleading regarding the war but he did not commit a crime that anyone knows of. So I am not in favor of impeachment for the very reason you stated.
Clarify the intent of your post with regards to my position that EVERY criminal regardless of position should pay-assuming a crime was committed.
Suerte.
Stowe
Take a Xanax, amigo. You obviously need one (or two).
Nixon's dead. And I don't think you can dig him up and abuse his corpse. So chill out. When you find yourself in a minority of one, try to stifle the temptation to accuse everybody else of being wrong and stupid. ;)
Stowe,.
All I am saying is it is a bit naive to say every Government Official that ever commited a crime should face judgement. If that were the case, just about every US president and many foreign dignitaries would be on the chopping block. The point is we rarely investigate them, we just take it as a given that Governments Lie. Believe me, Watergate was the least of Nixon's crimes. But anyways, they are dead, we should probably just let sleeping dogs lie.
Badboy
PS Stowe, just some helpful info regarding possible impeachable offenses commited by your fearless leader.
=========================================================
1) The Draft Impeachment Resolution (Abuse of power),
2) Hurricane Katrina (failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens ),
3) Declassifying for political purposes ( Libby had testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq ),
4) Possible involvement in the CIA leak (CIA leak grand jury investigation),
5) Foreged Niger uranium documents (Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited an attempted yellowcake purchase from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee),
6) Treatment of detainees (Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse , Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions, and Command responsibility , Guantanamo ),
7) Extraordinary rendition (Extraordinary rendition and United Nations Convention Against Torture : No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture)
8) Unlawful combatant status (The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the Global War on Terror. Per the War Crimes Act of 1996, any US national who "commits a war crime [e.g., violates CA3] shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... , and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." )
9) U.N. Charter (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. Such would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies)
10)Justification for invasion (Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time: "The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories )
11) NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (In the context of the War on Terror, President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it may violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens, including electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation. In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution, to bypass FISA. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court majority held that neither the AUMF nor the president's role as Commander-in-Chief trumps explicit federal law, in this case the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Presumably the same would hold for FISA. )
=====================================================
Do you want me to continue, or do you get the point? I am not advocating impeachment, because I think it is pointless, but there are many people in the US and in the world that have very valid reasons for calling Bush and his administration criminals. I only posted this because you asked for it and with your last naive post you actually stated you knew nothing about Bush's possible crimes, You would have had to not turn on the TV or watch a news program for the last 4 years for this to be true.
Some do pay a price for their crimes.
[url] http://one.revver.com/watch/130549 [/url]
Sorry to disagree but if we as a nation truely live under "the rule of law" the politicians so often quote (which is hypocritical to say the least for most of them-Rep and Demo alike) then EVERYONE should be held accountable.
I, and almost every other average citizen, certainly would not be granted immunity from criminal acts such as you are suggesting. If it is illegal for me and all other citizens and we would pay for such a crime, so should all politicans.
To merely excuse their illegal actions as "just normal for politicans or everybody else does it" is incomprehensionable to me. So because they are all doing it, they should not be held accountable?
As a realist I know most politicans commit crimes but if they get caught they should pay. Just like the Democrat Senator who was found with $90000 in his safe that he took as a bribe. You are suggesting they should not pay that they should be excused like a child who is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Thanks for the list. I am as fully aware as you of the actions and possible crimes of Bush even though some of those you point out are not and never have been criminal-unethical perhaps. However, I did not say Bush was innocent of any crimes. He has not been charged, found guilty and / or admitted to his actions. If he is ever found guilty of commiting a crime he should pay. You and I certainly would.
I am not in favor of impeaching a President for incompetence (I. E. Katrina) but if they abused their power criminally, or broke laws that were in the area of being felonies-they pay. Otherwise, we don't really live in a real democracy where the "rule of law" really means squat.
Regarding your entire reply to my initial post that was generally directed at Hunt. Please indicate where I mentioned Bush and / or where I mentioned the word impeachment, even by implication? I never did so I do not have any idea how you could make such a leap based on my posts.
Suerte.
Stowe
Mongers-
I am about as left wing as they come but I will be the first one to tell you that Ted Kennedy should have served hard time for his cowardly actions at Chappaquidic (sp) It is not realistic for all politicans to go to jail when they break the law, however, they should be publicly censured, disgraced and receive a hefty financial penalty (fines, liens against future earnings resulting from their infamy)
Bush and his neo-con puppetmasters should be tried for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity for their conduct of the War on Terror and their violations of the Geneva Conventions. Clinton should be tried for Crimes Against Humanity as well, for starving millions of Iraqi children to death with the economic embargo, and for failing to act in Rwanda. George Bush Sr. And Reagan should be sent to The Hague to answer for their crimes resulting for their activities in supporting, facilitating and funding several despotic dictatorships throughout Latin America in their roles as CIA Director and President. Most experts agree that had the USA and the UK lost WWII, their leaders would have undoubtedly been tried for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity for the unwarranted firebombings of entirely-civilian cities such as Dresden and Tokyo, among others incidents.
The US has conducted a foreign policy based on exploitation and savage butchery for decades, and it is this arrogant, short-sighted, irresponsible, and inhumane foreign policy that has led much of the world to simply despise the US Government, and as a result, US citizens.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
There is much that you write that I agree with.
Suerte.
Stowe
[QUOTE=Dirk Diggler]
The US has conducted a foreign policy based on exploitation and savage butchery for decades, and it is this arrogant, short-sighted, irresponsible, and inhumane foreign policy that has led much of the world to simply despise the US Government, and as a result, US citizens.[/QUOTE]I've been to just about every corner of this planet (not all of them, admittedly). I've met maybe one or two people who "despise" US citizens. Most people who have learned that I'm an American citizen have been pleasant, friendly, and hospitable.
What I've found much more common are US citzens who engage in self-hatred, and who, deep down, despise themselves and where they come from. It's an odd trait, but it exists nonetheless. I think it stems from a feeling of guilt that some people have which develops because they have things so good, and don't have any pressing needs except perhaps getting Mom and Dad to send more money to school to buy more weed, leading to excessive self-absorbtion and navel-gazing.
I have also been to just about every corner of the world and have heard differing opinions, I would be lying if I said only two opinions were disdainful towards US citizens. But the truth is US citizens get off the hook in general, I am constantly told foreigners hate our government, they hate Bush, they hate his administration, they hate what our military does around the world at the order of immoral leaders, but they generally give US citizens a pass, they usually ask me how we could have elected such people. But more often than not, we US citizens aren't getting that free pass, people are starting to understand that WE elect these people fully knowing their agenda, and therfore are guilty by association. Do I think this is fair? No and yes, No because I for one do not agree with what my government does, and yes because as a citizen of a country I AM responsible for what my government does around the world.
In regards to Self-Hate, I have to say that is not a very thoughtful statement, it is like saying an alcoholic who one day wakes up and realizes he has a problem and admits he is an alcoholic and drinks too much and hangs out at bars too much is somehow practicing self hate. That is BS. If anything, the person who admits he has a serious problem is practicing self love (not in the Exon way) and is on the road to recovery, those stuck in denial are the ones with a real problem.
===========================================================
Definition:
Self-hatred literally refers to an extreme dislike of oneself, or being angry at oneself.
Accusations of self-hatred are sometimes alleged to be used as an ad hominem attack in order to try and discredit a person the accuser disagrees with.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8cd7d8804b[/url]
ROFLMAO
Pizza chain sparks debate by accepting pesos.
Hate mail follows promotion — management says it's serving customers.
AP reports.
Updated: 4:40 p. M. ET Jan. 11, 2007
DALLAS - A pizza chain has been hit with death threats and hate mail after offering to accept Mexican pesos, becoming another flashpoint in the nation's debate over immigrants. "This is the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico," one e-mail read. "Quit catering to the damn illegal Mexicans," demanded another. Dallas-based Pizza Patron said it was not trying to inject itself into a larger political debate about illegal immigration when it posted signs this week saying "Aceptamos pesos" — or "We accept pesos" — at its 59 stores across Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California. Pizza Patron spokesman Andy Gamm said the company was just trying to sell more pizza to its customers, 60 percent of whom are Hispanic.
Wal-Mart, H-E-B supermarkets and other American businesses in towns along the Mexican border accept pesos. And some busineses in New York and Minnesota communities along the northern border accept Canadian dollars. He difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles. "If people would understand that the majority of our customers are Hispanic, then it might make more sense for a company to sell pizza for pesos," Gamm said. "It doesn't make sense in Connecticut. And it doesn't make sense in North Dakota or in Maine. But it makes perfect sense here in Dallas, in Phoenix, in Denver — areas far from the border that have significant Hispanic populations."
While praising the pesos plan as an innovative way to appeal to Hispanics, a partner in the nation's largest Hispanic public relations firm said a backlash was inevitable. "Right now there's a lot of anti-immigrant rhetoric going around that could make them a lightning rod," said Patricia Perez, a partner at Valencia, Perez & Echeveste in Los Angeles. Pizza Patron proclaims on its Web site that "to serve the Hispanic community is our passion." Its restaurants are in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods, and each manager must be bilingual and live nearby, said Pizza Patron founder Antonio Swad, who is part-Italian, part-Lebanese. The take-home menus are in both English and Spanish, and the dishes include the La Mexicana pizza, with spicy chorizo sausage; La Barbacoa pizza, topped with spicy pulled pork; and chicken wings flavored with lime, peppers and garlic con queso.
Many Pizza Patron customers have pesos "sitting in their sock drawers or in their wallets," Gamm said. "We're talking small amounts, where it would be inconvenient to stop and exchange on the way back — maybe 10 or 20 dollars' worth of pesos." The promotion will run through the end of February and then be re-evaluated, Swad said. In the first week, payments in pesos have accounted for about 10 percent of business at the five restaurants operated by the corporation, Pizza Patron said. The others are franchised, and the company will not get reports until the end of the week.
The company has set a conversion rate of 12 pesos per dollar, which is slightly higher than the official rate of about 11 pesos per dollar. Any change is given in U. S. Currency. At a Pizza Patron in Dallas, Veronica Verges bought a pizza Wednesday for her son Nathan's fourth birthday. She paid with pesos her father brought home two weeks ago after a trip to see family in Mexico.
"I would mostly think a restaurant would do this in a border town," she said. "But it got me over here."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just love the fact that most of the places I travel to in Europe and Latin America, they generaly always accept my US currency (though some places like Madahos give you a shitty exchange rate of 2.90, and I am sure most US travelers enjoy this as well. I wonder what all the home grown phobia is about? Sending hate mail because some food chains that do business in states bordering mexico and have a 60% or more mexican client base are accepting mexican pesos? Pathetic if you ask me. I love the fact that I can eat, shop, and take taxi's and even pay for poon tang with US currency here in BA. It is just convenient sometimes. When I run out of pesos and the ATM is just too far away I am always glad I can pull out my spare 20 dollar bills and get by. Someone needs to give these freaks a wake up call.
Badboy
There ain't no help for those pathetic, xenophobic assholes.
[QUOTE=Badboy13]
I just love the fact that most of the places I travel to in Europe and Latin America, they generaly always accept my US currency (though some places like Madahos give you a shitty exchange rate of 2.90, and I am sure most US travelers enjoy this as well. I wonder what all the home grown phobia is about? Sending hate mail because some food chains that do business in states bordering mexico and have a 60% or more mexican client base are accepting mexican pesos? Pathetic if you ask me. I love the fact that I can eat, shop, and take taxi's and even pay for poon tang with US currency here in BA. It is just convenient sometimes. When I run out of pesos and the ATM is just too far away I am always glad I can pull out my spare 20 dollar bills and get by. Someone needs to give these freaks a wake up call.
Badboy[/QUOTE]Argentina doesn't have 14 million illegal aliens from the US.
Whole states are virtually bankrupt caring for those illegals. Hospitals by the hundreds are either bankrupt or have closed their emergency rooms because of illegals. About one-quarter of the criminals in jail in the US are illegals. The last time I was in court for a traffic ticket in my county, over a third of the defendants were obviously illegals, unable to speak English. And I live 1500 miles from the Mexican border.
I think these facts have something to do with the difference in treatment you observe between Mexican pesos and US dollars.
More power to this pizza chain if they want to accept Mexican pesos, euros, yen, or even australs. This was a publicity stunt by the company, and they have succeeded in their goal, wouldn't you agree?
My friend you have overlooked the real reason nearly all countries accept the US Greenback: It is one of the primary currencies in the business world and the peso is damn sure not!
"The last time I was in court for a traffic ticket in my county, over a third of the defendants were obviously illegals"
Sounds like a good place for Immigration to set up. Doing checks would be legal because the ticket is an infraction which can carry ciminal penalty. Local PD and Sheriffs really have no way of knowing whether someone is illegal as their computer checks are run for warrants only.
So after the first sweep in traffic court word would get out, illegal folks would stop going to traffic court, the tickets would turn into warrants for failure to pay or appear, the warrants would be enforced, proper ID would be needed for release on bond, without it the corrrections people would be calling INS, presto - back to Mexico.
Problem solved!
I have to comment on this. I am a Democrat and liberal in many areas but cannot fathom how anyone can support illegal immigration-it is illegal which is why it is called illegal immigration. If this law is to be ignored why not others? Why not all laws?
The US permits the most legal immigration of any country in the world and I have no problem with that and controlled legal immigration. Every country has the right to protect it's border, way of life, etc.
But to support or justify illegal immigration just amazes me. I support the Republican position on this. There should be no amnesty. In 1984 Regan approved amnesty for about 4 million illegals and look what we face now- about 14-20 million.
If they are given amnest there will be 40 million in another 20 years demanding amnesty.
We are suppose to be a country of laws and to just ignore this law because there are people in other countries that are poor and want to work is no excuse.
In reality, nearly every person on this planet dreams of living here because of the jobs, way of life, etc. I am not sure, but I do not think this country could support 7 billion people.
Even now Europe is struggling with illegal immigration and their proposed actions include everything but amnesty. They did that about 20 years ago and regret it today.
Suerte.
Stowe