Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

Probably because he did no good in that respect, as well as almost every other blundering attempt at meddling with things. Had he done something useful with his presidency, I would most cetainly be taking my son to the top of the WTC like I did when I was his age.

Thank God for term limits.

 

I don't doubt the timing and will not dispute the timing is odd, but be realistic if it was rushed out the door Bush supporters would be bitching about the rush and lack of fact checking would they not? Or are you telling me seriously if they rushed it out you would of had no objection to the timing at all of when they did it? To the point of which you'd down play and dispute someone on your own side stating such?

It's easy to find any coinsidence of the timing be it a book release, election, presidential approval, etc if you realy want to

 

The story never should have been printed, nor should it have been leaked. Those that leaked it should be tried for treason, so to those that printed it.

 

Not backing up Clinton but what was Bush doing before 9/11 exactly, and what gave Bush the power to do what he's done since 9/11 exactly? Hmm not 9/11 itself of course.

 

Why is that exactly? If the government is possibly breaking the law we as citizens don't have a right to know about it? Funny I would think those to be charged would be the other way around, if that turns out to be the case.

 

ferret:

That skimming is become quite annoying.

You recently asked a question that had just been answered.

You followed that poor behavior up by asking another question and then never reading the answer.

That behavior is extremely impolite.

 

Hmmmm, well he just got into office. Late I might add because some big whinning cry baby loser constested an election he knew he clearly lost.

Then he has to rely on all this intelligence or lack there of from the Clinton admin. I mean when he got into the White House let us not forget that the place was so vandalized it took nearly 4 months to redo the computer network, offices, etc. Then a couple months later you have 9/11.

Your point is what now?

 

I think you already know the answer to that.

 

Ok so your point is that you honestly don't have a reason pre 9/11, thanks for sharing.

 

No why don't you grace us with the reasoning, after all it's a pretty big charge.

 

You're a nut job. The only one that should be getting charged is Cowboy George and his pals in the white house breaking everyday citizens constitutional rights .

 

sorry willy I will have to read back and answer your questions,

I noticed i missed this part

muhahah, thats funny, too bad all the money and the majority of the people is in the "liberal infested cities"

Maybe we can come to defend you if al queda is ever interested in bombing trailer parks or grain silos

 

oh yeah and will I think the whole, create a better middle east reason for the iraq war, is just anther onion skin on the onion that is reason we invaded Iraq, we invaded for the oil. pure and simple

Your rationale is jsut the rationale of the more indoctrinated, GW and crew wanted to go to war with Iraq before 911 , and noboby really gave a shit about the people of the middle east until they attacked us. I mean honestly, if they sell us cheap oil we don't care what they do their people, saudi arabia is shining example of that,

So as honorable and far sighted as your explaination sounds, i think its just another wrapper around the truth, we want the oil , we will kill , invade , whatever to get that oil.

 

So with an "if" there is no certainty? I don't need a condition to take a solid position on what the treason article said. The targets were terrorists and that's what the NSA was monitoring. It does not cite abuses, nor does it mention any other groups. The government was doing it's job in protecting citizens and did protect Americans from terrorist plots. There is no if. That's not a bad thing in my book and I don't need "ifs" to try and justify that fact. I only wish 3000 other people had a government doing the same thing prior to 9/11, as another plot we're all aware of could have been thwarted.

As I said several times, I didn't see that post. Was it heresay, or a source? So you are for terrorists having rights, if they are US Citizens, and they should have the right to blow up our country without getting caught?

Oh, that's what it was...and invitation for enlightenment! OK, I'll go along with that

I thought you didn't have a position on this yet though? Didn't the treason article say who were the targets? I'm not arguing FOR Bush, as there are a number of things he's done that I've not been pleased with, however, I fail to see that going after terrorists is a bad thing. I don't consider my argument failed in the least bit. If anything, I'd think it a hard position to take, knowing the targets were terrorists, but still trying to defend their right to blow our country up. That's a sucky argument to try and make, isn't it?

I think I got it! Terrorists should have rights! That is who the treason article said were the targets, correct? Is there something new out that says otherwise?

Didn't the treason article written to sell a book and stop the patriot act point out it was terrorists that were the target? Is there new information released that it was in fact Auntie Helen in Iowa's knitting club that was the target? Or was it terrorists? Wasn't it also restricted to domestic to international calls? Didn't it also mention domestic to domestic obtained warrants? Gee, what's the fuss?

I don't know that it was ruled unconstitutional. I've not seen that information. I have seen the order and did see information about how it was used in the OKC bombing. But, since I stand firm in my position, I don't need to downplay it for either of the three presidents. Afterall, they were doing their jobs protecting American citizens, right?

What's destroyed? Saying it is, doesn't make it so. Afterall, you say there isn't enough information to make a decision, but it surely looks as though you already have.

Didn't read the full article? As I recall, those that didn't pose a threat were removed from the list.

There are some that pretend there are no tradeoffs, no costs, to putting legal absolutism over national security. What right do you suggest was not afforded these terrorists? Didn't you previously say you didn't have enough information to make that judgement call? It sounds like you already have.

Remind me again what the article said? International to domestic calls were monitored, domestic to domestic did get warrants.

Hmm, an entire Act, the one mentioned above, says it's legal, yet no one can show where it goes against the constitution. Imagine that!

 

No prob man, enjoying the debate!

 

Instead of getting in a point to point basis, I think you know my feeling on the subject now..

However what you just stated above isn't fully factual, this is why I am waiting for the entire story.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-eavesdropping-calls.html

If it ends up being that it was purely for international, I can see the aspects of course of an international call coming into the US to a citizen as in effect there is one Non US citizen on the line and in reality that could be the person being 'tapped' w/o a warrant. I would still support that, I do however have issues where it comes to purely domestic...AKA US citizen, once the foreign enters the aspect that does take away the US citizen protection IMO...Hope that makes it a bit clearer on my stance. As I see now how both I could be confused on your position and how you could be confused on mine.

 

I answered the question pretty clearly. Perhaps re-reading might help.

 

So in other words excuses? How come everything I've read pre 9/11 Clinton took terrorism more seriously than Bush?

You also failed to answer the part of much of what Bush has done and was able to do was because of 9/11.

 

Just the kind of comment I would expect from a yo-yo...

More trolls.....

 

Hillarious. My 3rd grade teacher tried to convince me that we were in Vietnam for the same reason. It's getting a bit old. Oil? Funny.... I'll remember that tonight was I pay 3 times the norm for gas again.

Oil... You crack me up man.