Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ooops. Sorry. 9/11 changed things. My bad.

2. Well played, playa.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Which part? Bush obviously has the requisite respect for the rule of law that Clinton lacked

Hmm. Seems they both claim unfettered executive authority. I question why Bush doesn't use his authority on more useful things that wiretaps, like compliant interns.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Which part? Bush obviously has the requisite respect for the rule of law that Clinton lacked and thus the dishonour and indignity that Clinton visited upon the office of the Presidency by his campaign of perjury, obstruction of justice and sexual harassment and perversity has been ended.

I don't see how contempt for the Constitution equals respect for the rule of law, unless the SC reverses and W is, in fact, our monarch.

While Bush has attempted to bridge the divide on partisan bickering, and unite the country behind the principles of freedom and democracy on which this country is based, the Ds have so little inherent respect for the office of the presidency, the institutions of this once great nation and our national security, that from the dark undergrowth of their lair of dissatisfaction at their own failings, they continue to snipe at the President, even in wartime.

Calling them treasonous doesn't seem like effective bridge-building to me.

I don't see how contempt for the Constitution equals respect for the rule of law, unless the SC reverses and W is, in fact, our monarch.

step aside, for the greater good, and let the adults run the country.

I couldn't agree more.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hmm. Seems they both claim unfettered executive authority. I question why Bush doesn't use his authority on more useful things that wiretaps, like compliant interns.

Let's assume the some part of the wiretaps or datamining et al etc etc etc were legally problematic. I have less of a problem, especially during wartime, concluding that they were violating some partisan statute in pursuit of national security (and actually getting results in that regard), than I do with Clinton's lawbreaking. His was just plain out and out stupid and his stupidity was pointless. He could have fucked just about any woman in the country on discreet terms (and he may have). Instead he engaged in behaviour that was as indiscrete as indiscreete could be. To me that shows a serious lack of judgment and I have a problem with someone who can't make simple judgement calls being in the Oval Office.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have a problem with someone who can't make simple judgement calls being in the Oval Office.

2.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Once again, here are/were the problems with "containment"

1) Hussein continually violated each and every new UN sanction and IAEA decree, which (if possible) further eroded any legitimacy these organizations had.



2) Because of the "containment" - coupled with the Oil-for-food scandal - millions of Iraqis starved while the Baathists lined their coffers. And because of this, as you recall, there were worldwide calls for the US to "stop the containment" as if it, not Saddam's greed, was the direct cause of starvation of "millions of Iraqi" children. So you here you have a damned if you do, damned if you dont.

3) Containment necessitated the "no-fly rule" - which Saddam routinely broke, you may recall - and led to thousands of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. According to Bin Laden et al, it was this "occupation" of "Arab holy land" that led to the Muslim unrest leading up to the attacks on the Cole, Khobar and WTC.

When saying it is Bush policy that has led to terrorism, why do so many choose to conveniently forget or ignore these much earlier atrocities???

Am I on ignore?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that the sanctions were inflicting a toll on Iraqis. I submit that many more have died since then. I think you are exagerating the number of soldiers we kept in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and in any event this was far less expensive than having our soldiers tied down in Iraq under the current scenario.

My recollection is he did not let inspectors in until we had massed troops for the invasion. Once we had them on his border, i agree he let inspectors in.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't see how contempt for the Constitution equals respect for the rule of law, unless the SC reverses and W is, in fact, our monarch.

Cite please? I don't remember when the monarchy issue was before the court.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter


Calling them treasonous doesn't seem like effective bridge-building to me.

I only invoke the T word when there is actual, or arguable, treason. Unfortunately, some of the leaders of your party have left me no choise, based on the strict blackletter law or whatever, redletter..... Anyhoo, most of the time I eschew that word and am out building bridges and mending fences with the left in the name of communitarian unity.

I couldn't agree more.

Good, I look forward to capitulatorious post on November 8. Hank, please schedule a calendar reminder.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We win!

eta: I blame Hank!

I am most beloved, not moronic.

I am non-iconic, not moronic.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Am I on ignore?

I'm just quoting this so that others will see it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Once again, here are/were the problems with "containment"

1) Hussein continually violated each and every new UN sanction and IAEA decree, which (if possible) further eroded any legitimacy these organizations had.



2) Because of the "containment" - coupled with the Oil-for-food scandal - millions of Iraqis starved while the Baathists lined their coffers. And because of this, as you recall, there were worldwide calls for the US to "stop the containment" as if it, not Saddam's greed, was the direct cause of starvation of "millions of Iraqi" children. So you here you have a damned if you do, damned if you dont.

3) Containment necessitated the "no-fly rule" - which Saddam routinely broke, you may recall - and led to thousands of troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. According to Bin Laden et al, it was this "occupation" of "Arab holy land" that led to the Muslim unrest leading up to the attacks on the Cole, Khobar and WTC.

When saying it is Bush policy that has led to terrorism, why do so many choose to conveniently forget or ignore these much earlier atrocities???

2. Well put.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Well put.

holy shit. that's it. I'm leaving the PB.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that the sanctions were inflicting a toll on Iraqis. I submit that many more have died since then. I think you are exagerating the number of soldiers we kept in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and in any event this was far less expensive than having our soldiers tied down in Iraq under the current scenario.

Yes but on the prior scenario it was going to last indefinitely. They had been there for ten years and may have had to be there another thirty more. In addition, it was just a matter of time one of our jets would be shot down in the no fly zone.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
holy shit. that's it. I'm leaving the PB.

Woo hoo!

Spanky, can you start posting on the FB some more?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
holy shit. that's it. I'm leaving the PB.

What did I do?