He took it so seriously that we got to watch the Davidians go up in flames, the Federal Building in Ok blow up, the Cole get bombed, the WTC attacked (the first time, REMEMBER THAT???). Now these are just a few examples. Seems Clinton took terroism so seriously that when offered Osama on 3 seperate occasions he flat out refused. Yep, he took it pretty seriously. I lay blame for 9/11 squarely on Clinton. Like?
Most of what he's done, do you think he would have gotten support for Afghanistan for instance w/o 9/11...I remember the lead up to that, the during and the after...Even pro Bush Republicans were stating the truth, the war would have never happened w/o 911. Iraq as well perhaps that you appear to love. After all Bush himself uses 9/11 as the reason in almost every speach for anything he does on the 'war on terror' to gather public support, the list goes on and on and on. Patriot Act as well...hmmmmm yeah it's almost logical to come up to the conclusion 9/11 did not give Bush the support and power to do most of what he's done. This was foreign terror? wow didn't know that. Neither of these examples are even close to 9/11, I'm not backing Clinton up but what did Bush do BEFORE 9/11? Yes, but there is more to that story even isn't there?
You really are clueless aren't you. This war isn't for the average joe citizen. It's for the government and the oil companies. Maybe you forgot again how much the oil companies profited in 2005? I believe it was in the tens of BILLIONS of dollars. You think we pay 3 times the price becuase of "oil shortgages" , we pay it because the oil companies can make us pay it. I guess you've also forgot how much Bush benefited from this war with his second election and power to trample the constitution because of morons like you supporting him.
Despite that still claim to be waiting for more information. The point by point basis would surely make one think harder about the position they have taken, but haven't yet taken. From the original NYT article is where I'm getting information. It has much more info and the admission of who the targets were, albeit reluctantly, in the pre-book sales article they wrote. I posted and bolded the content numerous times that highlighted such. It appears the version above is a much smaller version without the original full details. There is a lot of ambiguity that can be challenging to decipher. My position remains the same...I don't think going after terrorists is a bad thing, other presidents have had and used the same authority and our government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. The program has been successful in capturing terrorists here in the US. Had this been going on prior to 9/11, we would have 3000 less victims of terrorism today. I fail to see how any of that could be a bad thing. Of course, I do take into account the conditional position...the "if" {condition exists} then "this position" else "that position"
Any idea where that oil is? Oil prices go up, blame Bush. Oil prices go down, where are the usual "Bush controls oil prices" nutjobs? Hiding, of course. What's the price of gas these days? What part of the constitution is being trampled? Got rice?
I have taken my position on what I will support and will not support, I unlike you want the full story... As far as the point by point, to many of the items we're leading out of the grasp of the overall case/argument from items you had taken out of context, why I felt it better to start from scratch. Yes and even you have an 'if' do you not, or are you simply going to allow the president do whatever he feels fit? I guess if you are then you'd have supported hitler,,,w/o an 'if' that's exactly what you're saying. It comes down to what is legal under the constitution, you appear to have no problem with the president breaking the constituion, I however do. Other presidents have used 'similiar' tactics, of which have been unconstitutional, I am sure you jest that those are ok?
We invaded Vietnam for rice! No war for rice! No blood for rice! Let's invade Wisconsin next, I like cheese.
lol, I got a kick out of that...We're some angry farmers you know armed to the teeth with pitch forks.
Yeah I guess any savings would be immeditatly passed on to the consumers. if gas is expensive that is proof that we wouldn't invade a country for oil? Are you freaking retarded, its not about getting cheap prices now, it about securing a supply for the future, our entire existence is based on oil, invading a country to secure a future supply it , probably when weighted against the possible effects of not having oil, seems like a small price to some, specifically the people in charge of our country.
That's not quite factual. You seem to be taking the position that the constitution is being broken, quite often. Yet still hanging on the conditional approach. Almost as if arguing against it one way, but reminding readers that "just in case" it happens another way, you have a backup position. Is that not the case? I've mentioned no ifs or conditions. The NYT book sales article covered who the targets were. Terrorists. They didn't mention Auntie Helen from Iowa, whose knitting club was being monitored. The mentioned terrorists. There is no reference to allowing the president to do anything he wants to do. It is clear who the targets were, therefore I can make a stand on the position without waivering from one side to another. While some may equate to going after terrorists as "hitleresque," I fail to see the comparison, other than a grasping for straws. Which further validates my claim just above that you have taken a position already, and that you believe the constitution was violated, even after I've repeatedly posted the law that says it is legal. It is no wonder I cannot decipher what you are trying to say. On one hand, it is conditional: if {condition exists} then "position one" else "position two." But here you are suggesting you have already taken a position and that the president has broken the constitution. Without even noting what part of the constitution you feel is broken. Saying it doesn't make it so. I've yet, though mentioned several times now, to see any such evidence, other than you simply saying it. But, as I have said several times, presidents have a responsibility to protect our country and I take no issue with past presidents using their legal authority to do such. I fail to see who going after terrorists, who the NYT specifically mentioned, is a bad thing. You weren't serious about Clinton did more to fight terrorism than Bush statement were you? I cannot even imagine that you would be that uninformed. Perhaps you didn't really mean that one?
What's not factual is what you keep trying to interpret. At this point I do not see a problem with what is in the story, I however doubt its' the full story. I have listed on how I would not support it and how I would. It's almost like you're trying to find a reason to argue about Exactly you are taking the story for the full truth, which I highly doubt it is the full truth and I want to know the full story, I have stated this over and over and over and over again. There of course is an 'if' unless again you're stating you'd support the president no matter what the full story of what was going on is? Again you are making up stories as you go along. As the article is as so far I DO NOT see any breaks of the constitution, I do not feel it is the full story, how you've filling in the blanks with your own side of things on how I feel I do not understand Maybe you need to read the entire post of events then perhaps? I already listed just one, which shows the supreme court stating certain items unconstitutional, you can't honestly believe the president has the power to break the constitution by him/herself? The president has a duty to protect the homeland, he/she also has the duty to obide by the constitution.... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=514423&postcount=3643 This was about the Clinton executive order btw....Just because other presidents have used executive orders before does not mean they broke the constitution, nor am I saying Bush has.............. Bush before 9/11 you better bet I'm serious, what did Bush do BEFORE 9/11 might I ask?
he was worrying about the oppressed people of the middle east, trying to think of way to make their lives better
Ah, what reason would we have had to go into Afghanistan if not for 9/11? What is your point? Sure, the war would never have happened if we had not been first attacked on 9/11. Who is arguing that? This is after all a war. Again, there is a war going on. Like, hello... Do you really think we would have invaded Iraq if there was no 9/11? Is that what you are trying to imply? What did he do in reference to what? Can you put your question into some reasonable context? What on earth are you trying to ask here? More to what story? Where are you going with this? I feel like a dog chasing its tail right now. You are going in circles.
If being clueless means I do not subscribe to repeating liberal rhetoric and get excited by the re-writing of history, I guess I am then. Too funny... Of course they profited. People used more gas, they charged more, and they made more. Sounds like Econ 101 to me. Nope, I pay 3 times the norm because of TAXES goofy. Ok, I see where you are going with this. Yet another Bush hater. No rational thought here. CLICK... Next caller please. Man, I really need a call screener. I should write a script for V-bulletin that screens posts by weighting them based on certain criterion. This way maybe I can save time otherwise wasted wading through a quagmire of liberal trite.
I'm simply following along the various positions you are taking. The conditional for it/against it, eluding to breaking the constitution without showing how or where it was, etc. It's quite ambiguous and does take quite a bit of effort to decipher between the positions and the conditional positions. But I'm trying my best to understand your positions. I'm taking the pre-book sales article for what it says...that terrorists were the targets. That is what it said, isn't it? It's not my story to make up, it's the NYTs who sold out our country for a few dollars. The article didn't suggest it wasn't the full story. It said the targets were terrorists, though it was buried under much hype. This goes back to my last post, that you have already made up you mind by the numerous (almost every post now) that the president did break the constitution. Much ambiguity. Based upon the NYT article and the law regarding such, which I've previously posted several times, I do not believe the constitution was violated nor have I seen anyone do anything other than continuously suggest it has, without any information to back it up. Thank you. I knew I was missing this post somewhere. It helps clear things up much better for me. As I read, I note that the article by Carol W. LaGrasse covers police actions regarding drug cases. It makes no mention at all of an executive order issued by a president, but rather police actions. The executive order by Clinton refers to Foriegn Intelligence, the same as that of the Bush Administration and that of the Carter Administration. These are two very different LEA branches. Police and the NSA. I think mia already covered that. Sadly though, the 9/11 Commission (and others, however indirectly) have criticized our governement for NOT doing the very same thing...monitoring suspected terrorists. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some people are never pleased. Of course, anyone with a first grade education would note the massive difference between eight years of doing nothing and Sandy Berger getting caught trying to hide doing nothing, vs. a few months into the office. How many years did that plan go undetected by the Clinton administration? How many times did they let bin laden go? How many times did they take action? How many times were we attacked (don't amuse me with the "on American soil condition, please!)?
Bush has some secret underground tanks at the White House. I hear he spends his free time showing his friends the holding tanks while shocking the "Real" Saddams testes in his private torture chamber.
You may have to invade NY first. We lost our dairy title to NY several years ago ;( They cheese is still better here IMHO.
No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night. If that were true, then the ANWAR would be open to drilling.