The Right As Seen From The Left (opinion)

[mostpost]

Opinion but really truth!
They see everything in absolutes. They have an irrational fear of government and the control of their lives by government, yet they can not see how business and industry controls their lives. They can't see how the war against unions negatively impacts their paychcecks, but they are obsessively aware of the smallest change in the taxes taken from those same checks. They are irrationally and obsessively against "Socialism". But they see "socialism" in the wierdest things, such as public education or unemployment compensation.
They are strongly and vocally in favor of a strong defense, yet they object to paying the taxes which are needed to pay for that strong defense.
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group.
"Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"
They have a strong and admirable belief in the ideals of our Founding Fathers, yet they cannot see how the world has changed in two hundred plus years. They don't understand that the men who wrote our Constitution realized that the world would change. They created a document which could be interpreted according to the needs of the time and the needs of the future.
I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this Board. Deliberate misinterpretation of news stories, deliberate misinterpretation of government reports, deliberate misinterpretaion of comments posted by others.
So that's my rant. I'm interested in opinions of the "Libs" on the board (i.e Rookies, Floyd, Sec and others. I'm sure I will get opinions from the "Right"

[Bubba X]

Opinion but really truth!
They see everything in absolutes. They have an irrational fear of government and the control of their lives by government, yet they can not see how business and industry controls their lives. They can't see how the war against unions negatively impacts their paychcecks, but they are obsessively aware of the smallest change in the taxes taken from those same checks. They are irrationally and obsessively against "Socialism". But they see "socialism" in the wierdest things, such as public education or unemployment compensation.
They are strongly and vocally in favor of a strong defense, yet they object to paying the taxes which are needed to pay for that strong defense.
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group.
"Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"
They have a strong and admirable belief in the ideals of our Founding Fathers, yet they cannot see how the world has changed in two hundred plus years. They don't understand that the men who wrote our Constitution realized that the world would change. They created a document which could be interpreted according to the needs of the time and the needs of the future.
I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this Board. Deliberate misinterpretation of news stories, deliberate misinterpretation of government reports, deliberate misinterpretaion of comments posted by others.
So that's my rant. I'm interested in opinions of the "Libs" on the board (i.e Rookies, Floyd, Sec and others. I'm sure I will get opinions from the "Right"

Really, the only absolute that extreme conservatives have that is messed up is the life/choice issue.

Really, no one gives a shit until Republican primary time and then all the GOP candidates fallm over each other trying to appease the Religous Right.

Extreme Conservatives will deny this but it is true and they turned their big front-runner, Rudy G., into ground shit because he came out in the center of what is, of course, a nothing issue (again, other than for the GOP in primary season).

It's a shame what they did to Rudy. Guy could have won and if it was such an important issue there would be tea parties about abortion every day. By the way the early primaries were run, you'd think it was the only issue.

[newtothegame]

Opinion but really truth!
They see everything in absolutes. They have an irrational fear of government and the control of their lives by government, yet they can not see how business and industry controls their lives. They can't see how the war against unions negatively impacts their paychcecks, but they are obsessively aware of the smallest change in the taxes taken from those same checks. They are irrationally and obsessively against "Socialism". But they see "socialism" in the wierdest things, such as public education or unemployment compensation.
They are strongly and vocally in favor of a strong defense, yet they object to paying the taxes which are needed to pay for that strong defense.
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group.
"Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"
They have a strong and admirable belief in the ideals of our Founding Fathers, yet they cannot see how the world has changed in two hundred plus years. They don't understand that the men who wrote our Constitution realized that the world would change. They created a document which could be interpreted according to the needs of the time and the needs of the future.
I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this Board. Deliberate misinterpretation of news stories, deliberate misinterpretation of government reports, deliberate misinterpretaion of comments posted by others.
So that's my rant. I'm interested in opinions of the "Libs" on the board (i.e Rookies, Floyd, Sec and others. I'm sure I will get opinions from the "Right"


Your first sentence say's it all..."Opinion". "But really truth". Since you went on a long rant about the "right". You said all that needs to be said about the "left" in your first sentence. You left rely on your opinions and make them truths (fact) in your own minds.

[delayjf]

They have an irrational fear of government and the control of their lives by government, yet they can not see how business and industry controls their lives.
Hardly an "irrational fear", history is replete with examples of what a repressive Government can do to its citizens. I have no doubt the corporations can and have acted maliciously and illegally – but at least those aggrieved can seek legal recourse. Despite the current economic situation, capitalism has created in the United States, the largest and most successful economy in the world. What socialist country has every come close to accomplishing what the United States has??

[Dahoss9698]

Opinion but really truth!
They see everything in absolutes. They have an irrational fear of government and the control of their lives by government, yet they can not see how business and industry controls their lives. They can't see how the war against unions negatively impacts their paychcecks, but they are obsessively aware of the smallest change in the taxes taken from those same checks. They are irrationally and obsessively against "Socialism". But they see "socialism" in the wierdest things, such as public education or unemployment compensation.
They are strongly and vocally in favor of a strong defense, yet they object to paying the taxes which are needed to pay for that strong defense.
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group.
"Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"
They have a strong and admirable belief in the ideals of our Founding Fathers, yet they cannot see how the world has changed in two hundred plus years. They don't understand that the men who wrote our Constitution realized that the world would change. They created a document which could be interpreted according to the needs of the time and the needs of the future.
I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this Board. Deliberate misinterpretation of news stories, deliberate misinterpretation of government reports, deliberate misinterpretaion of comments posted by others.
So that's my rant. I'm interested in opinions of the "Libs" on the board (i.e Rookies, Floyd, Sec and others. I'm sure I will get opinions from the "Right"

I think you nailed it.

[toetoe]

Mostie,

How about deliberate generalizations in the service of naive misinterpretations of conservative thought ? I have made this post so simplistic that it should be right up your alley.

[toetoe]

Bubba,

I am climbing into my time travel machine right now. I plan to go back to your gestation period. I plan to superficially beat your mother about the belly until ascertaining that her fetus is no longer viable. Her joyous cries of, "We're having a fetus; we're having a fetus !" will give way to "We lost the fetus ... :( ."

You, Bubba, you handsome devil, must have been a beautiful fetus, cuz fetus, look at you now. :jump: .

[Bubba X]

Bubba,

I am climbing into my time travel machine right now. I plan to go back to your gestation period. I plan to superficially beat your mother about the belly until ascertaining that her fetus is no longer viable. Her joyous cries of, "We're having a fetus; we're having a fetus !" will give way to "We lost the fetus ... :( ."

You, Bubba, you handsome devil, must have been a beautiful fetus, cuz fetus, look at you now. :jump: .
Really, since all you can ever muster is an insult or two, shouldn't you be at least somewhat clever at it?

WTH are you afflicted with today?

Did you cheer when the moderator asked all the GOP candidates who would appoint only judges who would overturn Roe to raise their hands?

Or did your" Little Toe" itself come to attention?

[delayjf]

They are strongly and vocally in favor of a strong defense, yet they object to paying the taxes which are needed to pay for that strong defense.Please point out were conservative on this board have advocated a cut in defense spending.
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group. "Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"
Where do you get this??
They have a strong and admirable belief in the ideals of our Founding Fathers, yet they cannot see how the world has changed in two hundred plus years. They don't understand that the men who wrote our Constitution realized that the world would change. They created a document which could be interpreted according to the needs of the time and the needs of the future.
Can you be more specific as to which article of the Constitution is now outdated. AND can you tell me WHO gets to decide when and where the change is made.

[Bubba X]

1. Foul tip.
2. Strike, swinging.
3. Called strike. Stood there like the house by the side of the road.

[mostpost]

Please point out were conservative on this board have advocated a cut in defense spending.

They never do, but they crylike babies about paying taxes which is how you Pay for a strong defense.

[mostpost]

Quote:
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group. "Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"

Where do you get this??

From attacking Iraq when none of the 9/11 terrorists were from there.
From their refusal to negotiate with Iran.
From numerous posts here

[mostpost]

Can you be more specific as to which article of the Constitution is now outdated. AND can you tell me WHO gets to decide when and where the change is made.

The articles of the Constitution are not outdated. But that is true only if we are flexible in our interpretation. the theory of "Original Intent" flies in the face of common sense.
As far as "WHO gets to decide" that is being done constantly in rulings on court cases and less often thru Amendments. Who gets to decide? We do.

[toetoe]

How can you miss the connection between:

Some Muslims suck; therefore kill all Muslims

&

Some conservatives suck; therefore all conservatives suck ... ?

[Boris]

Opinion but really truth!
They see everything in absolutes. They have an irrational fear of government and the control of their lives by government, yet they can not see how business and industry controls their lives. They can't see how the war against unions negatively impacts their paychcecks, but they are obsessively aware of the smallest change in the taxes taken from those same checks. They are irrationally and obsessively against "Socialism". But they see "socialism" in the wierdest things, such as public education or unemployment compensation.
They are strongly and vocally in favor of a strong defense, yet they object to paying the taxes which are needed to pay for that strong defense.
They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group.
"Muslims attacked us!!!Kill all Muslims" Their solution to every problem is to "nuke em"
They have a strong and admirable belief in the ideals of our Founding Fathers, yet they cannot see how the world has changed in two hundred plus years. They don't understand that the men who wrote our Constitution realized that the world would change. They created a document which could be interpreted according to the needs of the time and the needs of the future.
I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this Board. Deliberate misinterpretation of news stories, deliberate misinterpretation of government reports, deliberate misinterpretaion of comments posted by others.
So that's my rant. I'm interested in opinions of the "Libs" on the board (i.e Rookies, Floyd, Sec and others. I'm sure I will get opinions from the "Right"

And they call Rush's listeners "Mind Numb Robots". You have loaded your plate with all the hash they're slinging at the main stream media barffet. My personal favorite:

They seem incapable of distinguishing between a group and members of a group.

Which is the entire point of your post. You were close in the title. Should be "The Right as PROTRAYED from NBC, uuurrr, the left.

P.S. How could leave out the "Protect the unborn while sending 18 year olds to die in George Bush's War"? What a crappy liberal.

[lsbets]

If the left on this board is representative of the left as a whole, I think its fair to say the left is a bunch of deranged mental patients with little intelligence or insight.

[Lefty]

mostpost, Obama(leftwinger) is CUTTINg defense spending I read it that the left is against paying taxes for defense. what we on the right object to is all the wasteful social spending that's been going on for too many years. When all the taxes he proposes takes place, everything from energy to food to everything will be much much higher than it is now. I don't think the $13 a wk extra in the average paycheck will help much.

[ArlJim78]

The first post should be enshrined in a time capsule, as an example of the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of the liberal mind.

This country was founded by individualists, people seeking to escape the heavy burden of government. Now we come to this point where people start threads calling the fear of government irrational. my how far we've come.

each time we take another step towards complete collectivism, we lose some liberty. with every new tax we lose some liberty. with every dollar that is printed and spent with our name on it we lose some liberty.

here's the view from the right.
$800 billion dollars was hijacked for the TARP project, and the congressional oversight board says they can't account for where the money is, that they are being stonewalled by the fed. the fed first said it would be the end of the world if they didn't get this special spending authority, they said it would all be transparent, they said they have to buy up toxics assets, then they said they have to put the money in banks to get credit flowing again. Well they didn't buy up toxic assets, the credit never did start flowing, and we haven't seen the end of the world and we can't account for the money. and somebody tells me its irrational not to trust government? then when 500,000 like minded people gather to protest this kind of irresponsibility we're told that we're racists. yeah that makes a lot of sense.

[NJ Stinks]

It won't make you feel any better, ArlJim78, but I don't get the racism thing either. Like you said, it makes no sense. :ThmbDown:

[toetoe]

Bubba,

No se explica why my cutesy convolution was so PERSONAL. It had the sniff of "How dost thou suck ? Let me count the ways." So far over the line that I know I'm better than that --- ANYBODY would be.

I'm even sparing you the thousands of apologetic words I have prepared.

A sheepish :ThmbUp: to you, Sir, and to my mirror, :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: .

[Tom]

The left as seen by the left.

[Dahoss9698]

The right since Obama won.


http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5637/dawsoncryingr.jpg (http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dawsoncryingr.jpg)

[delayjf]

From attacking Iraq when none of the 9/11 terrorists were from there. From their refusal to negotiate with Iran.
So you would have no problem if the US had invaded Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Lebanon? And if you could justify invading Afghanistan due to their support of Al Qaeda, they we could certainly justify invading Iran due to their support of Hezbollah. Correct??

[mostpost]

So you would have no problem if the US had invaded Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Lebanon? And if you could justify invading Afghanistan due to their support of Al Qaeda, they we could certainly justify invading Iran due to their support of Hezbollah. Correct??

The invasion of Afghanistan was the right call. (see we can give Bush credit)
The only right call. That is where the organization Al Qaeda was located. Al Queda is the organization which attacked us on our soil. AL Qaeda was not in Iraq until after we invaded and toppled the Saddam Government.

Hezbollah is based in Lebanon, although there are certainly Hezbollah elements in Iran. But Hezbollah has not attacked us on our soil. Israel would be the nation with the most reason to invade Iran due to Hezbollah, but of course they have too much sense to do that.

[boxcar]

The first post should be enshrined in a time capsule, as an example of the incoherent nonsensical ramblings of the liberal mind.

This country was founded by individualists, people seeking to escape the heavy burden of government. Now we come to this point where people start threads calling the fear of government irrational. my how far we've come.

each time we take another step towards complete collectivism, we lose some liberty. with every new tax we lose some liberty. with every dollar that is printed and spent with our name on it we lose some liberty.

Well put! :ThmbUp: But because the Left, generally, suffers from chronic Mental Myopia, they can't see these things. They only think in terms of what they perceive are the benefits (albeit very short term at best) of the welfare state. The Left does not and cannot understand that a state big enough to give us everything we want is also big enough to take away our liberties. The Left is incapable of understanding that when the state "gives" us something, it's ultimately not free; for it always, always, always comes with strings attached.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

But Hezbollah has not attacked us on our soil
So it's OK if they kill 200 plus Marines as long as they don't kill them on American soil, correct?

But wouldn't invading Afganistan violate the Mostpost doctrine? After all none of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afganistan. And so were clear, due to the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists, you do favor invading Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Eygpt?

[mostpost]

So it's OK if they kill 200 plus Marines as long as they don't kill them on American soil, correct?

But wouldn't invading Afganistan violate the Mostpost doctrine? After all none of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afganistan. And so were clear, due to the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists, you do favor invading Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Eygpt?

Fortunately Reagan was president then, and he wreaked vengence on the perpetrators by ......uh........withdrawing our troops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

[Tom]

That is a cheap shot, It disrespects history and embarrasses you.
Our enemy then was not terrorists, it was the USSR. Noting insults the intelligence more than negatively judging historical decisions with hindsight.
It wasn't like the WTC was attacked on Reagan's watch and he failed to do anything, like Billy boy.

BTW, had we not taken out Iraq, Lybia would still have or would have sold it's nukes by now.

[mostpost]

That is a cheap shot, It disrespects history and embarrasses you.
Our enemy then was not terrorists, it was the USSR. Noting insults the intelligence more than negatively judging historical decisions with hindsight.
It wasn't like the WTC was attacked on Reagan's watch and he failed to do anything, like Billy boy.

BTW, had we not taken out Iraq, Lybia would still have or would have sold it's nukes by now.

If you are referring to the video, I must disagree. I think it perfectly shows the dichotomy between Reagan's talk and his action. Of course it was posted to aggravate, and it seems to have done so.
As far as history is concerned. The USSR was our enemy, but apparently we had more than one enemy. Had any Democratic President reacted to a tragedy such as that by withdrawing troops and not retaliating he would have been crucified (Messiah reference unintended)

As for your comment about "Billy boy", here is a list of the perpetrators ot the first WTC bombing and where they are today.
Ramzi Yousef..arrested. convicted in November of 1997and serving life in an American prison.
Omar Abdel Rahman serving life in an American prison
Eyad Ismoil convicted in April of 1998 and serving 240 years (no Parole in an American prison.
Mahmud Abouhalima convicted in March 1994 and serving 240 years (no parole) in an American prison.
Mohammad Salemeh is in an American prison
Nidal Ayyad was convicted in March 1994 and is serving Life in an American prison.
Ahmad Ajaj is serving 115 years in an American prison.
Abdul Rahman Yasin was questioned by the FBI and released after providing vital information.
Mohammed Jamal Khalifa (alias Abu Barra) was deported to Jordan where he was acquitted by a Jordanian court. He died in 2007.
So that disproves the "Clinton did nothing" theory!

What happened in Iraq had nothing to do with "Lybia", but I concede it may have had an effect on events in Libya. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Exactly my point. He treated terrorists like criminals and WTC 9-11 resulted. The stupid fool enable Al Qeda. Democrats enabled Al Qeda. And they are doing it again. How many will die this time thanks to the idiot Obama?
It is ALL on dems. 100%.

[delayjf]

Fortunately Reagan was president then, and he wreaked vengence on the perpetrators by ......uh........withdrawing our troops.

Perhaps not entirely true, a 1985 truck bomb in Beirut that killed at least 80 and wounded another 200 is believed to have been orchastrated by the CIA. In fact, Reagon did want to retaliate but was talked out of it by Weinberger. Perhaps we were able to get the Israels to do out dirty work for us, I'm not sure.

Momar Kadafi gave up his WMD program in Dec of 03 after getting caught red handed when a shippment of centifuge parts bound for Libya was intercepted. He confessed to an Italian official that after the envasion of Iraq he was scared he would be next.

[mostpost]

Exactly my point. He treated terrorists like criminals and WTC 9-11 resulted. The stupid fool enable Al Qeda. Democrats enabled Al Qeda. And they are doing it again. How many will die this time thanks to the idiot Obama?
It is ALL on dems. 100%.

Terrorist bombed the WTC in 1993. Terrorists were captured, tried and convicted because Clinton kept his eye on the ball, coordinated with the intelligence services of other countries, and didn't go running off on a personal agenda.
WTC 9-11 happened because George Bush took his eye off the ball. The incoming Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clinton Administration that terrorism would be their major problem in international relations. And just like you, Tom, they were more concerned about Russia. Their focus was on a "Star Wars" missle system.
Bush had no meetings with the White House Terrorism task force; when he was given the now famous "Bin Laden determined to strike within the U. S. daily briefing he asked no questions, assigned no one to follow up, requested no further information, did not instruct the various agencies to share information. He went on vacation. He had no clue what was about to happen.
And except for Kahlod Shaikh Mohammed, name one person who has been definitively named as responsible and brought to trial.

[mostpost]

Perhaps not entirely true, a 1985 truck bomb in Beirut that killed at least 80 and wounded another 200 is believed to have been orchastrated by the CIA. In fact, Reagon did want to retaliate but was talked out of it by Weinberger. Perhaps we were able to get the Israels to do out dirty work for us, I'm not sure.

Momar Kadafi gave up his WMD program in Dec of 03 after getting caught red handed when a shippment of centifuge parts bound for Libya was intercepted. He confessed to an Italian official that after the envasion of Iraq he was scared he would be next.

I agree that Kadafi was developing a WMD program which he gave up after attempting to import a shipment of centrifuge parts. And I believe he said he feared a US invasion. But, PERHAPS, is motivation was more complex.

What I can't agree with is Tom claiming this as a justification for invading Iraq. I don't imagine that officials of the Bush administration sat around before the decision to invade Iraq was made, saying "If we invade Iraq, Kadafi will fold like a cheap desert tent." Justification has to be made on the basis of information on hand at the time, not "ex post facto" information

[fast4522]

What made this country great is everyone can be open with their opinion, mine is that our current President is less than like Carter but he is our President. With that we have to look for the good that can come from any President, for sure Clinton gave us the largest tax hike in the history of this country, and in turn Newt helped with putting many members of the congress out of a job and some in jail. Look for the same mistakes to be repeated again. Try taking too much money away from the middle class and watch the House also end up in the unemployment line and members of the cabinet under indictment. Try to change the constitution against the will of the people and expect to see much worse happen to the powerful of today. Its a fact that boatloads for foreign money got smoked in our housing market. Its just a shame that retirement accounts also got smoked in risky high gain accounts, few like to have retirement in the low yield guaranteed funds, but the stock market is also gambling when you really think about it right.

[Tom]

What I can't agree with is Tom claiming this as a justification for invading Iraq. I don't imagine that officials of the Bush administration sat around before the decision to invade Iraq was made, saying "If we invade Iraq, Kadafi will fold like a cheap desert tent." Justification has to be made on the basis of information on hand at the time, not "ex post facto" information

Never said that. You read poorly.
I was very clear from Day1 - Iraq fired on US Airplanes. That was all the reason we needed to go in. He violated the cease fire - the first Iraq war never ended, it just went to a cease fire with restrictions. SH violated them, End of story. Finish the job.

Lybia was a bonus.

[mostpost]

Never said that. You read poorly.
I was very clear from Day1 - Iraq fired on US Airplanes. That was all the reason we needed to go in. He violated the cease fire - the first Iraq war never ended, it just went to a cease fire with restrictions. SH violated them, End of story. Finish the job.

Lybia was a bonus.

You didn't?


BTW, had we not taken out Iraq, Lybia would still have or would have sold it's nukes by now.
_________________

There I go again reading what you wrote instead of what you meant:rolleyes:

[Tom]

No, you still have it wrong.
That in no way used Libya as a reason to to have gone in. I never mentioned it until it happened. Never once used it a justification. Always as a result. Try looking up the two words. Go back and read my posts back then instead of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Here's a clue - in order to be a justification, it has to happen BEFORE. I had
no idea they had nukes back then.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think you nailed it.Really? I don't. I'm intelligent.

Why don't I agree with you? You're intelligent too, are you not?

[PaceAdvantage]

From numerous posts hereBut in your original post you said "I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this board."

[PaceAdvantage]

The only right call. That is where the organization Al Qaeda was located. Al Queda is the organization which attacked us on our soil.And you know this how? Are you telling me you are willing to believe our gov't when it says Al Qaeda attacked us, the very SAME gov't that, according to you, LIED us into a war with Iraq?

Why would you believe anything they told you? I seriously can't wait for your answer.

[mostpost]

But in your original post you said "I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this board."

"I haven't even mentioned specific behavior on this Board" in my original post referred to such things as "deliberate misinterpretation of news stories" (see Obama hides Jesus" ) deliberate misrepresentaion of Government Reports (see "Are you one of the new right wing terrorists) and deliberate misrepresentation of comments (see any of a thousand examples) It was not a promise to never mention other comments or statements.
And there were many examples of tarring the individual with the brush of the group, Including support of imprisonment of individuals without proof, support of torture, and accusing a presidential candidate of being a Muslim.
All of these things took place here,

[mostpost]

And you know this how? Are you telling me you are willing to believe our gov't when it says Al Qaeda attacked us, the very SAME gov't that, according to you, LIED us into a war with Iraq?

Why would you believe anything they told you? I seriously can't wait for your answer.

Because there is independent evidence of the involvement of Al Qaeda, such as their taking credit rather vociferously for the attacks. There are videos of Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. There are news stories of AlQaeda training camps in Afghanistan. There are intelligece reports from other countries. And yes, I believed the Bush Administration when they said the threat came from Afghanistan and AlQaeda located there, because they were reacting to a horrific event. Their concern was finding and punishing the people responsible. Only later did they develop their hidden agenda. At least in public.

In Iraq, however, the independent evidence contradicted the propaganda of the Bush administration. Bush said Saddam had WMDs, but UN Weapons Inspectors found no evidence of any and the Iraq Survey Team, which was a part of the invasion force found that the program had been ended in 1991.
Yet Bush continued to claim that Iraq was a threat due to WMDs.

The claim was made that Iraq was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Nigeria. The document thaat allegedly proved this was found to be a forgery, and a bad one at that. Yet Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN to make the claim.
Bush claimed that Iraq was involved in the events of 9/11. Yet no evidence was ever presented, and Bush himself later said that Iraq was not involved.

[mostpost]

No, you still have it wrong.
That in no way used Libya as a reason to to have gone in. I never mentioned it until it happened. Never once used it a justification. Always as a result. Try looking up the two words. Go back and read my posts back then instead of thinking you know what you are talking about.

Here's a clue - in order to be a justification, it has to happen BEFORE. I had
no idea they had nukes back then.

I don't agree that an event has to happen before an action is taken to justify that action. For instance: You chase the neighborhood kids away from and abandoned house. The next day the roof collapses. You say "It's a good thing I chased those kids away.

However, I will concede that YOU meant it as a result and NOT as a justification.

[Tom]

I love the really stupid stuff the libs choose to argue about their than have to talk about their disaster in DC. :lol:

[rastajenk]

No kidding. For a supposedly forward-looking bunch, they sure are stuck on the past. Move On.

[Dahoss9698]

Really? I don't. I'm intelligent.

Why don't I agree with you? You're intelligent too, are you not?

Because you are unable to put yourself or this room in any sort of context because you are just as confused, biased and irrational as the rest of the CJG?

Or is because you will never agree with anything I say in this room because I made a fool out of your lap dog Tummy? Take your pick.

[Tom]

In your dreams! :lol:

You made a fool of yourself.

[delayjf]

Terrorist bombed the WTC in 1993. Terrorists were captured, tried and convicted because Clinton kept his eye on the ball, coordinated with the intelligence services of other countries, and didn't go running off on a personal agenda.If President Clinton had his eye on the ball, then why didn’t he prevent the attack in the first place? And what about the other attacks by Al Qaeda?? Why didn’t he prevent the attacks on the USS Cole or the Khobar Towers? And the reason there was only one other terrorist arrested connected with 9/11 in the US is because the rest of the terrorist were dead. How many terrorist attacks occurred post the 93 WTC attack? How many attacks post 9/11. How many attacks has the Bush administration stopped since 9/11?
Bush had no meetings with the White House Terrorism task force; when he was given the now famous "Bin Laden determined to strike within the U. S. daily briefing he asked no questions, assigned no one to follow up, requested no further information, did not instruct the various agencies to share information. Are you claiming that the CIA and FBI communicated openly before President Bush got into office and that he reversed that policy? What was President Bush supposed to do with a warning as vague as that? Since Clinton has his eye on the ball as you claim, then all that would have been required was to continue the policies of the Clinton administration, because they were on top of it. It’s also not the job of the President to micro-manage the CIA and FBI. If they need to be told by the President to investigate suspected terrorist activity then they are a sorry lot. The lack of communication between the agencies has been an issue long before 9/11, President Bush did nothing to create that situation. And President Bush was not on vacation on 9/11, he was on a official trip to Florida and please point out anyone who KNEW what was going to happen that day.
In Iraq, however, the independent evidence contradicted the propaganda of the Bush administration. Bush said Saddam had WMDs, but UN Weapons Inspectors found no evidence of any and the Iraq Survey Team, which was a part of the invasion force found that the program had been ended in 1991. Yet Bush continued to claim that Iraq was a threat due to WMDs
What is independent evidence?? Prior to 9/11, the Clinton Administration also claimed that Saddam was developing WMDs. If you’re interested, PA has a link were both President Clinton and Sec of State Albright both make the same claims that President Bush did in 2003. The UNCLASSIED 9/11 report states that the evidence cited by President Bush "was substantiated by intelligence". Saddam himself confessed to making it appear that he did have WMDs. After 9/11, President Bush made the call that the US would no longer sit back and hope the terrorist would go away.

[mostpost]

Because you are unable to put yourself or this room in any sort of context because you are just as confused, biased and irrational as the rest of the CJG?

Or is because you will never agree with anything I say in this room because I made a fool out of your lap dog Tummy? Take your pick.

As someone who often (always?) disagrees with Tom, I don't see him as anyone's lap dog. Nor do I see him as unintelligent. It's just that his ideas are wrong and his rationale is lacking.

I try to help him out, but it's difficult. So very difficult.

[Tom]

We shall overcome.

[mostpost]

If President Clinton had his eye on the ball, then why didn’t he prevent the attack in the first place?
I can't say that everything was handled perfectly. One conspirator was detained with bomb making literature. I don't know how much follow up was done. My point was that Clinton concentrated on capturing those responsible and was successful in doing so.
And what about the other attacks by Al Qaeda?? Why didn’t he prevent the attacks on the USS Cole or the Khobar Towers?
The attacks on USS Cole and Khobar Towers took place outside the United States. That is NOt to diminish the tragedy, but it does limit the options available to the President. In fact at Khobar Towers, the security team did notice increased surveilance of the facility. They were forbidden by the Saudi Arabian government from doing anything.

And the reason there was only one other terrorist arrested connected with 9/11 in the US is because the rest of the terrorist were dead.
True if you are only considering those who carried out the attack and not those who planned or financed it.
How many terrorist attacks occurred post the 93 WTC attack? How many attacks post 9/11. How many attacks has the Bush administration stopped since 9/11?
Are we talking about attacks in the United States or against US interests world wide? Because if we are talking only in the United States, then you can't bring up USS Cole or Khobar Towers. If we are talking about attacks against US interests and citizens world wide, then over 4,000 have died as the result of terrorist actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you claiming that the CIA and FBI communicated openly before President Bush got into office and that he reversed that policy? What was President Bush supposed to do with a warning as vague as that? Since Clinton has his eye on the ball as you claim, then all that would have been required was to continue the policies of the Clinton administration, because they were on top of it. It’s also not the job of the President to micro-manage the CIA and FBI. If they need to be told by the President to investigate suspected terrorist activity then they are a sorry lot. The lack of communication between the agencies has been an issue long before 9/11, President Bush did nothing to create that situation. And President Bush was not on vacation on 9/11, he was on a official trip to Florida and please point out anyone who KNEW what was going to happen that day.

You are correct that the FBI and CIA did not communicate openly before and my post did wrongly imply that. Given the warning in the daily briefing, should not Bush have called in the heads of the CIA and FBI and tried to establish some lines of commumication. As President he has access to information collected by both the the CIA and the FBI. Had he had any curiosity at all he could have, or his advisors could have, figured out what questions to ask to investigate further. He did not. He spentthe month of August on vacation.
That is the vacation I was referring to. I know that he was in Florida on an official trip. And I CAN point to someone who KNEW what was going to happen that day. Osama bin Laden



What is independent evidence?? Prior to 9/11, the Clinton Administration also claimed that Saddam was developing WMDs. If you’re interested, PA has a link were both President Clinton and Sec of State Albright both make the same claims that President Bush did in 2003. The UNCLASSIED 9/11 report states that the evidence cited by President Bush "was substantiated by intelligence". Saddam himself confessed to making it appear that he did have WMDs. After 9/11, President Bush made the call that the US would no longer sit back and hope the terrorist would go away.
Intelligence that was fabricated (See Downing Street Memo)


PS Perhaps you can help. In your responses. My original statements are shaded and your responses are in regular type.
I know how to do this by using the "Quote" button. But if I try to seperate different parts and respond individuallyto each part it doesn't work for me.
What I did this time is to go back and BOLD my responses, buy there must be an easier way :bang: :bang: Thanks

[delayjf]

Intelligence that was fabricated (See Downing Street Memo)
I give zero credibility to the Downey Street Memo. Again, the 9/11 commission stated that all of Intelligence claims were substantiated by intelligtence at the time. AND it was the same intelligence that was cited by the Clinton Administration. Hillary is on record telling a group that she had substatiated the intelligence reports herself with independant sources "that she trusted". I would assume that would not include President Bush.

I don't think Clinton or Bush are culpable with regards to stopping the two seperate attacks on the WTC. Neither the FBI or the CIA were able to put it all together and they certainly don't need Presidential authority or guidense to act - that's their job.

I just cut and paste the section I want to respond to the put it into quotes.

[mostpost]

I just cut and paste the section I want to respond to the put it into quotes

Thanks from a computer illiterate
Good discussion

[Lefty]

delay, the reason the CIA and FBI couldn't put it all together was because of a democrat law called "the wall" which didn't allow the two to communicate.

[rastajenk]

"Stovepiping" was the central issue in the 9/11 Commission hearings and report.

[Tom]

"Stovepiping" was the central issue in the 9/11 Commission hearings and report.

Is that like water boarding?
I just had a vision of "stovepiping" that might a useful interrogation tool! :eek:

Think outside the box......

[mostpost]

delay, the reason the CIA and FBI couldn't put it all together was because of a democrat law called "the wall" which didn't allow the two to communicate.

Advice for "delayjf" and everyone else: If you read something from Lefty, check it out yourself. There is no "Democrat Law" prohibiting the CIA and the FBI from communicating, if you define the term "law" as legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. There were procedures set in place by Janet Reno in July of 1995. These procedures set standards for the sharing of information within the FBI and between the FBI and Justice Department criminal prosecutors. As written they were internal in nature. An explanation can be found in the Report of the 9-11 Commission. Linked here
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch3.pdf
Read Pages 78 thru 80 under the title: "Legal Constraints on the FBI and "the Wall"

It is true that there were serious problems of communication and intelligence sharing between various Government agencies. But these were caused by a misinterpretation of the Reno standards by the FBI internally and by a culture of distrust and a "home turf" mentality on the part of all agencies involved.
And it could be fairly said that the Clinton Administration should have recognized this problem and corrected it. On the other hand the Bush Administration specifically endorsed and continued this policy; as is shown in the above report.

[Lefty]

law or not is a moot point. "the wall" kept these agencies from communicating. It now has been done away with.

[mostpost]

On the other hand the Bush Administration specifically endorsed and continued this policy; as is shown in the above report.

I wrote the above at the end of Post# 57.
It is incorrect. The information is from the Original Media Matters report which includes the August 6, 2001 DOJ memo on the subject

http://www.cnss.org/Thompson%20Memo%208.6.01.pdf
The information was correct; the source was not.

[mostpost]

law or not is a moot point. "the wall" kept these agencies from communicating. It now has been done away with.

It is not a moot point, because you make it seem as if Democrats passed a law for the purpose of preventing us from gathering intelligence necesary to prevent an attack. In fact NO SUCH LAW EXISTS. Further more Bush continued the policy and had no clue that it was not working until the situation came crashing down around him,

[Lefty]

The "wall" was attributed to dem Janet Goreki(hope it was spelled right)and has been referenced many times.

[mostpost]

The "wall" was attributed to dem Janet Goreki(hope it was spelled right)and has been referenced many times.
Jamie Gorelick
Referenced INCORRECTLY many times.

[Tom]

It is not a moot point, because you make it seem as if Democrats passed a law for the purpose of preventing us from gathering intelligence necesary to prevent an attack. In fact NO SUCH LAW EXISTS. Further more Bush continued the policy and had no clue that it was not working until the situation came crashing down around him,

Wasn't all that long - he was only in office 9 months.
Once attacked once, unlike Clinton, he put a swift end to it.
He treated them as terrorists and not criminals.
He then did was it took to ensure we were not attacked again, and the libs went bonkers, condemning him for violating their rights, but somehow, now that Obama is doing it, it is no big deal.

Seems when it comes to terrorism, Bush one the very few who knew what he was doing.

Cheney is now lobbying to call Obama's bluff - he wants a lot of memos unclassified - not the cherry-picked ones Obama is releasing - because they will show that the enhanced interrogations really did work. Bummy only wants to release ones that make the US look bad.

[Quagmire]

Wasn't all that long - he was only in office 9 months.
Once attacked once, unlike Clinton, he put a swift end to it.
He treated them as terrorists and not criminals.
He then did was it took to ensure we were not attacked again, and the libs went bonkers, condemning him for violating their rights, but somehow, now that Obama is doing it, it is no big deal.

Seems when it comes to terrorism, Bush one the very few who knew what he was doing.

Cheney is now lobbying to call Obama's bluff - he wants a lot of memos unclassified - not the cherry-picked ones Obama is releasing - because they will show that the enhanced interrogations really did work. Bummy only wants to release ones that make the US look bad.

Only 9 months?

[Lefty]

post, right, knew it was sumpin like dat. Are you saying the 9-11 comission got it wrong?

[delayjf]

It is true that there were serious problems of communication and intelligence sharing between various Government agencies. But these were caused by a misinterpretation of the Reno standards by the FBI internally and by a culture of distrust and a "home turf" mentality on the part of all agencies involved.
And it could be fairly said that the Clinton Administration should have recognized this problem and corrected it. On the other hand the Bush Administration specifically endorsed and continued this policy; as is shown in the above report.

The above is hardly Bush’s fault. A lot of times it takes an event like 9/11 to draw attention to these types of administrative failures - just like Katrina showed the shortfalls of Homeland security in response to that type of natural disaster. The lack of communication between the two agencies was not an issue until AFTER 9/11.

One policy that almost certainly contributed to the intelligence failures of 9/11, was Clinton's decision to reduce intelligence spending by 30%. Even his appointee George Tenet called the intelligence budget a disaster.

[mostpost]

post, right, knew it was sumpin like dat. Are you saying the 9-11 comission got it wrong?

I take it you are talking about to my comment in #62 "Referrenced INCORRECTLY many times"

I meant referred incorrectly by you many times

[mostpost]

The above is hardly Bush’s fault. A lot of times it takes an event like 9/11 to draw attention to these types of administrative failures - just like Katrina showed the shortfalls of Homeland security in response to that type of natural disaster. The lack of communication between the two agencies was not an issue until AFTER 9/11.

One policy that almost certainly contributed to the intelligence failures of 9/11, was Clinton's decision to reduce intelligence spending by 30%. Even his appointee George Tenet called the intelligence budget a disaster.

delay, in response to you and to Tom above, it does often take an event such as 9/11 to draw attention to these types of administrative failures. And yes, Bush did change the policy quickly after 9/11. But, as you and Tom both say, he did not change it before 9/11. From that we have to believe that he was Ok with the policy and it took the events of 9/11 to change his mind. Therefore it seems unfair criticize Clinton for doing the same thing. As you said, it takes a seminal event such as 9/11.

More importantly, my point was that the Reno policy was not designed to prevent agencies from sharing intelligence. It was an internal policy, which was interpreted incorrectly by departments and individuals. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, there was no massive event during the Clinton Administration to call that policy into question. By massive event I refer to something on the scale 9/11 occuring in this country.

[Lefty]

no, post, I got the gist of it. The 9-11 Commission said a lot of the fault was because of that dim construct called "the wall"
Yoi want to keep picking up nits, be my guest.

[mostpost]

no, post, I got the gist of it. The 9-11 Commission said a lot of the fault was because of that dim construct called "the wall"
Yoi want to keep picking up nits, be my guest.
Happy Birthday

[delayjf]

But, as you and Tom both say, he did not change it before 9/11. From that we have to believe that he was Ok with the policy and it took the events of 9/11 to change his mind. Therefore it seems unfair criticize Clinton for doing the same thing. As you said, it takes a seminal event such as 9/11.

IMO, neither President Clinton nor Bush are culpable with regards to the lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. These kinds of issues are so far below the President's radar, I doubt either one even knew there was an issue.

However, I do blame Clinton for reducing the intel budget as previously mentioned.

[Tom]

Only 9 months?

9. Count 'em.

[Tom]

But, as you and Tom both say, he did not change it before 9/11. From that we have to believe that he was Ok with the policy and it took the events of 9/11 to change his mind. Therefore it seems unfair criticize Clinton for doing the same thing. As you said, it takes a seminal event such as 9/11.

He had one in 1993 - the WTC was bombed. He was so upset by that, he had a cigar. Then bankrolled a hummer.

A high wall, in fact, stands between the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the one hand, and the national security agencies on the other. Once arrests are made, the trials of individual perpetrators take bureaucratic precedence over everything else. The Justice Department inherits primary investigatory jurisdiction, and the business of the Justice Department is above all the prosecution and conviction of individual criminals. Once that process is underway, the Justice Department typically denies information to the national security bureaucracies, taking the position that passing on information might "taint the evidence" and affect prospects for obtaining convictions.


http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

[mostpost]

He had one in 1993 - the WTC was bombed. He was so upset by that, he had a cigar. Then bankrolled a hummer.



http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
In regards to your link, which claims that Iraq was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, that was discounted by every reliable authority as shown in this from the wikipedia article on the 1993 attack
Claims of direct Iraqi involvement come from Laurie Mylroie of the American Enterprise Institute, with the claims rejected by other experts. Peter Bergen has called her a "crackpot" who claimed that "Saddam was not only behind the '93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself."[27] Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes: "The most knowledgeable analysts and investigators at the CIA and at the FBI believe that their work conclusively disproves Mylroie's claims."[28] Dr. Robert Leiken of the Nixon Center comments on the lack of evidence in her work: "Laurie has discovered Saddam's hand in every major attack on US interests since the Persian Gulf War, including U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and even the federal building in Oklahoma City. These allegations have all been definitively refuted by the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other investigatory bodies...."[29]

[Tom]

I was only referring to the "wall" comments, which is why I posted that snipet.

On Aug. 29, 2001, officials at FBI headquarters told an FBI agent in New York that he could not track down a suspected al Qaeda associate who, less than two weeks later, was one of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0902/092302b1.htm

[Lefty]

mostpost, thanks for the birthday wishes. I appreciate it.

[mostpost]

mostpost, thanks for the birthday wishes. I appreciate it.

:ThmbUp: