Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,871

    Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

    Arlen Specter has announced that the president has not been forthcoming regarding his warrentless wire taps, in the interest of Congressional Oversight. He also stated that the issue of the president using the language granted to him to use force against terrorists, does not give him the right to wire tap Americans without the required court proceedures. WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HIDING?

    Last night I watched a "Thirty Years Later" documentary on the Watergate/Nixon Constitutional Crises. The similarity to the Bush administration's behavior, their use of National Security in the wake of the 9/11 attack as a means for operating outside the law of the land, the skewing and bastardizing of our Constitution gaurantees, and Bill Of Rights, the suspect intentions of a White House cloaked in secrecy, and their contempt and hatred of the function of a free press here in America, as evidenced by their intentional planting of phoney press in the White House Press Room, and paying off journalists to write phoney positive information, along with their attempts to ruin and punish those who speak out against the administration's false statements, and illegal practices, (Reference Bush's present request for severe legal action against any leakers, regardless of the integrity involveed) ALL striking reminders of the same ideology which brought our country to the Constitutional Crises we faced in the Watergate Scandal.

    I found it interesting that Erlichman used the same excuses the I often read right here on this forum for the law breaking and abuse of power of the Bush Administration, the references to other administration's similar abuses as a righteous excuse to obstruct justice, and dismantle our democratic principles.

    Oh, for a country lawyer like Sam Ervin, in the portals of our Nation's Congress and Senate, to stand against partisanship, corruption, and the destruction of the democratic and legal processes which make our country great.
    Have we NO men of integrity on the hill other than John Murtha? Are we frought with whimp-like Americans, who would give away their constitutional gaurantees in the name of terrorist fears, and partisan ideology? What EVER happened to...."WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR, BUT FEAR, ITSELF."

    If we want to preserve our way of life, here in America, and maintain our standing in the world, our self-respect as a Nation, and preserve our liberties, our committment to the high intentions of a nation bound to the preservation of human rights, it is long past the time when we as Americans must acknowledge this corrupt admistration, their assault against our democracy, and abandon partisan thinking and divisiveness, or we will never manage to preserve our cherished way of life. A cry for impeachment MUST ring out, if we are to survive this assault against us. Do we REALLY want Donald Rumsfeld, Dick cheney, and George Bush calling the shots in our coming crises with Iran? A country which beleives that Armmagedden is in order, and a welcomed event which will bring about Muslim power in the world?

    Gayle in Md.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Heterosapiansville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,554

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

    <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do we REALLY want Donald Rumsfeld, Dick cheney, and George Bush calling the shots in our coming crises with Iran? A country which beleives that Armmagedden is in order, and a welcomed event which will bring about Muslim power in the world?

    Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

    <font color="blue"> Gayle,

    While conceding that most ofus would like more honesty overall in government, I feel most Americans would not be comfortable with alternatives to Bush on the Iran situation. Yes, he only has a 33% approval factor, common during most unpopular wars. However, I just can't see most Americans supporting any of the alternatives. We are lucky that we don't have a Kerry in office now as he would still be pandering to the UN over Iraq. Now that Iran is a threat, would we really want a democrat, like Hillary who would simply watch the poles for public and war policy?

    I admit, it would still be easier for Bush to roll over and play dead but he still has the responsibility of protecting our country as his prime focus. He has done this even if many of us think he has spent too much money and been too slow to agressively go after the a quicker victory. However, with the few exceptions of Murtha and a few others who would have cut and run, most democrats are still only complaining and offering no solutions other than get out. The Iranians know they will have no problem developing weapons if the democrats are elected and they may just wait us out until a democrat is in office so they can do whatever they want. They do fear Bush as he has proven he is willing to go against public opinion and even his own party. While you see any unpopularity as proof a president should be impeached, some of us see it as not such a bad thing.

    Running public policy on the heels of popularity surveys is not what all of us want. If this was indeed a democracy, that would be acceptable. Of course, bold leadership is not always popular. Winston Churchill was very unpopular and was not even re-elected after the war. His numbers were worse than Bush now. I guess what I'm trying to say is that history remembers him differently than the war weary English did at the time.

    I believe that Bush will pay a price for some of his policy and certainly for his not toeing the pacifist line. However, give it a few years and I'll bet he is remembered better than those who now bite and yap at his heels.


    Deeman</font color>

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,871

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

    While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

    Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful?

    Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO.

    In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence?

    Gayle in Md.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Back in Crooklyn
    Posts
    4,893

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forth

    Dee, Why do you really think Kerry would have been so bad, err never mind it is all speculation anyway. the man was demonized as being weak and ignorant in world and economic affaires. yet here we are with a prez. that has us in a huge hole in world and economic affaires with no end in sight and a party that is full of scandal and lacks and clear plan. (boy I can't believe how bad the Republicans a once proud party has become)
    knowing all this would you still have voted for him over say Kerry or maybe Gore?

    Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq. I wonder if any other man in the white house would have screwed us up as bad?

    BTW i wouldn't compare the popularity of bUSH to Churchill's post WW2 low poll numbers, i think LBJ would be more appropriate. History will probably remember this prez some where in the same league as Nixon only it will probably show that he was a complete and utter failure.

    nAz 2012 GOP presidential candidate



  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,871

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forth

    Hi Naz,
    I don't think we would have ever gone into Iraq with either Gore, or Kerry. I also think that most people now agree that going into Iraq was a mistake which will go down as the worst policy decision in history. This seems to be agreed upon by hawks and doves alike, and also now even by former Bush supporters, and many of the early Neocons, who are now writing articles and books critical of Bush for going in, and even more critical of policy after the occupation. Even career neocon journalists, say we can never outlast this insurgency, and that this war is unwinnable militarily, as many Generals agree. It's hard to imagine anyone could have done any worse! I think John Kerry would have don a great job. When you listen to him speak now, and think of what he said back then, he was right on the money. Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong time...how prophetic.

    Many write that our ocupation has been an invitation to Iran to step up their nuclear program, and beleive that this problem would have been years up the road, if not for the fact that Iran knows that our forces are stretched, and Americans no longer trust the administration.

    Also, it is hard for them to sell the idea that Bush is committed to protecting Americans, given his record on Border Control, Open Ports, Katrina, the discredited, dysfunctional state of FEMA, and swarms of illegals coming in, from who knows where.

    Gayle in Md.


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Heterosapiansville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,554

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

    <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

    Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful? <font color="blue"> Gayle, The way you frame a question, it can't be answered as you add parts that while holding a grain of truth, may not be entirely true. Occupations have worked in the past. How many years? We are still in Germany and Japan and we lost many more lives in those conflicts. If we have a small presence for 10 years, it would still be worth it. </font color>

    Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO. <font color="blue"> I did not see the Kennedy interview but I have seen hundreds of his inteviews. What does he say now that might influence us? </font color>

    In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence? <font color="blue"> Seven retired generals out of thousands of retired generals? I don't discount their opinion but there are many more who have and do support the administration. I, too, think Rumsfield is arrogant and needs to be replaced. This does not mean he did not contribute but has not been able to garner support outside the military. </font color>

    Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Heterosapiansville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,554

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forth

    <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> Dee, Why do you really think Kerry would have been so bad, err never mind it is all speculation anyway. <font color="blue"> Like Gayle, I don't beleive he would have gone to war with Iraq, nor do I beleive he would have ever defended this country regardless of the threat. Yes, you can say, "We'll until we proved what individual Muslim, was responsible for the attacks, we should not react." I think no reaction would have just opened us up to more attacks on our own soil. </font color> the man was demonized as being weak and ignorant in world and economic affaires. yet here we are with a prez. that has us in a huge hole in world and economic affaires with no end in sight and a party that is full of scandal and lacks and clear plan. (boy I can't believe how bad the Republicans a once proud party has become)
    knowing all this would you still have voted for him over say Kerry or maybe Gore? <font color="blue"> Yes, as bad as some of his budget management skills have been and despite the fact he may have stepped over the line on occasion, I would still much prefer him to Kerry. He may or may not be regarded well in history. I don't care as much about that as I do that he stood up for us when others wanted to capitulate, revote in the UN, get countries with out and out dirty hands in the "food for oil" to go along. Well, he didn't just sit there and let the world laugh at us one more time. He did something. He did not forget 9/11 in a few weeks as his predesessors have in the past. </font color>

    Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq. I wonder if any other man in the white house would have screwed us up as bad? <font color="blue"> No, we all know he would not have screwed up, he would have done absolutely nothing, business as usual. At least the Iranians know this president will do something. This makes for a different negoiating stance, no matter what the French might say. Arabs only react o strength, never to kissing up by the west.</font color>

    BTW i wouldn't compare the popularity of bUSH to Churchill's post WW2 low poll numbers, i think LBJ would be more appropriate. History will probably remember this prez some where in the same league as Nixon only it will probably show that he was a complete and utter failure. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">I disagree so we'll have to wait a few decades... </font color>

    Deeman

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,871

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forthcomi

    Quote Gayle in MD:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While I Know that you realize that I don't agree with much of what you have stated in your response, I would like to thank you for expressing your thoughts without attacking me.

    Also, if I may ask you a question, and since even many hawks agree that this war in Iraq is not winnable militarily, how many more years, and how many more troops are you willing to have die on Iraqi soil in this occupation, and in the face of a growing insurgency, knowing that occupations don't work, and fighting an insurgnecy has been historically unsuccessful? Gayle, The way you frame a question, it can't be answered as you add parts that while holding a grain of truth, may not be entirely true. Occupations have worked in the past. Really, when were they successful, not counting the times when we went in invited to aid our allies, of course. How many years? We are still in Germany and Japan and we lost many more lives in those conflicts. One wouldn't think this would count, since the fighting ended in both those countries ong ago, and I believe we have already been fighting in Iraq longer than either of those countries. If we have a small presence for 10 years, it would still be worth it. How so? What advantages or rewards would you expect to reap? Also, wondering, again, how many lives do you think you would be willing to lose for the sake of Iraqi style democracy?

    Also, IMO, it is a myth that Democrats cannot be hawks, and that they have no solutions. Ted Kennedy was interviewed last sunday, and he made plenty of sense, IMO. I did not see the Kennedy interview but I have seen hundreds of his inteviews. What does he say now that might influence us? I think you could find the interview on the Meet The Press web site, if you're interested. It's a bit involved to go into here.

    In my view, we now have a weakened position in dealing with Iraq, due to predictable American disillusionment with loosing people in a war which cannot be won militarily, and having run our equipment into the ground in Iraq, when many many experts were saying years ago that Iraq was not a pressing threat, and that we should build up our armed forces, and position our armed services, economically and otherwise, for the real threats, Iran, and North Korea. Instead, we never got bin Laden, we have according to our own intelligence, grown the terrorist network by giving them a rallying point with our occupation on Arab soil, and played right into Iran and North Korea's hands. How do you view these thoughts, and how do you view the seven Generals who accuse Rumsfeld of gross incompetence? Seven retired generals out of thousands of retired generals? Three of these, maybe four, were on the ground in Iraq, and dealing with Rumsfeld. The thousands of other retirees would not be privy to present policy in Iraq. all who have spoken are Generals familiar with our present circumstances, recent retirees, so, do you think bush is remiss in keeping rumsfeld? I don't discount their opinion but there are many more who have and do support the administration. I, too, think Rumsfield is arrogant and needs to be replaced. This does not mean he did not contribute but has not been able to garner support outside the military. Then you think Rumsfeld is, and has, done a good Job?

    Gayle in Md.


  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Utah, Fruit Heights
    Posts
    716

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forth

    <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>Seven retired generals out of thousands of retired generals?<hr /></blockquote>

    <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rumsfeld:</font><hr>"But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round,"<hr /></blockquote>

    If we have "thousands and thousands" of admirals and generals who have knowledge of Iraq and are in a postion to be able to speak up, it seems we already have a merry-go-round in the armed forces. This statement seems incredibly disingenuous
    I'll start respecting your opinion when you stop making sh*t up.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,871

    Re: Arlen Specter's Complaint, President NOT Forth

    Quote nAz:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dee, Why do you really think Kerry would have been so bad, err never mind it is all speculation anyway. Like Gayle, I don't beleive he would have gone to war with Iraq, nor do I beleive he would have ever defended this country regardless of the threat. Now please don't be offended, but didn't Kerry defend this country before? I think John Kerry would hav stayed focussed on bin Laden, and alQaeda, and that is what he has been saying all along. Do you think that total focuss on those who in fact attacked us would have been a failed policy? Yes, you can say, "We'll until we proved what individual Muslim, was responsible for the attacks, we should not react." Does this mean that ANY individual Muslim will do? I though we already knew which individual Muslim was responsible. I think no reaction would have just opened us up to more attacks on our own soil. the man was demonized as being weak and ignorant in world and economic affaires. yet here we are with a prez. that has us in a huge hole in world and economic affaires with no end in sight and a party that is full of scandal and lacks and clear plan. (boy I can't believe how bad the Republicans a once proud party has become)
    knowing all this would you still have voted for him over say Kerry or maybe Gore? Yes, as bad as some of his budget management skills have been disasterous, might be more accurate? and despite the fact he may have stepped over the line on occasion, Just the Constitution, FISA, Felonious statements to congress and the Senate, and Outing Valarie, a WMMD operative during wartime. This is a bit more serious than an occasional little step over the line, don't you think? I would still much prefer him to Kerry. He may or may not be regarded well in history. I don't care as much about that as I do that he stood up for us when others wanted to capitulate, revote in the UN, get countries with out and out dirty hands in the "food for oil" to go along. Well, he didn't just sit there and let the world laugh at us one more time. He did something. He did not forget 9/11 in a few weeks as his predesessors have in the past. If you are interested, Richard Clarke's Book, tells a very different story about Clinton's policies regarding terrorists, and all that we were doing to get good intel, which was all thrown out by the Bush Administration, BTW. I hardly think it is a fair assessment, given that we (Clinton) had bin Laden, but he was too close to the Arab Princes from Dubai, remember, the ones Bush wanted the port deal with.

    Now i don't want bUSH to roll over and play dead with Iran but the stupid Mother Fu@ker should have dealt with them first the real threat instead of Iraq. I wonder if any other man in the white house would have screwed us up as bad? No, we all know he would not have screwed up, he would have done absolutely nothing, business as usual. At least the Iranians know this president will do something. I wonder if they think....We'll attack the U.S., then they'll bomb Lybia, they never go after their attackers, just the countries with NO WMD's. This makes for a different negoiating stance, no matter what the French might say. Arabs only react o strength, never to kissing up by the west. Given the condition of our equipment, and our army, which is said to be broken, and American's disillusionment with Bush's incompetent policies in Iraq, aka Rumsfeld, how strong do you think they view us at the present time? Consider, for a moment, that we had gotten bin Laden by now, and built up our economic circumstances, instead of three trillion dollars in debt to China, not to mention our National deficit, and built up our armed forces instead, might they be taking us much more serious right now?

    BTW i wouldn't compare the popularity of bUSH to Churchill's post WW2 low poll numbers, i think LBJ would be more appropriate. History will probably remember this prez some where in the same league as Nixon only it will probably show that he was a complete and utter failure.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I disagree so we'll have to wait a few decades... I seriously hope you are right on this one. Something tells me we won't have to wait that long. This summer may just tell the tale, unfortunately, according to bin Laden's recent threats. If and when he does attack us again, wonder what your opinion of bush's policy would be then, still a positive grade?

    Gayle in Md....BTW, how many more troops did you say we should be willing to sacrifice for Iraqi style democracy?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •