i watched most of his speech. i finally figured out why i get so uneasy watching him. no matter what he says, no matter how dire, he smirks after each completed point. it's that leaning forward and smirking that is almost as offputting as some of the content of the speeches. i think his advisors, handlers or his mother should tell him not to smirk with that smug s--t eating grin after talking about horrendous events. i'm really serious here, it makes him look not quite "right!"
I know what bothered me about Clinton. When he blatantly lied in front of the American people and said, "I did not have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky." Want to talk about a flat out lie? Want to talk about committing perjury? Witness tampering? And you're going to sit there and refer to a smirk on one's face. How about the smirk on Clinton's face when he lied? Gee whiz, how easily you forgot. It's amazing how you Democrats forget things that fall within your own wings, it's only when a Republican does something you don't approve of do you get all upset.
Do as I say, but not as I do, right?
By the way, the Democrats can enjoy the track record of having the only President of the 20th Century to be impeached. Forgot about that one too, right?
Oh yeah, hey Maria...given your concerns over the NSA wire tapping issue, I implore you to come forward on how you would secure this nation of ours against terrorists if the responsibility were to become yours. How would you accomplish this?
geez, i do think there's a big difference between the two, besides, i've already said in other replies that 2 wrongs do not make a right, but if you want to give a free pass to whatever any republican wants to do from now on because clinton was fooling around on his wife, go for it. i don't believe that any one party or any one group is populated by all good or all bad , therefore while you will defend anyone that is a republican keep in mind some of them will not be worthy of your defending them.
First, I reject the false premise that the only way that Bush could monitor calls between Al Qaeda and Americans in the US is to break the FISA laws and subvert the Constitution. The FISA Courts approve thousands of warrants and have only rejected a handful. Second, Bush has 72 hours to listen in WITHOUT A WARRANT -- he can ask for one RETROACTIVELY. Third, they are data mining and the calls/emails are in the millions -- if there are, indeed, MILLIONS of Al Qaeda calls/emails coming in to the US, then there's also a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny visiting millions of US homes each year. So Bush's "either or" argument is BULL.
As to what needs to be done to be done to "secure this nation of ours against terrorists" that Bush isn't doing and should be:
- He could have vetoed his Republican Congress from doling out Homeland Security money on a political basis instead of giving proportionally more money to the big cities where it is most needed because they are the likeliest targets (even if they are in Blue States).
- He could better protect the nuclear and chemical facilities that remain as open and easy to get into as Disneyland on a summer day.
- "Each year, foreign cargo ships visit U.S. ports some 50,000 times carrying millions of shipping containers. Only 4 to 6 percent of these containers are currently inspected. In spite of this, the Bush Administration’s 2003 and 2004 budgets provided no money for port security grants."
- "A large-scale investment in renewable energy and conservation, for example, would yield results that might be more expensive than fossil fuels are currently, but would bring many safety and security benefits, and less pollution. (According to reports of the testimony of the captured Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of his strategies was to steal gasoline delivery trucks and blow them up.) It would also address the petroleum dependency that is a root of the terrorism threat."
- "Building local public clinics to deal effectively with infectious diseases, immediate and unencumbered access for the uninsured, vaccination programs, attention to children and youth, and so on would provide protection in these specific areas, and would also create a new opportunity to reach people in the underserved areas that are most exposed to the risk of disasters and social dislocations of all kinds. Such clinics serve as educational platforms as well as health providers. And, in the process, they would demonstrate a level of caring in society that is now spotty at best. In the unlikely event of a biological-weapon or similar attack, a layer of protection would be in place, one that not only could provide health services but would be an empowering link in an essential social network."
maria beat me to it, especially about the ports! we need to get back the money that was squandered by haliburton etc.(bad water, bad food, bad armour, millions gone to ? that they have no trace of) and put that toward watching the ports and borders and nuke facilities. that should have been a job for our "national" guard, but i get the feeling that one of the reasons that the guard was sent overseas was so that 30 years from now most people WON'T recall that guard slots were like hitting the lottery in the 60's and then bush's service will look so much better in the history books. but mainly, i'd used the money allotted for homeland security FOR homeland secrity, not pet projects.
Ok, sounds fair. So now who pays for all of this? It takes money, right? Where do you suggest we take the funds from?
"A large-scale investment in renewable energy and conservation, for example, would yield results that might be more expensive than fossil fuels are currently, but would bring many safety and security benefits, and less pollution." -- Again, fair enough, but do you realize that the technologies you're speaking of are far off, not to mention very expensive? Let's not count hybrid vehicles here, because they still require gasoline to run. Fuel cells? I doubt that'll be ready anytime soon. It's just too expensive to roll out on a mass scale, not to mention the development is not mature enough yet..and I stress yet; although the technologies are promising.
Public clinics? Not my idea of something that would work, since it would be provided by government. To me, less government is a GOOD thing, and that's something that both the Republicans AND Democrats don't do. And let's not forget spending, something the Republicans are quite bad at controlling, same with the Democrats, although not quite as much on the same scale, but still large nonetheless.
Your ideas are from the heart, and they do make sense, but you're forgetting one important thing: Money. Who foots the bill?
I'll tell you what, if you can push for a flat tax where you get rid of the IRS, and everyone ends up paying the SAME flat tax on things they buy (this way, making EVERYONE equal, everyone pays the same flat tax), you may, just may have a shot at this. Government provided? There's really no way out of it, although like I said, I hate the idea of government being involved with anything because they "boofage" everything they get their hands on. Your points are well taken though. ;)
How would leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice to the people of Iraq? Now be careful before you answer because you must take in account all of the mass graves that were found since Hussein's been taken into custody. How many thousands of bodies were found?
And let's not forget the torture chambers, and the children who were forced to endure being stung by wasps, and bees, not to mention being forced to witness their parents having their heads chopped off because Hussein and his minions suspected them of being "traitors?" Yoikes.
That being said, do you still call this a "fake" war?
"How would leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice to the people of Iraq? "
Didn't say it would. There, that was simple.
By "fake" I mean launching war on Iraq has nothing to do with keeping the US safer from terrorism. In fact, our own government has said that Iraq has become a terrorist training ground.
"Take the fake 'war against terrorism' $$ out of Iraq and put towards some REAL Homeland Security."
Then you said:
"By "fake" I mean launching war on Iraq has nothing to do with keeping the US safer from terrorism. In fact, our own government has said that Iraq has become a terrorist training ground."
What you just said made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Iraq has become a terrorist training ground? Hello? McFly? Been one for many years. Did you all of the sudden wake up from a coma?
So again, with all that being said, how do you come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is a "fake war?"
Oh puh-leeze! Even Bushie doesn't push the line anymore that Iraq was a terrorist traing ground BEFORE we invaded. Maybe becausse the same folks that pushed that crap were the same ones who swore there were WMDs and that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and candy. Remember that?
But is IS a training ground now:
Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
[snip]
President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.
i watched most of his speech. i finally figured out why i get so uneasy watching him. no matter what he says, no matter how dire, he smirks after each completed point. it's that leaning forward and smirking that is almost as offputting as some of the content of the speeches.
ReplyDeletei think his advisors, handlers or his mother should tell him not to smirk with that smug s--t eating grin after talking about horrendous events.
i'm really serious here, it makes him look not quite "right!"
Sherry --
ReplyDeleteI know what bothered me about Clinton. When he blatantly lied in front of the American people and said, "I did not have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky." Want to talk about a flat out lie? Want to talk about committing perjury? Witness tampering? And you're going to sit there and refer to a smirk on one's face. How about the smirk on Clinton's face when he lied? Gee whiz, how easily you forgot. It's amazing how you Democrats forget things that fall within your own wings, it's only when a Republican does something you don't approve of do you get all upset.
Do as I say, but not as I do, right?
By the way, the Democrats can enjoy the track record of having the only President of the 20th Century to be impeached. Forgot about that one too, right?
Oh yeah, hey Maria...given your concerns over the NSA wire tapping issue, I implore you to come forward on how you would secure this nation of ours against terrorists if the responsibility were to become yours. How would you accomplish this?
geez, i do think there's a big difference between the two, besides, i've already said in other replies that 2 wrongs do not make a right, but if you want to give a free pass to whatever any republican wants to do from now on because clinton was fooling around on his wife, go for it. i don't believe that any one party or any one group is populated by all good or all bad , therefore while you will defend anyone that is a republican keep in mind some of them will not be worthy of your defending them.
ReplyDeleteBranden,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I reject the false premise that the only way that Bush could monitor calls between Al Qaeda and Americans in the US is to break the FISA laws and subvert the Constitution. The FISA Courts approve thousands of warrants and have only rejected a handful. Second, Bush has 72 hours to listen in WITHOUT A WARRANT -- he can ask for one RETROACTIVELY. Third, they are data mining and the calls/emails are in the millions -- if there are, indeed, MILLIONS of Al Qaeda calls/emails coming in to the US, then there's also a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny visiting millions of US homes each year. So Bush's "either or" argument is BULL.
As to what needs to be done to be done to "secure this nation of ours against terrorists" that Bush isn't doing and should be:
- He could have vetoed his Republican Congress from doling out Homeland Security money on a political basis instead of giving proportionally more money to the big cities where it is most needed because they are the likeliest targets (even if they are in Blue States).
- He could better protect the nuclear and chemical facilities that remain as open and easy to get into as Disneyland on a summer day.
- "Each year, foreign cargo ships visit U.S. ports some 50,000 times carrying millions of shipping containers. Only 4 to 6 percent of these containers are currently inspected. In spite of this, the Bush Administration’s 2003 and 2004 budgets provided no money for port security grants."
- "A large-scale investment in renewable energy and conservation, for example, would yield results that might be more expensive than fossil fuels are currently, but would bring many safety and security benefits, and less pollution. (According to reports of the testimony of the captured Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of his strategies was to steal gasoline delivery trucks and blow them up.) It would also address the petroleum dependency that is a root of the terrorism threat."
- "Building local public clinics to deal effectively with infectious diseases, immediate and unencumbered access for the uninsured, vaccination programs, attention to children and youth, and so on would provide protection in these specific areas, and would also create a new opportunity to reach people in the underserved areas that are most exposed to the risk of disasters and social dislocations of all kinds. Such clinics serve as educational platforms as well as health providers. And, in the process, they would demonstrate a level of caring in society that is now spotty at best. In the unlikely event of a biological-weapon or similar attack, a layer of protection would be in place, one that not only could provide health services but would be an empowering link in an essential social network."
maria beat me to it, especially about the ports!
ReplyDeletewe need to get back the money that was squandered by haliburton etc.(bad water, bad food, bad armour, millions gone to ? that they have no trace of) and put that toward watching the ports and borders and nuke facilities. that should have been a job for our "national" guard, but i get the feeling that one of the reasons that the guard was sent overseas was so that 30 years from now most people WON'T recall that guard slots were like hitting the lottery in the 60's and then bush's service will look so much better in the history books.
but mainly, i'd used the money allotted for homeland security FOR homeland secrity, not pet projects.
maria has it right.
Maria -
ReplyDeleteOk, sounds fair. So now who pays for all of this? It takes money, right? Where do you suggest we take the funds from?
"A large-scale investment in renewable energy and conservation, for example, would yield results that might be more expensive than fossil fuels are currently, but would bring many safety and security benefits, and less pollution." -- Again, fair enough, but do you realize that the technologies you're speaking of are far off, not to mention very expensive? Let's not count hybrid vehicles here, because they still require gasoline to run. Fuel cells? I doubt that'll be ready anytime soon. It's just too expensive to roll out on a mass scale, not to mention the development is not mature enough yet..and I stress yet; although the technologies are promising.
Public clinics? Not my idea of something that would work, since it would be provided by government. To me, less government is a GOOD thing, and that's something that both the Republicans AND Democrats don't do. And let's not forget spending, something the Republicans are quite bad at controlling, same with the Democrats, although not quite as much on the same scale, but still large nonetheless.
Your ideas are from the heart, and they do make sense, but you're forgetting one important thing: Money. Who foots the bill?
I'll tell you what, if you can push for a flat tax where you get rid of the IRS, and everyone ends up paying the SAME flat tax on things they buy (this way, making EVERYONE equal, everyone pays the same flat tax), you may, just may have a shot at this. Government provided? There's really no way out of it, although like I said, I hate the idea of government being involved with anything because they "boofage" everything they get their hands on. Your points are well taken though. ;)
Take the fake 'war against terrorism' $$ out of Iraq and put towards some REAL Homeland Security.
ReplyDeleteCome on Maria. You're smarter than that, I hope.
ReplyDeleteSo let me ask you this:
How would leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice to the people of Iraq? Now be careful before you answer because you must take in account all of the mass graves that were found since Hussein's been taken into custody. How many thousands of bodies were found?
And let's not forget the torture chambers, and the children who were forced to endure being stung by wasps, and bees, not to mention being forced to witness their parents having their heads chopped off because Hussein and his minions suspected them of being "traitors?" Yoikes.
That being said, do you still call this a "fake" war?
"How would leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice to the people of Iraq? "
ReplyDeleteDidn't say it would. There, that was simple.
By "fake" I mean launching war on Iraq has nothing to do with keeping the US safer from terrorism. In fact, our own government has said that Iraq has become a terrorist training ground.
First you said:
ReplyDelete"Take the fake 'war against terrorism' $$ out of Iraq and put towards some REAL Homeland Security."
Then you said:
"By "fake" I mean launching war on Iraq has nothing to do with keeping the US safer from terrorism. In fact, our own government has said that Iraq has become a terrorist training ground."
What you just said made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Iraq has become a terrorist training ground? Hello? McFly? Been one for many years. Did you all of the sudden wake up from a coma?
So again, with all that being said, how do you come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is a "fake war?"
Oh puh-leeze! Even Bushie doesn't push the line anymore that Iraq was a terrorist traing ground BEFORE we invaded. Maybe becausse the same folks that pushed that crap were the same ones who swore there were WMDs and that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and candy. Remember that?
ReplyDeleteBut is IS a training ground now:
Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
[snip]
President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.