State Of The Union Address

[DETMURDS]

Great job by our wonderful President!

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=404

[IntheNet]

Great job by our wonderful President!

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=404


I agree... I think the president cited just the right topics and gave a very good assessment of the nation. I give Bush high marks for this State of the Union address. He devoted just the right amount of time to domestic and international issues.

As predicted, the Democrat response was a little short on substance. Delivered by newbie senator Webb from Virginia, he cited his and his party's objection to the policies of this administration but lacked any alternative. After SOTU address, comments by Senators was interesting. If the House or the Senate passes a non-binding vote against troop surge in Iraq, that will be a real slap at soldiers and if Democrat majority cuts funding, that will really hurt them...

In any event, I was impressed by GWB...

[Jaguar Rick]

I agree... I think the president cited just the right topics and gave a very good assessment of the nation. I give Bush high marks for this State of the Union address. He devoted just the right amount of time to domestic and international issues.

As predicted, the Democrat response was a little short on substance. Delivered by newbie senator Webb from Virginia, he cited his and his party's objection to the policies of this administration but lacked any alternative. After SOTU address, comments by Senators was interesting. If the House or the Senate passes a non-binding vote against troop surge in Iraq, that will be a real slap at soldiers and if Democrat majority cuts funding, that will really hurt them...

In any event, I was impressed by GWB...
IntheNet, You are easily impressed. Do you think anything the President says or does is not correct. You think his SOTU speech gave anymore alternatives than the President's. Let's see...you agree that we should escalate an already failed policy in Iraq? Ever notice every proposal Bush makes takes effect after he leaves office? Why aren't you disgusted with his proposal to tax healthcare benefits? Oh, I get it, you are only against taxes if they are from Dems. You are very predictable IntheNet.

[BigBuddhaPup]

IntheNet, You are easily impressed. Do you think anything the President says or does is not correct. You think his SOTU speech gave anymore alternatives than the President's. Let's see...you agree that we should escalate an already failed policy in Iraq? Ever notice every proposal Bush makes takes effect after he leaves office? Why aren't you disgusted with his proposal to tax healthcare benefits? Oh, I get it, you are only against taxes if they are from Dems. You are very predictable IntheNet.

I can't see why anyone would believe anything he said, even if it might somewhat agreeable to them...

[IntheNet]

Let's see...you agree that we should escalate an already failed policy in Iraq?

Absolutely!

Democrats are happy to turn this war into yet another Vietnam and cut & run like cowards... Fulfilling the mission is the job of the military and the president is steadfast to finish the job. I support him 100%. So far this president and the military, since 09/11/01, have prevented further acts of terrorism here in the homeland and in so doing has protected myself and my family and all other Americans. You owe the current president your appreciation, your thanks, and your life in this War on Terrorism. It's about time you decided who is keeping you safe; Democrats who wish to cut & run, or Republicans who are committed to fighting and winning the war.

[BigBuddhaPup]

Absolutely!

Democrats are happy to turn this war into yet another Vietnam and cut & run like cowards... Fulfilling the mission is the job of the military and the president is steadfast to finish the job. I support him 100%. So far this president and the military, since 09/11/01, have prevented further acts of terrorism here in the homeland and in so doing has protected myself and my family and all other Americans. You owe the current president your appreciation, your thanks, and your life in this War on Terrorism. It's about time you decided who is keeping you safe; Democrats who wish to cut & run, or Republicans who are committed to fighting and winning the war.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CKFresh]

Answer the question IntheNet and DEMURDS:

Do you hold this president accountable for the incredibly high spending? Or is it ok for him to spend high, just not Dems?

[IntheNet]

Do you hold this president accountable for the incredibly high spending?

In times of War, as it was for Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Reagan (and other presidents), priorities for domestic spending and priorities for wartime spending are shifted; as they should, to give priorities to soldiers in the field. Yet, despite this spending focus on the War on Terror, as opposed to domestic fiscal restraint, the deficit has been reduced (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZgwyLsWjDDc) earlier than expected by the current administration through a growing economy and the nation is on track for a balanced budget by 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070103-2.html).

Rather than bemoan the success this country the current administration achieved, call your liberal leftist representatives, and tell them to give the president LINE ITEM VETO authority to cut pork from the budget and also tell them to make EARMARK REFORM a priority so the leftist liberal politicans will stop putting earmark spending in bills....

[BigBuddhaPup]

In times of War, as it was for Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Reagan (and other presidents), priorities for domestic spending and priorities for wartime spending are shifted; as they should, to give priorities to soldiers in the field. Yet, despite this spending focus on the War on Terror, as opposed to domestic fiscal restraint, the deficit has been reduced (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZgwyLsWjDDc) earlier than expected by the current administration through a growing economy and the nation is on track for a balanced budget by 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070103-2.html).

Rather than bemoan the success this country the current administration achieved, call your liberal leftist representatives, and tell them to give the president LINE ITEM VETO authority to cut pork from the budget and also tell them to make EARMARK REFORM a priority so the leftist liberal politicans will stop putting earmark spending in bills....


Well, that is hunky dory, their projections weren't as bad as they thought they would be... doesn't mean the deficit is under control, nor does it mean the deficit is shrinking... it means the deficit isn't growing as fast as they thought it would... big whoop...:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sure, the economy is doing wonderfully, if you are wealthy....

Line Item Veto... this president has only used the veto power he has once... so much for his fiscal restraint...and now he wants more power for the executive...

Earmarks reform is fine... it wasn't his idea, he is trying to throw some "bipartisan" good will around, what a hypocrite... Now we might not have Bridges to nowhere via Ted Stevens... or federal highway projects just happen to go through land recently purchased by Denny Hassert... Don't hold ya breath on GW not giving pork out to this buddies, he has a wonderful track record so far....:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[IntheNet]

... doesn't mean the deficit is under control...

If you are dead, the deficit means nothing. Priority #1 is the War on Terror. Priority #2 is budget. Every president during wartime has use this rational.

... Line Item Veto... this president has only used the veto power he has once... so much for his fiscal restraint...and now he wants more power for the executive...

Every Governor has Line Item Veto Authority...Only the President lacks it... The president can only approve or disapprove the federal budget... It would be nice to allow the president the authority to make Line Item Vetos for budget. he can't balance the budget if he lacks tools....

... Earmarks reform is fine...

Glad you think so...Let's see if Democrat Majority passes it.

[BigBuddhaPup]

If you are dead, the deficit means nothing. Priority #1 is the War on Terror. Priority #2 is budget. Every president during wartime has use this rational.



Every Governor has Line Item Veto Authority...Only the President lacks it... The president can only approve or disapprove the federal budget... It would be nice to allow the president the authority to make Line Item Vetos for budget. he can't balance the budget if he lacks tools....



Glad you think so...Let's see if Democrat Majority passes it.

If you are dead, then the war would mean nothing as well... bad, bad, bad logic... Okay if the war on terror is priority one, when are we going to start? Iraq isn't it... why aren't we sending our troops were they are needed? Afghanistan, for example...

The question is why doesn't the president have it... because the line item veto can be used for more than just fiscal concerns... our federal executive has too much power as it is... all the president has to do now is to use a signing statement on the end of the bill... he is the judical, executive and congressional all in one when he does that... why isn't that outlawed? hmm?

Yes, we should have fiscal responsibility and all pork should be held up for inspection... no more hidden perks... I bet that one will find his desk, but as usual he will find something wrong with it... maybe he will use his second veto of his presidency :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[IntheNet]

The question is why doesn't the president have it... because the line item veto can be used for more than just fiscal concerns... our federal executive has too much power as it is...

So let me understand you ... you are willing to allow Governors to have Line Item Veto but not the President?

How can he balance the budget if you don't allow him to cut programs?

Are you allowed to delete spending in your home or do you just approve a massive bill? Think about it...

What you are saying is that the president can only say YES or NO on budgets.

How can you blame him for spending if he can't cut spending?

He can only VETO budgets now!

[BigBuddhaPup]

So let me understand you ... you are willing to allow Governors to have Line Item Veto but not the President?

How can he balance the budget if you don't allow him to cut programs?

Are you allowed to delete spending in your home or do you just approve a massive bill? Think about it...

What you are saying is that the president can only say YES or NO on budgets.

How can you blame him for spending if he can't cut spending?

He can only VETO budgets now!

Yep... our governors don't have the kind of power over their states that the executive has over this nation..

He can suggest just like the congress...it is not just in his hands to cut the budget... checks and balances... they will have to agree on laws/bills, like it should be..

The president submits what he thinks is a good budget to the congress, the house and the senate look at it, make their changes, and all of them have compromise... that is how it works... it is more than a simple 'yes/no'

He can cut spending... he can veto bills...

How do you think laws get enacted? They have to be paid for... veto the spending on a bill, the bill dies...

Our executive has plenty of power... and now he is asking for more because the congress isn't a rubber stamp for him anymore... it isn't going to happen...

[IntheNet]

He can cut spending... he can veto bills...

Try that at home with your own expenses and see how fast you are bankrupt! Seriously... think about what you are proposing =>

If you are trying to cut expenses and balance your checkbook, you cut spending. Try vetoing bills and see how fast that gets you into trouble...

It works the same with the federal government! That's why we have this mess... don't blame the president if he lacks the tools to do his job!

[BigBuddhaPup]

Try that at home with your own expenses and see how fast you are bankrupt! Seriously... think about what you are proposing =>

If you are trying to cut expenses and balance your checkbook, you cut spending. Try vetoing bills and see how fast that gets you into trouble...

It works the same with the federal government! That's why we have this mess... don't blame the president if he lacks the tools to do his job!


Bad analogy...

The bills aren't just GW's...they are all of our gov't, and all of them should have a say in them... it is like household bills in that effect, if you're a couple, then you make large financial decisions as a couple... the gov't isn't an one man show, it is the congress/executive/judical...

[DETMURDS]

I agree... I think the president cited just the right topics and gave a very good assessment of the nation. I give Bush high marks for this State of the Union address. He devoted just the right amount of time to domestic and international issues.

As predicted, the Democrat response was a little short on substance. Delivered by newbie senator Webb from Virginia, he cited his and his party's objection to the policies of this administration but lacked any alternative. After SOTU address, comments by Senators was interesting. If the House or the Senate passes a non-binding vote against troop surge in Iraq, that will be a real slap at soldiers and if Democrat majority cuts funding, that will really hurt them...

In any event, I was impressed by GWB...

The Dem's reply was given by former Secretary of the Navy, James Webb. He didn't last long, and like you said, neither did his response! I served under this clown.

[DETMURDS]

Absolutely!

Democrats are happy to turn this war into yet another Vietnam and cut & run like cowards... Fulfilling the mission is the job of the military and the president is steadfast to finish the job. I support him 100%. So far this president and the military, since 09/11/01, have prevented further acts of terrorism here in the homeland and in so doing has protected myself and my family and all other Americans. You owe the current president your appreciation, your thanks, and your life in this War on Terrorism. It's about time you decided who is keeping you safe; Democrats who wish to cut & run, or Republicans who are committed to fighting and winning the war.

Vietnam? Oh, yes, they keep saying stupid stuff like that, and forget that JFK the Dem started that conflict, and it took Nixon the Republican to end it. But, I must say, I do respect JFK for having some balls unlike the Dems who followed him,...they are worthless and weak!

[DETMURDS]

And can anyone say that this is a lie? I mean, I heard NO response to this that was said by GWB.

"A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy - and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth - in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs ... so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move - and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise."

The Dems are circling the wagons with new taxes as we breath now!

[Jaguar Rick]

Vietnam? Oh, yes, they keep saying stupid stuff like that, and forget that JFK the Dem started that conflict, and it took Nixon the Republican to end it. But, I must say, I do respect JFK for having some balls unlike the Dems who followed him,...they are worthless and weak!
DETMURDS, If you have such big balls why didn't you join the Marines or the Army? You were too smart huh? 21 years in the floating coffee club. "We can't rescue that Army unit in the Delta, the enemy might shoot at us", and "those grunts will get our river boats dirty, wah, wah.
Bush is a real hero. Went into the ANG, then deserted. So glad he and Chicken-Cheney are your heros. What are their military records like?:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Jaguar Rick]

The Dem's reply was given by former Secretary of the Navy, James Webb. He didn't last long, and like you said, neither did his response! I served under this clown.
You are so macho calling Webb a clown. I bet you beat up prostitutes in your ports of call. You had to be a real man..er squid.

[HibachiDG]

Is this forum getting so lousy that people are resorting to personal attacks based on what branch of the military someone served in? I know this place has been getting petty as hell for quite some time now, so it's not like I should be surprised, but how does challenging someone about their experience in the "floating coffee club", as you put it, going to advance things?

[DETMURDS]

Yes, verbal attacks are rude, and not the best reply to any comment ever. As for Jag Rick's comment of why I didn't join the Marines or Army, I only ask this Jag Rick if he knows that I was not a Navy Seal? Say something like that to my buddies on the USS Cole and you would regret it in every way I promise. I ask, "why didn't you join the NAVY?"

Webb was a clown as per US NAVY SECNAV standards go, he was in office for a very short time for very obvious reasons.

God loves you.

[DETMURDS]

You are so macho calling Webb a clown. I bet you beat up prostitutes in your ports of call. You had to be a real man..er squid.

I beleive in God, I don't beat up on women. How can you say something like that to a member of the United States Armed Forces?

Macho? Funny.

[IntheNet]

You are so macho calling Webb a clown...

I call Webb a failure... he was thrown out of the Pentagon during the Reagan Admin since, as Navy Admin. he failed on the Tailhook issue and was an ineffectual leader. He did nothing for a while except for hawking his porn fiction then, when Dems in VA needed a moderate, he switched parties and ran for Senator. He has the backbone of spaghetti...

[CKFresh]

I call Webb a failure... he was thrown out of the Pentagon during the Reagan Admin since, as Navy Admin. he failed on the Tailhook issue and was an ineffectual leader. He did nothing for a while except for hawking his porn fiction then, when Dems in VA needed a moderate, he switched parties and ran for Senator. He has the backbone of spaghetti...

Yeah, typical of conservatives. Talk tough about the military and war then insult the military families in this country. You call Kerry a coward (he fought in Vietnam, Bush didn't), you call Webb a failure (he served and has a son in Iraq). I guess military service is only honorable if you are a republican. How do you have any right to say things about Kerry or Webb when you support a president who avoid Vietnam by joining th ANG? At least these guys went. So keep talking tough then insulting those who actually protect you.

You guys use the military for political reasons and it is sickening. "Support the troops, support the war! If you don't support the war, you're a terrorists and want our troops to die!" Here's an idea for you SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY BRINGING THEM HOME! SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY HONORING THEIR SERVICE INSTEAD OF QUESTIONING THEIR MOTIVES! SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE VETERAN BENEFITS!

No, for you, supporting the troops means putting them in harms way to die so that you can continue to elect republicans. Absolutely disgusting.

[DETMURDS]

Yeah, typical of conservatives. Talk tough about the military and war then insult the military families in this country. You call Kerry a coward (he fought in Vietnam, Bush didn't), you call Webb a failure (he served and has a son in Iraq). I guess military service is only honorable if you are a republican. How do you have any right to say things about Kerry or Webb when you support a president who avoid Vietnam by joining th ANG? At least these guys went. So keep talking tough then insulting those who actually protect you.

You guys use the military for political reasons and it is sickening. "Support the troops, support the war! If you don't support the war, you're a terrorists and want our troops to die!" Here's an idea for you SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY BRINGING THEM HOME! SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY HONORING THEIR SERVICE INSTEAD OF QUESTIONING THEIR MOTIVES! SUPPORT THE TROOPS BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE VETERAN BENEFITS!


No, for you, supporting the troops means putting them in harms way to die so that you can continue to elect republicans. Absolutely disgusting.

How can you possibly know anything when you haven't been there to see it first hand like I have? You don't, because you get your info from the internet in most cases I am sure.

The VA is great, and very helpful as well.

[IntheNet]

...for you, supporting the troops means putting them in harms way...

Well, in fairness, we were going to send the U.S. Forest Service to Iraq but in the end we reconsidered and sent the U.S. Army instead!
:rolleyes:
Who else do you send to war if not the Army? What do you do when attacked... send up a white flag?

[CKFresh]

Well, in fairness, we were going to send the U.S. Forest Service to Iraq but in the end we reconsidered and sent the U.S. Army instead!
:rolleyes:
Who else do you send to war if not the Army? What do you do when attacked... send up a white flag?

Actually IntheNet, you go after THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED YOU, not just people who look like those who attacked you. yeah I know we went to Afganistan, but we diverted resources from their and sent them to Iraq. Bush got re-elected though, so all the deaths were worth it right?

DETMURDS

I have family memebers who are Vets. Under Bush the benefits have been cut severly - FACT, look it up.

[IntheNet]

...you go after THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED YOU...

Locking the door after the horse leaves the barn is not a good way of caring for the horse!

Who is to say that Saddam Hussein would not have used the same WMD he used on the Kurds and the Iranians on us? Proactively removing him from power may have saved millions of American lives. Perhaps even yours.

[grizzle_810]

All I know is that after the State of the Union thing, I found myself praying for a new party to rise up in tihs country. I hope us young people don't slide right into these parties. Either side. So much deceit and corruption. It's horrible any way you slice it!

[CKFresh]

Locking the door after the horse leaves the barn is not a good way of caring for the horse!

Who is to say that Saddam Hussein would not have used the same WMD he used on the Kurds and the Iranians on us? Proactively removing him from power may have saved millions of American lives. Perhaps even yours.

Nope, Saddam had no ability to attack us with WMD, he posed no threat to us. Maybe Isreal, or Iran, but deinately not us.

Even if you are right, Saddam has been out of power for years now, yet Americans and Iraqis keep dying. It is time to leave and SAVE SOME LIVES.

[IntheNet]

...he posed no threat to us....

According to Bill Clinton, neither did Osama bin Laden...

[CKFresh]

All I know is that after the State of the Union thing, I found myself praying for a new party to rise up in tihs country. I hope us young people don't slide right into these parties. Either side. So much deceit and corruption. It's horrible any way you slice it!

grizzle,

I agree with you 100%. However, the way our system is designed makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to make any progress. We are stuck with the option of chosing the "lesser of two evils." It is a shame, but that is the best we can do.

The lesser of two evils is definately the Democrats...

[CKFresh]

According to Bill Clinton, neither did Osama bin Laden...

That was according to George Bush as well...

Remember, he was told Bin Laden was going to attack on 9/11 and did nothing to beef up security? Do you blame him for this? Or was he (like everyone else) under the impression that Al Qaeda was a flake organization that couldn't get anything done effectively.

Everyone knew Bin Laden was a threat after 9/11. But NOBODY, including BUsh, thought he was before 9/11.

Wow, you are so easy to argue with. You set yourself up to be disputed so easily.

[DETMURDS]

Actually IntheNet, you go after THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED YOU, not just people who look like those who attacked you. yeah I know we went to Afganistan, but we diverted resources from their and sent them to Iraq. Bush got re-elected though, so all the deaths were worth it right?

DETMURDS

I have family memebers who are Vets. Under Bush the benefits have been cut severly - FACT, look it up.


Why would I need to look it up when I have dealt with the VA first hand? And who doesn't have someone they are related to, or know that is in the Armed Forces? Actually, as for cuts,...you are wrong, those were merely changes,....changes for the better, ....more is now available to vets than ever before.

[DETMURDS]

That was according to George Bush as well...

Remember, he was told Bin Laden was going to attack on 9/11 and did nothing to beef up security? Do you blame him for this? Or was he (like everyone else) under the impression that Al Qaeda was a flake organization that couldn't get anything done effectively.

Everyone knew Bin Laden was a threat after 9/11. But NOBODY, including BUsh, thought he was before 9/11.

Wow, you are so easy to argue with. You set yourself up to be disputed so easily.


I was in an event that was about to destroy bin Laden in 1999 before Clinton botched it with his cancellation! The Commander of 5th Fleet explained it to us saying so!

EVERYONE in government knew bin Laden was a threat before 9-11. Again, Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter and Clinton refused.

He also pardoned the PR terrorist group FALN.

The "b" in bin,...of the name bin Laden is always lower case,...never upper case if you didn't know?

[CKFresh]

I was in an event that was about to destroy bin Laden in 1999 before Clinton botched it with his cancellation! The Commander of 5th Fleet explained it to us saying so!

EVERYONE in government knew bin Laden was a threat before 9-11. Again, Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter and Clinton refused.

He also pardoned the PR terrorist group FALN.

The "b" in bin,...of the name bin Laden is always lower case,...never upper case if you didn't know?

So explain to me why Bush did nothing when he received a document that said, "al qaeda plans to attack on September 11th using US commericial airplanes"? Did he think bin Laden was a threat? If so, why did he do nothing to beef up security?

Clinton might have let bin Laden get away, but at least he didn't ignore a document that PREDICTED the attack, costing the lives of thousands of Americans.

[IntheNet]

So explain to me why Bush did nothing when he received a document that said, "al qaeda plans to attack on September 11th using US commericial airplanes"?

Cite the document, cite the text referenced, and you'll see you made an error... a big one.

[CKFresh]

"The document, a daily intelligence briefing provided to President George Bush on August 6 2001...The briefing paper, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", has fast become exhibit A in the election-year row over whether the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington could have been prevented."


"They ignored warnings as early as June from the National Security Agency's Echelon electronic spy network that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture "

"They ignored warnings from an FBI agent in Phoenix on July 10, 2001 about suspicious Arab pilots with ties to Al Qaeda who were training in a local flight school, urging a nationwide investigation of Arab students in flight schools"

"Bush personally ignored warnings from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes"

"They ignored warnings from Israeli intelligence in August that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent, organized by a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation"

Any questions?

[CKFresh]

"(CBS) President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes...
CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out....
The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml

[CKFresh]

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509294.shtml

[CKFresh]

"In her testimony...Ms Rice argued the FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration were aware of the warnings...However, it has since emerged that the transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, was unaware of the threat."

Source: Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1190212,00.html

[CKFresh]

-In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]

-One single warning should have been enough to take precautions, but with so many warnings coming in, how can inaction be explained as mere incompetence? Yes, it is often difficult to know which terrorist threats are real, and what information to trust. But if the US couldn’t take seriously warnings from close allies like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and so on, then what were they waiting for? What would they have taken seriously?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus

March 26, 2004 | A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/26/translator/index.html

[DETMURDS]

"(CBS) President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes...
CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out....
The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml

I'll consider the source you are using for this info and just say, "invalid". CBS, aka: Communist Broadcasting System is very bias! Don't beleive everything you watch or hear from a TV Network.

Clinton on the other hand didn't talk to the director of the CIA until 2 years after the 1993 WTC attack. Why,...they (Dems) hate the CIA and want to abolish it as well. Again, we were investigating stupid stuff like Clinton's zipper being open, and a cigar instead of being worried about terrorism. Things were so good weren't they,.......NOT!

[CKFresh]

I'll consider the source you are using for this info and just say, "invalid". CBS, aka: Communist Broadcasting System is very bias! Don't beleive everything you watch or hear from a TV Network.

Clinton on the other hand didn't talk to the director of the CIA until 2 years after the 1993 WTC attack. Why,...they (Dems) hate the CIA and want to abolish it as well. Again, we were investigating stupid stuff like Clinton's zipper being open, and a cigar instead of being worried about terrorism. Things were so good weren't they,.......NOT!

Whatever, I sourced other documents as well, some of which are Fox news.

"we were investigating stupid stuff like Clinton's zipper being open, and a cigar instead of being worried about terrorism"

Whose fault was that? REPUBLICANS were the ones worried about it. You were the one who insisted on the impeahment instead of letting the president do his job.

"they (Dems) hate the CIA and want to abolish it as well. "

Really? That's strange, I am a Democrat, so is my father, he used to work for the CIA, hmmm weird, he must hate himself. I guess the CIA agents who told Bush he was wrong about Iraq and vote Democrat hate themselves too....

You're not too bright ya know. The CIA is mostly liberal, but nice try.

[DETMURDS]

Whatever, I sourced other documents as well, some of which are Fox news.

"we were investigating stupid stuff like Clinton's zipper being open, and a cigar instead of being worried about terrorism"

Whose fault was that? REPUBLICANS were the ones worried about it. You were the one who insisted on the impeahment instead of letting the president do his job.

"they (Dems) hate the CIA and want to abolish it as well. "

Really? That's strange, I am a Democrat, so is my father, he used to work for the CIA, hmmm weird, he must hate himself. I guess the CIA agents who told Bush he was wrong about Iraq and vote Democrat hate themselves too....

You're not too bright ya know. The CIA is mostly liberal, but nice try.


Wrong, and invalid! Probably a lie or two in there as well, but that is your business so handle it.

[Jaguar Rick]

Whatever, I sourced other documents as well, some of which are Fox news.

"we were investigating stupid stuff like Clinton's zipper being open, and a cigar instead of being worried about terrorism"

Whose fault was that? REPUBLICANS were the ones worried about it. You were the one who insisted on the impeahment instead of letting the president do his job.

"they (Dems) hate the CIA and want to abolish it as well. "

Really? That's strange, I am a Democrat, so is my father, he used to work for the CIA, hmmm weird, he must hate himself. I guess the CIA agents who told Bush he was wrong about Iraq and vote Democrat hate themselves too....

You're not too bright ya know. The CIA is mostly liberal, but nice try.

Fresh, Watch out! This guy knows everything going on in Washington. They let Detmurds in on everything going on at the CIA and Pentagon. He spent 21years in the Navy and is an expert on everything going on in the World. Everyone is a leftist and a communist except those who line-up behind the biggest proveyor of propaganda since Pravda-the Bush Administration. Detmurds is on Bush and Cheney's speed dialer. He KNOWS everything cause he spent 21 years in the Navy-yep, served proudly. If you are nice to him he'll get you a discount at the commissary.:lol: :lol:

[CKFresh]

Hahaha. Very true Rick, I forgot.

DETMURDS
You can say CBS is liberal, but they still can't lie about information. If they did, they'd be held accountable. If they LIED about these documents, they'd be sued for lible. Here's an idea, READ THE 911 COMMISSION REPORT. That explains the documents that were received by the administration as well.

IT IS FACT. BUSH RECEIVED A DOCUMENT THAT SAID, "AL QAEDA PLANS TO ATTACK WITH COMMERICIAL PLANES" He didn't even inform the Transportation Secretary.

Sorry, you lose.

[Jaguar Rick]

Hahaha. Very true Rick, I forgot.

DETMURDS
You can say CBS is liberal, but they still can't lie about information. If they did, they'd be held accountable. If they LIED about these documents, they'd be sued for lible. Here's an idea, READ THE 911 COMMISSION REPORT. That explains the documents that were received by the administration as well.

IT IS FACT. BUSH RECEIVED A DOCUMENT THAT SAID, "AL QAEDA PLANS TO ATTACK WITH COMMERICIAL PLANES" He didn't even inform the Transportation Secretary.

Sorry, you lose.
Bet he says something like the 911 report was a bunch of lies made-up by leftists and commies from the Clinton admin. But what the hell? He served 21 years in the US Navy. Served proudly.

Rick
CPT, US Army served 6yrs-reluctantly
Proud to be an informed, educated, civilian
32 yrs. Electrical Eng.
Mama loved me.

[IntheNet]

"The document, a daily intelligence briefing provided to President George Bush on August 6 2001...The briefing paper, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", has fast become exhibit A in the election-year row....

But that is not what you said!

Scroll back and see what you said!

You were very specific! The memo you cite is not specific...

Okay...so he received a note which said Al Qaeda was going to "strike in US"... the United States is a big country...what do you propose that Bush should have done? AL Qaeda has promised to strike at us every day since 09/11/01 and they routinely issue videos telling us they will strike again...

You are faulting Bush for not acting on said memo? What do you propose he should have done?

[CKFresh]

But that is not what you said!

Scroll back and see what you said!

You were very specific! The memo you cite is not specific...

Okay...so he received a note which said Al Qaeda was going to "strike in US"... the United States is a big country...what do you propose that Bush should have done? AL Qaeda has promised to strike at us every day since 09/11/01 and they routinely issue videos telling us they will strike again...

You are faulting Bush for not acting on said memo? What do you propose he should have done?

You didn't read all of my posts. He recieved documents that said they would attack with PLANES. He didn't inform the Transportation Secretary. PLease go back and read all of my sources and you will see he was informed exactly what was going to happen.

[CKFresh]

"from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes"

"warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. "

"In June 2001...Afghan men...discussing hijacking attacks in New York City...This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.”

How much more specific do you need?

[CKFresh]

Listen, I admit that Clinton failed in not getting bin Laden when he had the chance. Why can't you admit that Bush dropped the ball on the attacks? He didn't do this intentionally, but he made the same mistake Clinton made: he under-estimated the ability of the terrorists. He didn't think they could pull it off so he didn't take the thread as seriously as he could have.

Please IntheNet, in a show of good faith, admit that Bush made some mistakes prior to 9/11 and could have done more to prevent the attack like perhaps infor the Transportation secretary that he had information suggesting al qaeda might attack with US commercial planes. PLEASE, show me that you are not completely brainwashed and are willing to admit that Bush is not Jesus and he has made mistakes.

[IntheNet]

How much more specific do you need?

A link with your quote would help...where did you get that reference?

But beyond that... before 09/11/01... the idea of using planes as missiles was not a usual terror tactic...although hijacking was a common terrorist employ, use of planes as weapons was not seen. Therefore, you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking what President Bush might have done, using what we know today...There is little Bush could have done in the little bit of time that was available....

[DETMURDS]

You didn't read all of my posts. He recieved documents that said they would attack with PLANES. He didn't inform the Transportation Secretary. PLease go back and read all of my sources and you will see he was informed exactly what was going to happen.

Ok, Mr. Political Science Guy, as well as the son of a CIA Agent? .......... I want to add that,..." was it really specific on what would be attacked?"

[DETMURDS]

You people crack me up! Is anyone here the bastard son of Clinton?

[DETMURDS]

"A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy - and that is what we have...Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move - and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise."

"Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act...And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap. Now the task is to build on this success.... The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law."

"Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound.... With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security."

"A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care.... In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

"Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure."

"For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy."

"For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them."

"We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on."

DON'T HATE!

[Jaguar Rick]

"A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy - and that is what we have...Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move - and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise."

"Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act...And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap. Now the task is to build on this success.... The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law."

"Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound.... With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security."

"A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care.... In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."

"Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure."

"For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy."

"For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them."

"We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on."

DON'T HATE!

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.
I like to see you ending the post with "DON'T HATE", after you post that crap about Hillary Clinton snubbing people in her office. (When she wasn't even there) Your agenda is apparent. It is not a give and take discussion. It's the same old, back Bush or you're wrong, let's bomb everybody, childish, undiplomatic cowboy theatrics of a kid who probably went into the Navy at 18 and has never really learned what it takes to be a mature peaceful citizen of the World. I hope you are enjoying our countrie's return to the failed policies of history. Lap it up while you can. It takes Americans a few years to get a history lesson now and then about the folly of gun barrel diplomacy. Soon, the tide will change back to reason, and maybe we will be a Nation the World can look UP to, instead of down-on. A nation who leads by example instead of by force.
35 years ago I felt much like you do now, but luckily education, experience, and maturing have shown me the errors of my ways. If you and your comrades on this board don't realize how childish your mantra is, and mend your way of thinking, you are doomed to a miserable existence. If our country continues on this path we find ourselves on, we are doomed to being an isolated, fractured society with no friends, with a ruined economy- a small percentage of haves, and large percentage of have-nots. I don't think this will happen. I think the American voter is sick of what is happening and will put an end to it in short order. Maybe then you can join a militia and continue on with your agenda. Your future is up to you. Join the community of peaceful co-existence, or suffer in your imaginary World of militarism and ethnocentric superiority.
Write your views down now, put it away for 20 years and get it out and read it. If you haven't changed, seek help imediately!

[IntheNet]

You people crack me up! Is anyone here the bastard son of Clinton?
:thumbup:
That's classic! Bravo DETMURDS!

My thoughts exactly by the way....

[CKFresh]

A link with your quote would help...where did you get that reference?

But beyond that... before 09/11/01... the idea of using planes as missiles was not a usual terror tactic...although hijacking was a common terrorist employ, use of planes as weapons was not seen. Therefore, you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking what President Bush might have done, using what we know today...There is little Bush could have done in the little bit of time that was available....

He could have informed the transportation secretary that there were MULTIPLE reports saying that terrorists plan to hijack planes, but I guess that would make too much sense right?

YOU people are unbelievable, George Bush could poop on your face and you would call it gold. He could be convicted of rape, and you'd call him a model citizen. Brainwashing is a powerful tool, I just didn't realize it worked on adults in the US.

[IntheNet]

... He could be convicted of rape...

You're thinking of Bill Clinton...

[CKFresh]

You're thinking of Bill Clinton...

Really, Clinton was convicted of rape? When did that happen? Or have you simply inserted that artificial "fact" in your head along with the other nonsense you have up there. Please, tell me, when did this happen?

[Jaguar Rick]

Really, Clinton was convicted of rape? When did that happen? Or have you simply inserted that artificial "fact" in your head along with the other nonsense you have up there. Please, tell me, when did this happen?

Fresh, The only person convicted of a crime is Geo. W. Bush. He was arrested and convicted of DUI. He "forgot" to disclose this when running for Pres., but it doesn't matter, he's a Republican.

[CKFresh]

Fresh, The only person convicted of a crime is Geo. W. Bush. He was arrested and convicted of DUI. He "forgot" to disclose this when running for Pres., but it doesn't matter, he's a Republican.

Yeah, it doesn't matter to InTheNet that BUSH could have killed someone while driving drunk. All he cares about was that Clinton got his peepee touched by another woman. This guy is so brain washed NOTHING matters to him. All the facts in the world could not change his mind.

[IntheNet]

Fresh, The only person convicted of a crime is...

Bubba lost his law license... almost impeached too.

[CKFresh]

Bubba lost his law license... almost impeached too.

Yeah but he never got behind the wheel of a deadly weapon while drunk, talk about irresponsible...

Only reason that happened was because people like you wanted to hear the sleazy details of his personal life. Who cares if he got a BJ, mind you business and he would never have to lie.

At least he doesn't endanger the lives of the public like your Jesus boy George Bush.

Wouldn't God be mad at you? I thought you weren't supposed to worship anyone other than God... George Bush is perfect huh?

[Jaguar Rick]

Bubba lost his law license... almost impeached too.

Bush's oil company went bankrupt and left a lot of shareholders holding the bag. Clinton would probably not have practiced law anyway. Clinton has done many things wrong, but who hasn't? At least he is a heterosexual, a concept completely foreign to the Republicans. I guess Mark Foley should be our moral barometer. At least Clinton made his mistakes with people of the opposite sex, and at an age of consent.
If you remember, many to the people in Congress who called Clinton a scumbag, turned out to have illegitimate children, mistresses, etc. They weren't impeached, but where are they now? Remember Gingrich? Abandoned his wife and kids, supposedly. He is the paramount of virtue, huh? Ken Starr, spent millions trying to find something to pin on the Clintons. They spent over 8 years keeping him on the defensive. Still, Clinton did a much better job than "W" has done. One of the worst things the Democrats have done is not return the favor. I guess they just have a bit more class than the Republicans. Well...maybe.

[DETMURDS]

Bubba lost his law license... almost impeached too.


Actually, he was impeached: on Saturday 19 December 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, becoming only the second President in U.S. History, and the only man popularly elected as President to have been so charged.
The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).

Although the impeachment process succeeded at the level of the House of Representatives, without the Senate's confirming action in this matter, no further action was taken.

[Jaguar Rick]

Actually, he was impeached: on Saturday 19 December 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, becoming only the second President in U.S. History, and the only man popularly elected as President to have been so charged.
The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).

Although the impeachment process succeeded at the level of the House of Representatives, without the Senate's confirming action in this matter, no further action was taken.


That sounds about right to me.

[Jaguar Rick]

BTW, If you want to be completely correct, you should say that Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in 1999. Impeachment is the bringing of charges against the President in the House of Representatives. It is followed by a trial in the Senate. A two-thirds Senate vote is needed to convict and remove a President.

[catman]

Mr. Clinton was not acquitted, he was not removed from office by the Senate. His impeachment remains on the record. His law license was revoked and he cannot teach law in college -- his only "private industry" job.
Had Mr. Clinton been a Republican, not only would he have been impeached and removed from office, his pension would have been revoked and his ability to have Secret Service protection would have been eliminated. This is just a bit of hypocrisy, IMO.

[catman]

Fresh, The only person convicted of a crime is Geo. W. Bush. He was arrested and convicted of DUI. He "forgot" to disclose this when running for Pres., but it doesn't matter, he's a Republican.

Mr. Clinton was convicted of perjury -- that's a crime in most juristictions. Just a correction of your misstatement.

[RavenPoe]

He was NOT convicted of perjury, it was a civil suit, Mensa. He WAS acquitted in the Senate. Where do you get this stuff you print? Is this what you guys talk about at Mensa? He was disbarred in Arkansas, big deal. Do you really think he cares? He makes 200k for each speaking engagement. I'd say he's probably doing ok even though he can't practice law in Arkansas if there is such a thing.

[IntheNet]

He was NOT convicted of perjury...

He was in the minds of every American! He lied. He was caught. He was impeached.

That is why every American holds Bill Clinton in sorry contempt; a sad ending for our first quasi African-American president. Clinton stain on America can be erased only with years to forget such filth. We hardly need to be reminded of it by electing his evil spouse to anything...

Yet, as a Christian I am willing to forgive Mr. Clinton his perversion and his lies... in exchange I never wish to see his face again. That's the trade-off... When evil souls descend to the lower regions in the afterlife, they will be pleased to find that they will stand on the shoulders of someone down low in the pit and that ash-shoveler and resident will be Clinton...

[Montrovant]

He was in the minds of every American! He lied. He was caught. He was impeached.

That is why every American holds Bill Clinton in sorry contempt; a sad ending for our first quasi African-American president. Clinton stain on America can be erased only with years to forget such filth. We hardly need to be reminded of it by electing his evil spouse to anything...

Yet, as a Christian I am willing to forgive Mr. Clinton his perversion and his lies... in exchange I never wish to see his face again. That's the trade-off... When evil souls descend to the lower regions in the afterlife, they will be pleased to find that they will stand on the shoulders of someone down low in the pit and that ash-shoveler and resident will be Clinton...

Because other politicians don't lie! And I'm sure they don't commit adultery, or cheat, or steal, they are such a virtuous bunch..... :lol:

Also, I'm sure getting your forgiveness keeps Clinton up nights :)

[Jaguar Rick]

Mr. Clinton was not acquitted, he was not removed from office by the Senate. His impeachment remains on the record. His law license was revoked and he cannot teach law in college -- his only "private industry" job.
Had Mr. Clinton been a Republican, not only would he have been impeached and removed from office, his pension would have been revoked and his ability to have Secret Service protection would have been eliminated. This is just a bit of hypocrisy, IMO.

Catman, I thought there was hope for you, and still do. You really need to read-up on the subjects of which you speak. Please read about impechment. Impeachment means trial or inquiry, not removal. The House of Representatives brings an impeachment proceeding to a vote. If they vote to proceed with impeachment, it goes to be voted on in the Senate. The Senate ACQUITTED Clinton. His impeachment does remain on the record, but it is like saying he had a trial. Be careful you don't join forces with several others here who I feel there is no hope for, as far as knowledge goes. Impeachment is NOT a guilty verdict any more than a trial means guilt. It is the verdict of the trial or impeachment that matters. Had Clinton been found guilty, it's possible he wouldn't have finished his 2nd term.

[Jaguar Rick]

He was in the minds of every American! He lied. He was caught. He was impeached.

That is why every American holds Bill Clinton in sorry contempt; a sad ending for our first quasi African-American president. Clinton stain on America can be erased only with years to forget such filth. We hardly need to be reminded of it by electing his evil spouse to anything...

Yet, as a Christian I am willing to forgive Mr. Clinton his perversion and his lies... in exchange I never wish to see his face again. That's the trade-off... When evil souls descend to the lower regions in the afterlife, they will be pleased to find that they will stand on the shoulders of someone down low in the pit and that ash-shoveler and resident will be Clinton...

IntheNet, Your posts are the most biased, contradictory, mish-mash of voodoo, superstition, narrow mindedness, and mistatement of truths and facts, it's pathetic.
Here you claim to be a Christian in one sentence and bad-mouth the wife of the one you vituperate. Why do you hate the spouse of the person you hold in such low regard? Have you as a Christian not heard the passage, "forgive them father, for they know not what they do"? You are the epitome of a Hypocrite. I suppose you are Christian only when you forgive bush for bombing and killiing innocents in Iraq, and lying about why he is doing it.
I am constantly amazed by your displays of utter ignorance. Keep it up. It has great entertainment value. Sort of like Archie Bunker on 'All In The Family". (I'm sorry Archie, I didn't mean to bring you down to IntheNet's level.)

[CKFresh]

IntheNet, Your posts are the most biased, contradictory, mish-mash of voodoo, superstition, narrow mindedness, and mistatement of truths and facts, it's pathetic.
Here you claim to be a Christian in one sentence and bad-mouth the wife of the one you vituperate. Why do you hate the spouse of the person you hold in such low regard? Have you as a Christian not heard the passage, "forgive them father, for they know not what they do"? You are the epitome of a Hypocrite. I suppose you are Christian only when you forgive bush for bombing and killiing innocents in Iraq, and lying about why he is doing it.
I am constantly amazed by your displays of utter ignorance. Keep it up. It has great entertainment value. Sort of like Archie Bunker on 'All In The Family". (I'm sorry Archie, I didn't mean to bring you down to IntheNet's level.)

Great post Rick.

I have seen through IntheNet for some time now. Seriously, George Bush could do ANYTHING and he would play it off as, no big deal. Meanwhile, small mistakes on the part of Clinton are scurtinized and criticized as if he were responsible for the fall of Rome. I really believe that george w. could be caught red-handed committing murder and IntheNet would still support him. CLinton could cure cancer and still be considered the devil.

[IntheNet]

Why do you hate the spouse of the person you hold in such low regard? Have you as a Christian not heard the passage, "forgive them father, for they know not what they do"?

I am aware of the passage you cite and of the fact that the Clinton-clan "...knows not what they do..." That is, precisely, my point and thanks for amplifying it... As a Christian I am obligated to forgive Chlinton his sick perversions, his sin, his illness, and his crimes. That doesn't mean I trust him or his relatives... That's in accord with Christian principles of common sense.

[Jaguar Rick]

I am aware of the passage you cite and of the fact that the Clinton-clan "...knows not what they do..." That is, precisely, my point and thanks for amplifying it... As a Christian I am obligated to forgive Chlinton his sick perversions, his sin, his illness, and his crimes. That doesn't mean I trust him or his relatives... That's in accord with Christian principles of common sense.

IntheNet, Why is it you only cite the peversions, sins, illnesses, and crimes of Clinton? I never see your indignation to the same from any of the Republicans. Are you not aware they are not above sin? Is God a Republican? Are you pure and without faults? Judge not, lest ye be judged. When next you open a hymnal, look for the song "Love Lifted Me". Also, I believe the Bible cites your type of thinking as big a sin as any Clinton committed.

[IntheNet]

Is God a Republican?

Is God a Republican? In The Daily Republic, Debra LoGuercio examined this point:

"...Jesus probably wouldn't vote at all. He'd consider the outcome of an American election irrelevant in the larger picture of preparing for the kingdom of heaven. Preparing for heaven was Jesus' constant message. Fretting over the trials and tribulations of earthly life wasn't the point. It's what comes afterwards that counts, and getting there depends on aligning your heart, mind and spirit with what God wants..."

However, when one examines that the Democrats favor Abortion (the Holocaust of Humanity), Democrats favor Embryogical Stem Cell Research (fetal manipulation), Democrats favor unfair taxation (unfair wage attachment, Democrats favor unfettered homosexuality (unrestricted perversion), and Democrats favor secular agenda (denial of religious liberties), et al., it is logically sound that neither God or his Son Jesus would be a caught anywhere near the Democrat Party; indeed, I can see God and Jesus as Republicans quite easily and proud party members.

[CKFresh]

Is God a Republican? In The Daily Republic, Debra LoGuercio examined this point:

"...Jesus probably wouldn't vote at all. He'd consider the outcome of an American election irrelevant in the larger picture of preparing for the kingdom of heaven. Preparing for heaven was Jesus' constant message. Fretting over the trials and tribulations of earthly life wasn't the point. It's what comes afterwards that counts, and getting there depends on aligning your heart, mind and spirit with what God wants..."

However, when one examines that the Democrats favor Abortion (the Holocaust of Humanity), Democrats favor Embryogical Stem Cell Research (fetal manipulation), Democrats favor unfair taxation (unfair wage attachment, Democrats favor unfettered homosexuality (unrestricted perversion), and Democrats favor secular agenda (denial of religious liberties), et al., it is logically sound that neither God or his Son Jesus would be a caught anywhere near the Democrat Party; indeed, I can see God and Jesus as Republicans quite easily and proud party members.

Hmmmm,

Republicans favor the death penalty, pro-war, anti-welfare, and oppresion of other religions/beliefs/life-styles.

That doesn't sound anything like Jesus to me.

[Jaguar Rick]

Hmmmm,

Republicans favor the death penalty, pro-war, anti-welfare, and oppresion of other religions/beliefs/life-styles.

That doesn't sound anything like Jesus to me.

If Jesus were here in person, he would definitely be a liberal. More liberal than anyone on Earth. To live, as we were taught Jesus did, you would be the closest person to an ultra-liberal there ever was. Didn't he run the money changers out of the temple, and feed the multitudes? Did he not forgive his persecutors? Was he not a man of PEACE? That doesn't sound like a Republican to me.:)

[catman]

Rick, the Senate did not acquit Mr. Clinton.
Here is how impeachment works. There is a trial phase -- held by the House of Representatives -- in which guilt or innocence is determined. The Senate passes judgement on sentencing -- either removal from office or not.
Mr. Clinton was found to be guilty by the House, but not removed from office by the Senate.
Check out Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution for details.
I hope this clears your misconceptions up.

[catman]

If Jesus were here today, he would be a very liberal person that wanted the smallest amount of Governmental intrusion into private lives we could possibly have. I do not speak for Him, but I feel I understand His views at least as well, if not better, than anyone else here does.
He would be one that gave freely of his time, doing the work that needed to be done to move people from their poverty to a place where they could sustain themselves, through their own efforts. He would not approve of people sitting on sofas, watching TV, collecting welfare checks when they were capable of working for a living.

[Jaguar Rick]

Rick, the Senate did not acquit Mr. Clinton.
Here is how impeachment works. There is a trial phase -- held by the House of Representatives -- in which guilt or innocence is determined. The Senate passes judgement on sentencing -- either removal from office or not.
Mr. Clinton was found to be guilty by the House, but not removed from office by the Senate.
Check out Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution for details.
I hope this clears your misconceptions up.

catman, You evidently didn't read the article fully. You only clear up the misconceptions you have. Any Federal Official can be impeached. In fact, more Supreme Court Justices have been impeached-9 I think. Only 3 presidents-with 2 going all the way to trial-By the Senate. I stand by my former post, and I still contend your are the one with misconceptions. I am aware of the majority of people are confused about what the impeachment process is, so I want be so condescending in my response.
Peace.:thumbup:

II Constitutional Basis


Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States grant the power of impeachment to Congress. The Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment,” which is generally interpreted to mean the House is responsible for initiating impeachment proceedings. The U.S. Senate is granted “the sole power to try all impeachments,” which means the Senate is responsible for conducting trials of officials accused of wrongdoing. The Constitution provides few details about the format for Senate impeachment trials. In cases of presidential impeachment, the Constitution stipulates that the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States preside over the trial. In cases involving officials other than the president, the vice president presides. In all impeachment trials, a two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict. Officials who are convicted by the Senate are disqualified from holding other federal offices. Although the Constitution allows any federal official to be impeached, there is a long-standing precedent against impeaching members of the legislative branch.
Clinton was acquited. He served the rest of his term, and had poll numbers higher than bush has even after the proceedings.

[catman]

Rick, I read the article and wrote several papers on it in college that received A's. I do believe I know what I'm talking about. The House of Representatives runs the trial and the guilt is determined there. The Senate is responsible for sentencing the convicted party. In this case, Mr. Clinton was found guilty and sentence was suspended, similar to Andrew Johnson's case.
Enough of Mr. Clinton. He is part of history now. If there is enough evidence to convict President Bush of something, why have articles of impeachment not been brought against him previously? I expect you to say that its because "his" party controlled the House, but I don't believe that to be the situation. The case against him is flimsy, as many prominent Democrats were saying precisely what he did from 1998-2002 when it became politically expedient to disagree with the efforts to remove this State sponsor of international terrorism.

[Jaguar Rick]

Rick, I read the article and wrote several papers on it in college that received A's. I do believe I know what I'm talking about. The House of Representatives runs the trial and the guilt is determined there. The Senate is responsible for sentencing the convicted party. In this case, Mr. Clinton was found guilty and sentence was suspended, similar to Andrew Johnson's case.
Enough of Mr. Clinton. He is part of history now.

catman, With all due respect sir, please don't make a mistake, tell me I am wrong, and say, "enough of Mr. Clinton". I will have to take your word for it that you wrote two papers on the impeachment and made A's. Perhaps your professor is the one who needs to be impeached. I have sent you several different references and attributions concerning impeachment, you say I am wrong and cite 2 papers you wrote in college. I was mistaken to think that you really wanted to know the truth. I am attaching a step by step guide for you beginning from the point where the House brought charges to the Senate, and the Senate began the trial..it can be found online, in a library, or call an attorney familiar with federal law. The only thing I can believe is that you DON'T want to know or hear or read the truth. Nothing is true if it doesn't fit your agenda, I suppose. Here it is:

With Articles 1 and 3, pertaining to perjury and obstruction of justice, having been approved by the House of Representatives, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott announced that President Clinton's impeachment trial would begin in the Senate on Thursday, January 7, 1999.

The televised proceedings in the Senate chamber began with formalities required by the Constitution including a formal reading of the charges and the swearing-in of all 100 senators by William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who would preside. Senators then proceeded one by one to the front of the chamber to sign an oath book pledging to do "impartial justice."

Remarkably, the partisan rancor, which had been so evident during the House proceedings, appeared at first to be somewhat diminished in the Senate as the 55 Republican and 45 Democratic senators began their solemn duties, sitting in silent judgment of Clinton with the potential outcome being the first-ever removal of an elected President.

Although this was the second impeachment trial in U.S. history, it marked the first time an elected President was faced with possible removal from office. Andrew Johnson had ascended to the presidency following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and thus was not elected. President Johnson was impeached by the House in 1868 but later acquitted by a single vote following a Senate trial.

Now, in the Senate chamber, a team of 13 Republican managers (prosecutors) from the House of Representatives, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, faced off against seven defense lawyers representing President Clinton, led by main White House Counsel Charles Ruff. Opening statements by each side lasted three days, after which individual senators were allowed two days of questioning. The senators passed 150 written queries to Chief Justice Rehnquist who read them aloud to the House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers.

In making their case against the President, House prosecutors accused Clinton of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice." Clinton's lawyers countered: "The House Republicans' case ends as it began, an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office."

With opinion polls showing that Clinton's job approval rating now surpassed 70 percent despite his impeachment, and with most Americans favoring a speedy conclusion of the Senate trial, Democratic senators proposed that the impeachment case against Clinton be dismissed outright for lack of merit. The senators were also aware, following informal head counts, that there would never be enough votes in the Senate to convict the President, with two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) needed. To obtain the 67 votes, twelve Democratic senators would have to vote to convict the President in addition to all 55 Republicans, a highly unlikely prospect.

Meanwhile, the already-shaky bipartisan pact of cooperation fell apart after House prosecutors, aided by Independent Counsel Ken Starr, met privately with Monica Lewinsky on January 24 to discuss her possible testimony in the trial.

Three days later, the Senate voted along party lines and defeated the Democrats' motion to dismiss the charges against Clinton, then voted in favor of seeking videotaped depositions from Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal.

Democrats strongly objected to calling any witnesses, claiming they were not necessary, given the voluminous House record already available. Republicans, however, claimed the Democrats were trying to stop them from presenting a thorough case against Clinton. They originally wanted to call up to 15 witnesses.

On February 1, Monica Lewinsky was questioned by House prosecutors behind closed doors for four hours, with the procedure videotaped. The President's lawyers asked her no questions and instead read her a brief statement of apology: "Ms. Lewinsky, on behalf of the President, we'd like to tell you how very sorry we all are for what you have had to go through."

Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal were questioned by House prosecutors over the next two days. But it quickly became evident that the depositions were unlikely to change any votes in the Senate. There was no 'smoking gun' or any new revelation.

On February 4, the Senate voted 70-30 against calling Lewinsky to testify in person. The vote came as a relief to many in Washington who dreaded the prospect of Lewinsky testifying in the historic Senate chamber about her sexual encounters with the President. Instead, videotaped excerpts of her February 1 deposition would be used. Thus, two days later, Americans, for the first time, saw and heard Lewinsky as 30 video excerpts were played on TV monitors in the Senate chamber during final presentations by House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers.

The video clips mostly concerned her New York job search, affidavit in the Jones case, and the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, all of which formed the basis for the obstruction of justice charge against the President. Video clips of the depositions given by Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal, along with earlier footage of President Clinton's August 17 grand jury testimony, his Jones case deposition, and his emphatic denial from January 1998, were also presented. In several instances, the same video was shown by House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers, with entirely different meanings attached, according to whomever was giving the interpretation.

On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared: "There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit."

Chief prosecutor Henry Hyde countered: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."

With closing arguments completed, the Senate began three days of closed-door deliberations on the two articles of impeachment, with each senator limited to 15 minutes of speaking time. Senate Democrats had attempted, but failed, to open this process to the public via television.

On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001.

About two hours after his acquittal, President Clinton made a brief appearance in the White House Rose Garden and stated: ''Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people."

[catman]

Mr. Clinton was found to be guilty of the charges by the House of Representatives. The Sentencing phase, in the Senate, did not give him the removal from office, as was allowed.
Sorry Rick, but you are wrong about it. Look it up in the Constitution and find out precisely what the roles of the various parties are.
House finds guilt. Senate sentences the person, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
Enough about Mr. Clinton. He is past history and will be forgotten shortly.
As I said, if President Bush is guilty of crimes, when do the impeachment procedings begin against him? If I do not see them, I will assume he is not guilty of anything.

[catman]

Rick, just to show you that I'm a big boy, I'll admit that I've been ragging you a bit on this topic. Mr. Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives and bound over for trial by the Senate, where the 2/3 majority was not obtained to remove him from office. He was found guilty by a court and was the only sitting President with a legal debt (personal) following his time in office.
I have absolutely no respect for him, but admit that you are right about the Constitutional responsibilities in impeachment.
Again, however, he was found guilty by a court and had a Republican done what he did, the press would have been all over the Senate to remove him from office.
The famous "double-standard" in action.

[Jaguar Rick]

Rick, just to show you that I'm a big boy, I'll admit that I've been ragging you a bit on this topic. Mr. Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives and bound over for trial by the Senate, where the 2/3 majority was not obtained to remove him from office. He was found guilty by a court and was the only sitting President with a legal debt (personal) following his time in office.
I have absolutely no respect for him, but admit that you are right about the Constitutional responsibilities in impeachment.
Again, however, he was found guilty by a court and had a Republican done what he did, the press would have been all over the Senate to remove him from office.
The famous "double-standard" in action.

catman, You are skating buddy.:) I was just before attaching the step by step process, with the responsiblities of each part of the process. In fact, I will post it in a reply. Maybe someone out there would like to know how it works. (For real) It was obtained from the ABA website. I too studied the impeachment process in college, but it was between Johnson and Nixon. Nixon resigned before being impeached. Everything I thought before that was wrong. As for a Republican, I don't know what would happen, but I know how the impeachment process works. I understand if you don't agree, but I am not posting just anti-Republican stuff, only answering truthfully what I see here.
Was Clinton a scumbag?-yes. Are all Dems good?-no. Are all Repubs bad?-no. Are there a lot of posts on this board that are opinions stated as fact?-yes. Do posters only post things that justify their position?-Most of the time. I have always felt that if you post it, you should answer all inquiries as to source. I will always do that. Of course that will lead to impeaching the source, but it at least gives reasons for your opinion.
Thanks for stopping the ragging.:thumbup:

[Jaguar Rick]

If anyone is interested here is a link to see the step by step process of Impeachment.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

It is a subject talked about frequently, but most don't understand it.

[IntheNet]

If anyone is interested here is a link to see the step by step process of Impeachment...

Impeachment? Why? What for?

You want to impeach someone try the treasonous folks who are trying to cut funding for soldiers on the battlefield!

In the meantime dwell on the fact that THE PRIMARY REASON FOR OUR CURRENT WAR ON TERROR - THAT'S RIGHT THE PRIMARY REASON - has been SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVED - NO FURTHER TERROR ATTACKS ON THIS NATION...

Your local diner serve humble pie?

[catman]

No sweat, Rick. I sometimes do things like this, but call it off before any feelings are permanently damaged, or if they are, it is likely nothing of merit was there anyway.

[Jaguar Rick]

Impeachment? Why? What for?

You want to impeach someone try the treasonous folks who are trying to cut funding for soldiers on the battlefield!

In the meantime dwell on the fact that THE PRIMARY REASON FOR OUR CURRENT WAR ON TERROR - THAT'S RIGHT THE PRIMARY REASON - has been SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVED - NO FURTHER TERROR ATTACKS ON THIS NATION...

Your local diner serve humble pie?

IntheNet, No, I wasn't talking of impeaching anyone. We were talking about the impeachment process, who has what responsibilities, etc. I am sure you wouldn't read it. It is better to say what you think instead of talking facts, huh? You're a riot IntheNet!