What does President Bush believe?

In screwing the American public as much as he can

President Bush thinks he has a direct line to God.

Hello dj:

President Bush believes the Constitution is an impediment to his power, and he's willing to destroy it. He's done more damage to the republic than ANY president has - ever!

excon

President Bush he believes that he can do no wrong... Of course the American people know otherwise...

Cowboy Bush doesn't like the fact there are rules even for the president, He should be impeached. Bending the rule to suit himself is what he is about. He doesn't care the american people just what he can do to make the USA, canada, mexico all one country, (North American Union).

He is about how much money he can spend around the world, and the hell with the American people to promote his image.

His image is very tarnished and I don't what to clean it up for him.

Looking from outside the country I may see things without the usual Democrat/Rebublican prejudices.
I see President Bush as someone that was put in an impossible situation. No matter whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not he had virtually no way to not get the military involved.
The reporting from the media in both your country and in Canada is so narrow minded and politically one sided they have the American army as buffoons running around not knowing what is going on.
The press reports that President Bush is misleading the people but in reality, honesty in Politics can be the most damaging positive attribute a politician can have.
Unlike his predecessor that brought misleading to an art form President Bush gives the answers that are politically damaging but in the best interest of the American people.
We lost a Prime Minister in Canada a few years a go when he said he was going to raise gas taxes by 19cents a gallon. He was replaced by a dishonest politician that made 19 cents look like a drop in the bucket.
There is a separate question stream that asks about JFK. I think they compare in many ways in style. Both believe in individual right over idealogue, waging war when and only when necessary. Mistakes however are overlooked in the press when speaking of President Kennedy. That is not to say mistakes where made in either Presidency but a Monday morning quarterbacksare always right when there advice or criticism can not be tested.
The aftermath of the Cuba invasion is still felt throughout the America's.
History will reflect on President Bush in a much more favourable light than the current treatment he receives from the press. Unfortunately too many voters will be swayed by this in the next election. Report a misleading or ficticous fact often enough and people will believe.
Not sure what kind of information you are trying to collect about either President Kennedy or President Bush but if your just looking to confirm your own opinion you will find lots of backers on both sides.

looking from outside the country I may see things without the usual Democrat/Rebublican prejudices.

It is interesting to see a non-US perspective, but I disagree with a lot of what you are saying.

I see President Bush as someone that was put in an impossible situation. No matter whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not he had virtually no way to not get the military involved.

Bush was, in no way, forced to take military action in Iraq. The facts of the matter is that the rationale for invading Iraq were either manufactured or misread. If Bush was backed into a corner its because he painted himself there. My personal belief is Bush wanted this war for reasons of ego and for his cronies.


The reporting from the media in both your country and in Canada is so narrow minded and politically one sided they have the American army as buffoons running around not knowing what is going on.

I also disagree about the portrayal of US troops. While there has been some criticism of the war planning, US media has been nothing but supportive to the rank and file.


The press reports that President Bush is misleading the people but in reality, honesty in Politics can be the most damaging positive attribute a politician can have.
Unlike his predecessor that brought misleading to an art form President Bush gives the answers that are politically damaging but in the best interest of the American people.

Excuse me? Yes, honest politician is more often an oxymoron, but Bush giving answer that are in the best interests of the people? Are you just from a different country or a different planet? Its one thing to not be honest, its another thing to downright lie. If Bush isn't lying to the American People, then its because his advisros are lying to him and he believes them.

As for Clinton, he doesn't hold a candle to Bush for lying to the people.


There is a seperate question stream that asks about JFK. I think they compare in many ways in style. Both believe in individual right over idealogue, waging war when and only when necessary. Mistakes however are overlooked in the press when speaking of President Kennedy. That is not to say mistakes where made in either Presidency but a Monday morning quarterbacksare always right when there advice or critisism can not be tested.

Where do you get the idea Bush believes in individual right? Bush has done more to damage the rights of Americans then anyone since King George III.
Bush has subverted the Constitution in several ways.


The aftermath of the Cuba invasion is still felt throughout the America's. History will reflect on President Bush in a much more favourable light than the current treatment he receives from the press. Unfortunately too many voters will be swayed by this in the next election. Report a misleading or ficticous fact often enough and people will believe.

Bush will go down in history as one of the worst, if not THE worst president in our history. If anything, as more facts come to light about his abuses, his rep will get worse. The only things that have saved him from impeachment are the prospect of Cheney in the Oval Office and the Republican dominated Congress. The Democrats figure it will take two years to get an impeachment through so why bother.

Well I'll give you he is your worst President since Clinton.
BTW what rights of Americans have been taken away?
I remember President Clinton trying to nationalize 10% of the US economy.
Try going down the slippery slope of socialism and see what happens to your rights.

It is really amazing how clueless people are in the U.S. and how quickly the forgot about 9/11. I am not saying the Bush is perfect or even the greatest President for he has made some mistakes with policies. What I am glad of was he was the President when we where attacked. This time we may have entered Iraq without the full truth (ie WMD) but two things are important. We stopped the genocide for the Iraqi people and we took the conflict with the fundamentalist away from the U.S. If it was not us taking the fight to the region these radicals are from then it would be here within our borders.

Are you kidding? Illegal wiretaps for one. There have been several other instances of disregard for the Constitution.

In the hindsight of history, I believe Clinton will come out very well. Its unfortunate that Clinton's libido over shadowed all the good he did.

Well, if you are not a terrorist or a criminal then what are you concerned about. Even if you where a criminal (US Citizen) then the wiretapping would not affect you because it only focused on terrorism and if something outside of that was discovered it would be dropped in our court system. Also, how do you think they wiretape. It is a computer that only keys on specific words to known areas of interest. Only when it meets a specific criteria does a human listen. So call the adult 800 number will be ignored.

It is really amazing how clueless people are in the U.S. and how quickly the forgot about 9/11. I am not saying the Bush is perfect or even the greatest President for he has made some mistakes with policies. What I am glad of was he was the President when we where attacked. This time we may have entered Iraq without the full truth (ie WMD) but two things are important. We stopped the genocide for the Iraqi people and we took the conflict with the fundamentalist away from the U.S. If it was not us taking the fight to the region these radicals are from then it would be here within our borders.

Excuse me, but I find it very hard to forget about 9/11. You see I was in the South Tower that morning. And no, I am not glad that he was president then. I will never be glad that Bush was president.

And for the record, I totally support our actions in Afghanistan. But Iraq was not justified in any way. There has been no proof that Sadaam had links to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any proof we have forestalled attacks on the US. So what you are saying is that its OK to send our trrops to Iraq and have them die there then trying to defend our borders? Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me.


Well, if you are not a terrorist or a criminal then what are you concerned about. Even if you where a criminal (US Citizen) then the wiretapping would not affect you becuase it only focused on terrorism and if something outside of that was discovered it would be dropped in our court system. Also, how do you think they wiretape. It is a computer that only keys on specific words to known areas of interest. Only when it meets a specific criteria does a human listen. So call the adult 800 number will be ignored.

You miss the point. The point is the disregard for the Constitution. I've been stopped and had my bag checked going through Penn Station. I don't object because that is legal and because I have nothing to hide. But I object to breaking the law in the name of allegedly protecting our rights. Can't you see the paradox of violating our rights to protect them?

NO SIR! Not I. I cherish our freedoms, our rights. I am aware that those rights and freedoms make us vulnerable. But I would rather be vulnerable than have my rights constrained.

It is strange that all of the sudden you where involved in 9/11 (I don't believe) but I have spent 20 years serving in the Navy have been involved in the Libyan conflict, 1st Gulf war, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the current war. So the answer is an astonishly "YES".

RetiredNavy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/retirednavy.html) disagrees: Listen to someone from Canada where they have a failing medical system and 50% tax rate.
a) ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack makes you look like you have no counter-argument whatsoever (which you do not seem to have)
b) I didn't make up that line about Bush:
Subject: Does God Speak to Bush? (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1008-29.htm)
Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI11Ak03.html)

The comment is not an attack but a comment of someone speaking of a the President of the U.S. when they themselves are not a citizen of the U.S. I did not make an attack of your Queen. the Royal Family ,etc.

I voted for GWB twice; the first time because I could not stomach ALGOR, the inventor of the internet; the second time because I don't consider Swift Boat Kerry to be an honorable man. I am sorely disappointed in the performance of GWB. His main failure was not listening to Colin Powell, and trying to do Iraq on the cheap (without sufficient forces). His goal to establish a bastion of freedom in a part of the world that seems mired in the 8th century was noble, if poorly executed. In 76 I voted for Carter because I thought him to be a man of character. He proved to be sadly incompetent, but still a good man. The vilification of GWB and his MOTIVES is sad, to say the least. Do you remember FDR who locked up Japanese and German US citizens in WWII? If we had CNN and the foreign affairs experts from Hollywood calling the plays after D-Day, the US would have folded their tent as soon as the carnage at Normandy was aired. If I had to pick the next president, I would have to go with Joe Biden, because he seems to offer the only realistic solution to the mess that Iraq has become.

It is strange that all of the sudden you where involved in 9/11 (I dont believe) but I have spent 20 years serving in the Navy have been involved in the Libyan conflict, 1st Gulf war, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the current war. So the answer is an astonishly "YES".

No its NOT all of a sudden. There was no need for me to mention it before. I don't talk about it much, but people who have known me for a while and knew me then know it's the truth.

There is nothing I can offer to prove it for you. I could tell you the company I work for (I'm still with them) and I could relate exactly what happened to me, but I doubt if that will convince you since you have indicated a bias.

I don't have any reason to doubt you, in fact your blind support for Dubya, is typical of those who served in the military.

I'm guessing your Yes answer is to sacrificing our military people rather then defending our borders. You are entitled to feel that way, just as I would rather have put our efforts into in dealing with the reality rather then some imagined threat. I would rather not have sacrificed the young men and women who serve in the military to protect a people that don't like us and don't want us.

Even if you where a criminal (US Citizen) then the wiretapping would not affect you becuase it only focused on terrorism and if something outside of that was discovered it would be dropped in our court system.Hello Retired:

The above presumes you believe him. I don't - not for a minute. I think they're going to listen to anyone they damn well please.

You believe him, huh? You were in Iraq? So, how many WMD's did you find?

excon

PS> Not that it matters, but for your information I spilled a few quarts of my blood in the Vietnamese dirt.

PS> Not that it matters, but for your information I spilled a few quarts of my blood in the Vietnamese dirt.

He probably won't believe you. Too convenient. ;)

GWB has made mistakes. No way! He is perfect... or wait isn't that what he wants us to believe. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your political beliefs) GWB has single handedly demolished the republican party. He breeds mistrust and is the portriat of incompetence. As I republican I can honestly say... I am voting democrat in the next election.

What do you mean to defend our borders, to prevent the illegal from entering. If you do, then you do not know much about U.S. Law. Title 10 and Title 50 establish the Natational Defense which includes the four services. Under these laws, the U.S. Military is forbidden to take military action within the borders of the United States unless attacked by a foreign military. This is so that a military take over is impossibly. The only reason that the National Guard can assist is that they fall under the states governments unless required to deploy outside the U.S. for war. So, in the case of the military fighting terrorist in Iraq or elsewhere then the only option to get the military to fight the terrorist is to outfit all terrorist with uniforms, place them in Mexico to form a military and have them cross our borders in a military action. What do think the odds of that happening? So, if you the people want the military to "Protect or Borders in the US" you need to change the laws first.

So you complain about the power of the U.S. government, just image of the powers the government would have against there own citizens if the had the military behind them. If you want to give them more power, please by all means organize the people of the United States to change the law to give them even more power and passing that power down to the military.

My mis-trust of GWB started after 9/11, and I will gladlly change my support as soon as anyone can show me a photo of the wreckage of the 757 Boeing that allegedlly struck the penatgon.

Just one photo of the wreckage!

Now remember the Fan blades on the two engines are 9 ft in diameter.

GWB has made mistakes. No way!! He is perfect...or wait isn't that what he wants us to believe. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your political beliefs) GWB has single handedly demolished the republican party. He breeds mistrust and is the portriat of incompetence. As I republican I can honestly say...I am voting democrat in the next election.

I do agree with that. We voted for him because we wanted Conservitism to return. He has not done that, in fact minimal government is far from the truth during his tenure.


My mis-trust of GWB started after 9/11, and I will gladlly change my support as soon as anyone can show me a photo of the wreckage of the 757 Boeing that allegedlly struck the penatgon.

Just one photo of the wreckage!

Now remember the the Fan blades on the two engines are 9 ft in diameter.

Here are the security tapes from the Pentagon on that day. Pentagon 9/11 Crash Video To Be Released - Wizbang (http://wizbangblog.com/2006/05/16/pentagon-911-crash-video-to-be-released.php). Additionally, I personally know and lost people that I knew at the Pentagon that day.

I know, I know, I should just stay out of this but I can't help it. My fingers will not listen to me! :)

1. George Bush has disappointed me more than words can say. I don't believe he's evil, but sure agree he's pathetic.
2. Knowing what I know today, if it were Bush vs. Kerry again, I'd have to vote (sadly) for Bush again.

Here are the security tapes from the Pentagon on that day. Pentagon 9/11 Crash Video To Be Released - Wizbang (http://wizbangblog.com/2006/05/16/pentagon-911-crash-video-to-be-released.php). Additionally, I personally know and lost people that I knew at the Pentagon that day.


I have seen this tape, it doesn't show the wreckage of the 757 Boeing. Not one single piece.

Yes, I agree and many people lost their life and I grieve for every single one of them and their families. My nephew works at the penatgon and was there that morning.

Hello Retired:

The above presumes you believe him. I don't - not for a minute. I think they're gonna listen to anyone they damn well please.

You believe him, huh? You were in Iraq? So, how many WMD's did you find?

excon

PS> Not that it matters, but for your information I spilled a few quarts of my blood in the Vietnamese dirt.

If you where in Vietnam, I would say I am glad you served your country. Your experenses says it all of the man you truly are. And CEO of a 500 company, please save me. If you bio is true, no company would ever allow you to get into management. Something about following rules, governance, respect, honest, and loyalty.

Well it is good to see that Conspiracism is live and well. Everyone is out to get you, the Federal Government, the State Government, and the Local Government.

It's good to question your government.

Well it is good to see that Conspiracism is live and well. Everyone is out to get you, the Federal Governement, the State Government, and the Local Government.



Conspiracism, very interesting you would say that being retire navy.

What ever happen to We the People. A governement of the people , by the people and for the people. Something the government has forgetten.

It's good to question your government.

Yes to question, however I fail to see where the question is, there is only blame, mistrust and disregard for the government. On the other hand, I do agree that Bush has not adequatly answered the questions of the people and that is "in my opinion" his biggest flaw.

their is only blame, mistrust and disregard for the government. And rightfully so.

Movement to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush)

What do you mean to defend our borders, to prevent the illegal from entering. If you do, then you do not know much about U.S. Law.

No I do not mean to just prevent illegal entry. And I am fully aware of the laws governing use of the military on American soil. But there are a number of Nat'l Guard units in Iraq. Units that could be used in internal defense. In addition, the money wasted in Iraq could have been put too much better use in defending our borders, which is basically what I meant.


So you complain about the power of the U.S. government, just image of the powers the government would have against there own citizens if the had the military behind them. If you want to give them more power, please by all means organize the people of the United States to change the law to give them even more power and passing that power down to the military.

Where did I complain about the "power of the US Government"? What I complained about was the ABUSE of its power.

BTW, May I call your attention to the suggested guidelines for using the comments feature shown here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/feedback/using-comments-feature-24951-4.html

Since much of what has been said in this thread is opinion, giving a negative comment goes against those guidelines.

And finally, the more I think about it the more incensed I am at your accusation that I lied. You have no cause to question my or anyone's veracity absent of proof. Yes I was in the South Tower that day. I saw flames shooting out of the windows of the North Tower from my office window. I was in a stairwell on the 16th floor when the second plane hit. The lights went out and the building shook. I saw the plaza looking like a war zone with flaming debris all over the place. Those images and that experience are etched in my memory.

Conspiracism, very interesting you would say that being retire navy.

What ever happen to We the People. a governement of the people , by the people and for the people. Something the goverment has forgetten.


One some matters I agree with you. I do believe that a majority of our problems is that being a Politician is a career not a desire to serve the people of the United States. I do not believe that the ones that are elected for terms are out to get the people.

Having served in the military, I know much more about countries than what the average citizen knows or has access too. Thus when people make rushed discission without have all of the facts is a little irritating. That is why most of the military believe in what we are doing in Iraq is for the better. They know from having much more information and/or by seeing first hand.

Many bring up the WMD issue, and when we went to Iraq it was believed by all there was. Not just by Bush's cronies as some would point out, but also by the military, many other countries and their military. Did we find any, no? However, based on the information everyone had, Bush and his cronies and many other countries made a discission. Now that we have turned Iraq upside down, we have a moral obligation to correct the mistake. And we CANNOT let Iran get ahold of Iraq. You believe we have issues now, if we where to let that happen there would be turmoil. The 2500 military that have died in Iraq would be a small number compared to Iran.

Having served in the military, I know much more about countries than what the average citizen knows or has access too. I'm not too sure about that. The backpacker who spends their nights in the homes of the citizens then travels the country would have knowledge that you would not have. The habitual business traveller who experiences various countries and needs to understand their mores and traditions has good knowledge as well. People in one country who befriend and host may people from different countries have a good understanding of the variety of cultures. Military people may have knowledge that is skewed by being surrounded by heavy weaponry in a host country.

Military people may have knowledge that is skewed by being surrounded by heavy weaponry in a host country.


Hi NK - me again :)

The above is not quite true. Our military are exposed to many cultures and variety parts of society. They actually become a member of the community where their duty station is, whether that be US or overseas. So, I would think they would have a very well rounded view and extensive knowledge of a variety of cultures, countries and policies. Oh trust me NK, it is far more than being surrounded by heavy weaponry. But I am sure retired Navy can answer this one awhole lot better.

Retirednavy - I do hope you address ScottGem's upset at not believing his word. I can not find the post where this took place, but I hope you do address it. That is very upsetting. Scott, I can not even imagine what that must have been like and so sorry you experienced that.

If you truly believe that then the world is lost. I have an idea, lets turn over the government to a 16 years old that thinks their teachers are just there to be irritating. Just because you know what a radiator is and can point out the fuel injector does not mean you know how to fix a car. So, talking to farmer that knows what is in his fields does not mean he knows what is in his government, military or even the local police. Also, there is a big differnece between a countries culture amound the average Joe then the culture of a government. Just look at the difference we have from the culture in the North and the culture in the South. Talking to a Northern does not mean I know the Southerner.

Hi Allheart,

My point was that the residents of the country may relate differently to a person carrying a sidearm or assault weapon. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


Just look at the difference we have from the culture in the North and the culture in the South. Talking to a Northern does not mean I know the Southerner.How would you know anyhting about North Korea? You're not a citizen of that country.

But there are a number of Nat'l Guard units in Iraq. Units that could be used in internal defense. In addition, the money wasted in Iraq could have been put to much better use in defending our borders, which is basically what I meant.

Again, the Federal Governemtn using the National Guard is borderline to breaking the law. About the only way they are getting by using them is that the state Governors are directing them. In regards to defending our border, the terrorist that attacked us all had legal and/or forged passports to enter the country. That is up to Customes to emforce not the military. Mexican coming into the U.S. to work is not a military action by a foriegner. I do agree it needs to be fixed but it is not an issue of the military.



Where did I complain about the "power of the US Government"? What I complained about was the ABUSE of its power.


Since much of what has been said in this thread is opinion, giving a negative comment goes against those guidelines.
Please specify which comment you are talking about when I used the Comment Feature. I


Since And finally, the more I think about it the more incensed I am at your accusation that I lied. You have no cause to question my or anyone's veracity absent of proof.

This is very intersting comment considering the entire thread is doing just that except with Bush. Many have accused Bush of lying and are questioning veracity absent of proof. It is amazing how upset when people get when there actions are repeated against them by others.

With that being said, the reason I question your locality on 9/11 is that I find it hard to understand that anyone that lived through that HELL can not understand why it is better to take the fight away from our soil. Iraq may not have been the best choice but it has caused the terrorist (ie the Insergency) to attack those that is the job to fight. Citizen should not be at the front line.


Hi Allheart,

My point was that the residents of the country may relate differently to a person carrying a sidearm or assault weapon. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

In my case, I have been to 34 countries and I can agree that the view of a average Joe is different than the view of the government. So, in my case having first hand contact with the average citizen plus access to other information. I can a say I have more knowledge than the average US citizen about foreign countries. I can also say that my knowledge level is not even close to higher officials. So, I do not know everything.


How would you know anyhting about North Korea? You're not a citizen of that country.

Did I say anything about North Korea? Let me be specific, a U.S. Northern (example from New York) and a U.S. Southern (Example from South Carolina) cultures are different.

Many bring up the WMD issue, and when we went to Iraq it was believed by all there was. Not just by Bush's cronies as some would point out, but also by the military, many other countries and their military. Did we find any, no?

However, based on the information everyone had, Bush and his cronies and many other countries made a discission. Hello again, Navy:

You seem to think that is was OK to invade Iraq because we all thought he had WMD's. It wasn't. Hell, I thought he had 'em too. But, a country shouldn't go to war on what it thinks, and it certainly shouldn't go to war based on what I think. It appears, however, that my thinking wasn't any better than the CIA's. But, I was guessing. Looks like they were too.

Bush took us to war based on faulty data, and we've ruined their country. His unwarranted invasion EMBOLDENDED our enemies throughout the Muslim world. Plus, he's expanded the military to the breaking point making us even LESS safe than we were.

Finally, since you've been there, were the Iraqi's better off under Saddam than they are now?? I say YES! By a long shot, and I've never been there.

excon

I can a say I have more knowledge than the average US citizen about foriegn countries. Well that's not too hard. I think that most Canadians have more knowledge of foreign countries than most americans. :)

You are correct. I misread your comment about north and south, my apologies.

You sound very familiar, have you ever been on this site before?

With that being said, the reason I question your locality on 9/11 is that I find it hard to understand that anyone that lived through that HELL can not understand why it is better to take the fight away from our soil. Iraq may not have been the best choice but it has caused the terrorist (ie the Insergency) to attack those that is the job to fight. Citizen should not be at the front line.


I think you have misunderstood Scott here. Nowhere did he state that he would rather have the war against terrorism fought on American soil. In fact I would think just the opposite. Especially since he was in the towers when they were attacked. I am sure that he would not want any other American citizen to have to go through what he went through.

I think what Scott is saying is that Bush should be more concerned about Afganistan then Iraq. Which I agree with him on. We should be attacking the people that attacked us. But now we are in Iraq and I fear that the outcome will be similar to NAM.

That being said, I will support my troops wherever they maybe. They are not at fault here. They go where they are told to go. And thank God for them because without them I would not be able to live in a country as wonderful as the US is.

Please specify which comment you are talking about when I used the Comment Feature.

Here's one from Post #2:
RetiredNavy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/retirednavy.html) disagrees: How, by reducing taxes and keeping job employment high.
Here's another from Post #3
RetiredNavy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/retirednavy.html) disagrees: Listen to someone from Canada where they have a failing medical system and 50% tax rate.




This is very intersting comment considering the entire thread is doing just that except with Bush. Many have accused Bush of lieing and are questioning veracity absent of proof. It is amazing how upset when people get when there actions are repeated against them by others.

With that being said, the reason I question your locality on 9/11 is that I find it hard to understand that anyone that lived through that HELL can not understand why it is better to take the fight away from our soil. Iraq may not have been the best choice but it has caused the terrorist (ie the Insergency) to attack those that is the job to fight. Citizen should not be at the front line.

The problem is that there IS evidence to support Bush's or at least his administration's lies. So questioning his veracity is reasonable.

As I said in an earlier post, I had no problem with and supported our actions in Afghanistan. That was a valid response to 9/11. Iraq wasn't and isn't.

I can understand how someone, especially with a military background ,would find it hard to understand how someone could experience 9/11 as I did and feel the way I do. But that still doesn't justify your calling me a liar. Which you still haven't apologized for.

I find it hard to respect the views of someone like that.

Iraq may not have been the best choice but it has caused the terrorist (ie the Insergency) to attack those that is the job to fight. Hello again, Navy:

According to you, Iraq wasn't a very good choice. But, apparently it doesn't make much difference, because (according to you) the objective wasn't to remove WMD's, but to get the terrorists to attack us.

Huh??

We could have invaded, let's say, Libya, and they would have attacked us there too. No? Why not there? What?? Afghanistan wasn't a good enough place to attack us?

No Sir, I don't know where you're coming from, but it's clear that you bought all the propaganda Bush fed you. Please don't insult me by calling it inside military information.

excon

OK, do I believe that our Government (including Bush, Congress, Senate and House of Representatives) have made mistakes about Iraq, the answer is "YES". The is more that lead to Iraq than just the belief of WMD, like invading Kuwait and then ignore the U.N. mass killing his own people, etc, etc. I seems that history was repeating itself, like Hitler. It does not matter that there were no WMD's found, what matters is that the majority of U.S. citizen, Congress, Senate, House of Representative, and Bush made a choice. My belief that we are doing what is the right for the World, the U.S. and the Iraqi people and that region.

Scott

I did not call you a liar, I said that I did not believe you. There is a significant difference between the two. If I called you a liar that should be based on fact, when one does not believe someone else statement, then it is based on opinion.

As fare as the disagreement, both statements are facts although the second on was a mixture of both fact and opinion. With that I did make a mistake. Live and learn.

For Bush administration lying, again is based on fact (Hard evidence) or is it based on opinions. Is there a possibility that lies have been told, definitely and I would not put it past any definitely. Even within this thread, I believe Bush has made some failing errors and not delivered what the people thought he would.

- The Prescription Drug reform, what a crock that will cost us more than the war will.

- Campaign Reform, another crock in that all it really does is allow those that make a career out of being a politicain stay in office longer.

And this list goes on, but I also believe he is human and makes mistakes like the rest of us. I would never what to be in his shoes of having to make the decision that he has too.

I am sorry RN but I have to respectfully disagree with you. The parents and the families of the service men and women would probably disagree too.

Oh and you left off one other reason for GWB to invade Iraq... he had to finish what his father couldn't. Of course it does not look like he will be able to finish it either...

It is difficult to respond to people that have a one track mind. The world is not a black and white solution. There is a lot of grey between the two. Iraq is one of those issue that fit into the grey area. Bush made a severs mistake by convincing the people that Iraq was necessary due to WMD's alone. I believe that if he had stated everything such as the U.N. violations, the mass killings of his own people, possibility of developing WMD (there is good evidence that he was), the increased opportunity to harbor terrorist (he had such a great issues with America that he would have), and funneling money to fund terrorist activties (good evidence of that too), then Bush would not have created the issue he has. I stated that to many before the war began that he need to give more than just WMD to the American people.

Also, if I was to believe in the so called Bush propaganda then I would say he has not been made any mistakes and that he was the best President we have had. I do not believe that and as one other post stated, compared to the other choices of the last election, he is the better choice.

Tuscany,

I have to disagree with you. There are some parents and family of the fallen solders that do not believe that we (the Military men) are there for a good cause, there are many/most that do. How many military families do you know to base you opinion? I know many, some have lost loved ones in the war zone. My sister just deployed there last week, and I have had several cousins there and I believe in them. Please remember, we are an all voluntary force, meaning we do not have to serve, we serve because we believe in our country. Even with the war, the services are not having issues in brave citizens joining.

We have to finish this war and leave a capable Iraqi government in place. If not, Iran could easily walk in and take over thus turning the situation into a more difficult one. They are a severe threat both with WMD's (nuc's) and they also have a significant military power. A conflict with them would be much more bloody than what we have today. Additionally, if that was to happen, do not complain when oil prices raise though the roof and terrorist attacks significantly increase. To day, we are in a Global Economy, what affect one region affects the whole world.

RN-
I think you miss understood me. I support the troops that are over there 100%. And how many do I know... just my 2 cousins, 3 friends that I graduated with, my mom's best friend's son, and countless former students. And that does not include the number of people that I know in the national guard.

I believe in every single one of them. I believe that they will try their best, that they will work hard, that they will do all that they can do to remain safe and fight for out country. And yes I am well aware that signing up for the military is voluntary. However where you are stationed is not.

Well that's not too hard. I think that most Canadians have more knowledge of foreign countries than most americans. :)?

For some reason, I agree. Maybe a little true.


You are correct. I misread your comment about north and south, my apologies.

Accepted! By the way, I just got back from Quebec City. Very lovely place with a great culture.


You sound very familiar, have you ever been on this site before?

Nope, new to this place. My wife was telling me about the site. She tweaked my interest, so here I am.

I may be naïve, but I don't believe that this nation has ever had a President who took actions that he knew to be against the interests of the US and its people. The demonization and abject hatred that the Left has for GWB, make reasonable discussion of his policies difficult. Past Presidents have made grave mistakes from the war of 1812, to The bay of Pigs... and future Presidents will make more. The people who believe that GWB went to war to enrich his oil buddies and Hailburton; and who still cling to to the debunked conspiracy theories about 9/11, in my opinion have a tenuous grasp on reality.

I support the troops that are over there 100%.

Sorry being harsh, but from personal experiences and speaking for others serving. That term is a bunch of bull. Actions speak louder than words. If you believe in the troops, especially those going on there 3rd and 4th tours (which you cannot do that many in a single enlsitment) then those that us that term would trust what they (ther troops) feel is right. If the troops say they need to stay and finish the job, then those that support them would push the government to finish the job. If you supported the troops then you would not support the media that only presents the things that have gone wrong but only those that tell the good and the bad. The American people (including the Government) say they support the troops but there action say something different.


However where you are stationed is not.

Very true, but when you volunteer when people are fighting overseas should you think that you are not going to fight also.


I may be naive, but I don't believe that this nation has ever had a President who took actions that he knew to be against the interests of the US and its people. The demonization and abject hatred that the Left has for GWB, make reasonable discussion of his policies difficult. Past Presidents have made grave mistakes from the war of 1812, to The bay of Pigs...and future Presidents will make more. The people who believe that GWB went to war to enrich his oil buddies and Hailburton; and who still cling to to the debunked conspiracy theories about 9/11, in my opinion have a tenuous grasp on reality.


I do not believe you are naïve, that what I have been attempting to spread.

OK, do I believe that our Government (including Bush, Congress, Senate and House of Representatives) have made mistakes about Iraq, the answer is "YES". The is more that lead to Iraq than just the belief of WMD, like invading Kuwait and then ignore the U.N., mass killing his own people, etc, etc. I seems that history was repeating itself, like Hitler. It does not matter that there were no WMD's found, what matters is that the majority of U.S. citizen, Congress, Senate, House of Representative, and Bush made a choice. My belief that we are doing what is the right for the World, the U.S. and the Iraqi people and that region.

Had Bush Sr finished the job when the opportunity existed, I would have had no problem with that. Sadaam badly underestimated how the US and the Arab world would react to the invasion of Kuwait. He got his nose badly bloodied. But I think he also learned a lesson. I think the evidence shows that he was content to rule his little corner of the world and no more. I think he enjoyed thumbing his nose at the US and that was his undoing. But I don't think he presented a credible threat to the security of the US or the world after Desert Storm. This was my opinion before Dubya's big mistake and nothing that has happened has given me any reason to change that opinion.



Scott

I did not call you a liar, I said that I did not believe you. There is a significant difference between the two. If I called you a liar that should be based on fact, when one does not believe someone else statement, then it is based on opinion.


Sorry, but I don't see any difference between the two let alone a significant one. If you don't believe a statement someone made, then you believe they are not telling the truth which makes them a liar. Obviously it is your OPINION that I wasn't there, because you have absolutely no proof that I wasn't, nor any proof that I would lie about it. What's worse, you have made no attempt to back off on your opinion, even though you have no facts to support it.

Unfortunately, I have no way of proving it to you. I know what the truth is. I have to live with the memories and the consequences.

Sorry being harsh, but from personal experiences and speaking for others serving. That term is a bunch of bull. Actions speak louder than words. If you believe in the troops, especially those going on there 3rd and 4th tours (which you cannot do that many in a single enlsitment) then those that us that term would trust what they (ther troops) feel is right. If the troops say they need to stay and finish the job, then those that support them would push the government to finish the job. If you supported the troops then you would not support the media that only presents the things that have gone wrong but only those that tell the good and the bad. The American people (including the Government) say they support the troops but there action say something different.



Very true, but when you volunteer when people are fighting overseas should you think that you are not going to fight also.

Well now thanks so much for assuming that you know so much about me. Funny, that is exactly what you did to Scott too.

I do support the troops. I DO think that mainstream media does nothing but preach gloom and doom. Do not tell me who I support and who I don't. And since you don't know me you don't know what I have done to show support to the troops. But, since the best you can do is throw insults around... I am not surprised.

Oh and yes you can support the troops without supporting the government that puts them there.

What does President Bush believe?
Just for starters:


That he was chosen by God to be president.

That his obligation to "protect the American people" is more important than his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution".

That he is not obligated to obey laws he doesn't agree with.

That scientific results that don't support his policy preferences and political goals should be disregarded and supressed.

That he alone has the authority to declare any person to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" and to deprive that person of all legal avenues to challenge this designation or his indefinite imprisonment without charge.

I quess it boiles down to upbringing and culture. Here is a perfect example to me, excon profile say he is a CEO of a fortune 500 company and I challenged that considering his boasting about be arrested numerous times. He commented back stating that he ownes the company. Well, to be a Fortune 500 you have to be a publicly owned company. Fact verse opinion. My first statement was an opinion, however, I have the facts and I can say it is a lie. Fortune 500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_500)

If you where there than, I am so sorry that you where and I must apologize for my statement. I cannot even fathom the horror. Even, being all of the places that I have been and military conflicts that I have been in I have never been a part of a situtation like that, only present afterwards.

You are correct that you have know way to prove anything, the same as I do not when it comes to personal experiences or knowledge. After all, my words are just a bunch of trons transmitted around the world, like you. Opinions are just that opinions.

Hello Retired Dude:

If a joke has to be explained, it looses it's punch. I guess I should have considered that some people aren't smart enough to get it. Ok, my bad.

excon

Well now thanks so much for assuming that you know so much about me. Funny, that is exactly what you did to Scott too.

As a matter of fact I do support the troops. I DO think that mainstream media does nothing but preach gloom and doom. Do not tell me who I support and who I don't. And since you don't know me you don't know what I have done to show support to the troops. But, since the best you can do is throw insults around...I am not surprised.

Oh and yes you can support the troops without supporting the government that puts them there.

I am sorry that you take it personally, but that qoute has become the buzz word of the year. Since you know so many military people, just ask them for there opinion on that qoute. I did not insult you, I told you that "us" in the military/ ex-military hate that term and that only actions can prove otherwise.


I think he enjoyed thumbing his nose at the US and that was his undoing.

I believe that this is the closest thing to a good rebutal to my opinion. I agree 100% with this comment but I also believe that he was threat, maybe not directly but indirectly.

If you where there than, I am so sorry that you where and I must apologize for my statement. I cannot even fathom the horror. Even, being all of the places that I have been and military conflicts that I have been in I have never been a part of a situtation like that, only present afterwards.Hello again:

Don't be sorry. I was proud to defend my country. The problem was that I wasn't defending my country at all. I was defending a failed policy. That didn't stop me from fighting like hell, and I didn't know it at the time anyway.

And, if it further eases your conscience, I did lie. My blood was spilled on the deck of the USS Robert K. Huntington, DD-781 - not in the dirt. It didn't hurt too badly, and I slept in my warm rack that night. Yeah, I got a purple heart. Big deal. Does that make you feel better?

excon

PS> By the way, last week my occupation was big band leader. I guess you wouldn't have gotten that one either.

Us in the military... hmmmm isn't it interesting that your screen name is Retired Navy.
Since you are not on the frontlines anymore how can you speak for those serving in Iraq? Have you been there in the last 9 months?

Have I... no. But then I don't pretend to speak for those who have.

Hello Retired Dude:

If a joke has to be explained, it looses it's punch. I guess I should have considered that some people aren't smart enough to get it. Ok, my bad.

excon


As ScottGem pointed out to me https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/feedbac...e-24951-4.html

Negative comments should be given under the following circumstances:
1) From another member when an answer is FACTUALLY wrong
2) From the asker if the advice turned out to be wrong

Negative comments should NOT be given when:
1) there is a difference of opinion not of fact
2) when a response has been added to the thread disagreeing with the opinion

Think before insulting an individual.


Us in the military....hmmmm isn't it interesting that your screen name is Retired Navy.
Since you are not on the frontlines anymore how can you speak for those serving in Iraq? Have you been there in the last 9 months?

Have I...no. But then I don't pretend to speak for those who have.

In the last 9 months no, I returned from the Middle East in November 2005. My sister, however is there today. A co-working that is an Actived Duty Marine just got back and is trying to change his assignment to go back. I did not mention that I still work heaviliy with the military. Another friend that was a GS there just got back a month ago. So, just because I am retired from the military does not mean that I am still not apart of the military.

So, I do believe that I am not pretending. I my not be there, but I am in a position that I have continuous interactions with those that have been and even that are there right now.

Hello Navy:

I can argue as ridiculously as you can. I didn't give a negative comment. Those comments are when you push the rate this answer button. I didn't rate anything about you. I simply gave my opinion regarding your intellect. I'm entitled to my opinion aren't I?

excon

Oh so another words you are like me. You have family, friends, co-workers that are there. And like me you have continuous interaction with those that are there... ok... just checking.

excon,

Sorry you did, when you select Rate this Comment. I did make a mistake and did not send the entire Rule for making a comment.

Positive comments should be given under the following circumstances:
1) From the asker as a thank you
2) From other members to ratify the factual correctness of an answer
3) From other members to agree with the opinions expressed

With this, did you thank me for the comment, no. Did you ratify the factual correctness of an answer, no. Did you agree with the opinions expressed, no

So, who is the brilliant intellect in this situtation. Oh, I am sorry the known felon or ex-con.


Oh so another words you are like me. You have family, friends, co-workers that are there. And like me you have continous interaction with those that are there...ok...just checking.


Except, unlike you. I deal with it and work in the environment.

Another, note: Italy is a beautiful country. I am looking forward to visiting there again.

Think before insulting an individual.
Hypocrite much? Your very first comment on my post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/bushs-idealogues-91165.html#post408385) was to demean me and a whole country instead of commenting about the content of the message.

Just for starters:


That he was chosen by God to be president.

That his obligation to "protect the American people" is more important than his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution".

That he is not obligated to obey laws he doesn't agree with.

That scientific results that don't support his policy preferences and political goals should be disregarded and supressed.

That he alone has the authority to declare any person to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" and to deprive that person of all legal avenues to challenge this designation or his indefinite imprisonment without charge.


1) For those that are religious, many believe Fate and Destiny are the outcome of God's work. It is a known fact the Bush is a devote Christian, OK good for him.
2) Where has he violated the Constitution. Even if he did, our Government works on checks and balances so the violation would not go far before proceedings began.
3) Scientific result to what.
4) Speaking of Constitutional Law, yes he does under the Constitution as Commander and Chief of the Military. Also read Title 10 and Title 50 that establish the law for the military.


Hypocrite much? Your very first comment on my post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/bushs-idealogues-91165.html#post408385) was to demean me and a whole country instead of commenting about the content of the message.

Not really, your comment "President Bush thinks he has a direct line to God" to me is a direct insult of my country. Maybe I should have pointed out that the Royal family has also believed the same.

Remember, I am a retired serviceman that has spent 20 years defending this country and willing to die for it. So, like many of us, you insult my country you insult me. I was just attempting to return the favor. In retrospect, very poorly.

Also, I did not know of the rule until ScottGem pointed them out. If you read post #44, you will find out that I owned up to my mistake. I have been a member for three day, excon since 2005. So, please explain how I am a hyprocrite.

It seems like this thread has degenerated into a p***ing match between our illustrious members. Can't we follow the lead of Rodney King and "all just get along". I've almost forgotten the original topic of discussion. Remember, we should all behave like ladies and gentlemen.

Hello again, Navy:

You don't have your facts straight. Fortunately, I do.

Evidently, my presence here has offended your sensibilities. To show your disdain for me, you dug up an old thread of mine from last May in order to insult me. We had never spoken a word before that. This is what you said:


It is amazing that the only ones that attempt to that the steps the governemt have taken are legal are the poeple that have proven they cannot obide by the laws in the first place and/or those that have something to hide.
You think, because I'm a felon, that you can insult me. I didn't see that in the rules. Now, you have the audacity to accuse me?? Did you think I wouldn't notice? You have no honor Sir, and no credibility. On a website like this, that's all you have.

excon

Maybe I should have pointed out that the Royal family has also believed the same. The Royal Family has nothing to do with canadian government.

That jab at excon tells me how you operate. Buh-bye.

Agreed. What is funny is that it is a p***ing contest for against those that will and have fought for their country and those that only talk about it. It is amazing the way people complain about our government when we are one of the few countries that we can do something about it. It is call voting and working with your representatives. The other alternative is to move to another is it is so unbearable here. We have illegals breaking the law to get here and those that are here just complain about our laws. Talk about a neverending story.

I am not the criminal, please tell me what you have done for this country beside break our laws.

If you where there than, I am so sorry that you where and I must apologize for my statement. I cannot even fathom the horror. Even, being all of the places that I have been and military conflicts that I have been in I have never been a part of a situtation like that, only present afterwards.

There is no IF about it. I was there, I experienced it, I live with that experience. I have related that experience at various times where I felt it appropriate. This isn't the first time I have mentioned it here.


You are correct that you have know way to prove anything, the same as I do not when it comes to personal experiences or knowledge. Afterall, my words are just a bunch of trons transmitted around the world, like you. Opinions are just that opinions.

That's not quite what I said. I said I have no way of proving it to you. But proof does exist. I have recorded my story with StoryCorps, a copy of which is in the Library of Congress and will be part of the Ground Zero museum. I have witnesses who were with me that day. I have floor plans of my company's offices that show my name and where my office was. I have business cards that give my address as 2 WTC. Yes the proof does exist.

The Royal Family has nothing to do with canadian government.

That jab at excon tells me how you operate. Buh-bye.

Please educate me. According to Government of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Canada) the Canadian Government consist of the Executive Branch with the Queen, Senate and House of Commons. Thus the Royal Family is apart of your Government which has been known to believe they where appointed by God.

I do believe that I owned up to my mistake about commenting you. If you cannot take that, not sweat off my back. Like I said, you are just rons coming from Canada.


As far as excon, his bio should tell the whole story. Respect is earned and not given. His past indicates how much he respect our society by breaking our laws. By reading the bio, more than once.


There is no IF about it. I was there, I experienced it, I live with that experience. I have related that experience at various times where I felt it appropriate. This isn't the first time I have mentioned it here.



That's not quite what I said. I said I have no way of proving it to you. But proof does exist. I have recorded my story with StoryCorps, a copy of which is in the Library of Congress and will be part of the Ground Zero museum. I have witnesses who were with me that day. I have floor plans of my company's offices that show my name and where my office was. I have business cards that give my address as 2 WTC. Yes the proof does exist.


Honestly, anyone that is willing to explain to this detail without trying to attack me personally then the truth is there. I must apologize for my comment. I hope you understand that in these type of environments, some have a tendency to "exagerate".

I have never meet anyone at Ground Zero, only people at the Pentagon and have known a few that died there. It is my honor to meet you.

I still do not agree with you opinion, but I respect it. :)

I have never meet anyone at Ground Zero, only people at the Pentagon and have known a few that died there. It is my honor to meet you.

I still do not agree with you opinion, but I respect it. :)

Frankly, while I think it is an honor to meet me, not for that reason. I did nothing to distinguish myself by being a part of the tragedy, other than having survived it. Too many people contributed heroically, and many of them tragically, to the aftermath of the attack, for me to take any honor from my simply having been there.

I do not ask that you agree with me, but I thank you for respecting my right to my opinions.

That is an Honor within itself. Surviving such a tragedy and then pulling yourself back into the game of life take courage and commitment. The Navy's Core Values is Honor, Courage and Commitment with is not just to the military but to onesself, their community and their friends and family. We have to many in our society that do not have those values. So when I find people with those values, I find it an honor to meet them.


The Royal Family has nothing to do with canadian government.

That jab at excon tells me how you operate. Buh-bye.


I am sorry, I should have searched a little further. Please read Style of the Canadian Sovereign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada).

As far as excon, his bio should tell the whole story. Respect is earned and not given. His past indicates how much he respect our society by breaking our laws. By reading the bio, more than once.



RN, I am not going to comment about my opinion of GWB because it appears that this is an argument with no happy conclusion. I also do not want to hijack this thread by getting onto other topics. However, I must interject regarding excon. You stated you have only been here 3 days. Yes, I agree respect is earned. Due to excon's input on this web site he has earned the respect of all of us that have been here for a while. He gives his advice freely to people. He has helped many, many people who have gotten into trouble and are looking for someone to help them understand the laws. His advice is much more than very good advice. He also helps out in other forums as well. All of this is done, free of charge. We don't know what excon did in breaking the law, but his name tells us that he has served his time. It is not appropriate to condemn someone, all over again, when they have paid for their crimes. Please, do not personally attack him for this. It is cruel and has no bearing on this discussion. You may not agree with his politics, and that is your right. You have a right to your opinion. Politics and religion are rather subjective topics the majority of the time. But, please, do not get personal and continue to condemn him as you have been doing.

And I guess all of the military that serve the U.S. has not earned there respect in society in this forum. Those that fight for you rights to post comments on this site should be freed from insults also. The original post that I stated was "Well, if you are not a terrorist or a criminal then what are you concerned about. Even if you where a criminal (US Citizen) then the wiretapping would not affect you becuase it only focused on terrorism and if something outside of that was discovered it would be dropped in our court system. "Which he took personal instead of statement concerning wiretapping. We all make choices in our lives that we must deal with and many times they come back and hunt us.

Retired Navy -

I think you need to take a huge deep breath. I am glad to see that you have communicated respect to Scott, as I was more than upset at that exchange.

I completely realize you pretty much have entered "civilian" life and it is hugely different then when you were in uniform and you may not be used to folks voicing a difference of opinion than yours. Just some unsolicited advice... you are going to have to be more open to people voicing their beliefs and learning to have a conversation rather than find ways to beat them down.

Go and read some of my post as far as our military. They are my heart. I love and adore them and proudly say support them. President Bush is my President and I respect his position and I believe all should respect the position of President. He is my Commander in Chief. You will never find me voicing any negative comment about any of our Presidents. I respect the position, but my main concern is our troops.

Oh, I have supported the Navy as a civilian for 25 years and still going strong.

Not sure why I have this need to refer to you as "Sir". I guess I fear, I do not want to be disrespectful. However, please be mindful, using a name such as Retired Navy, like it or not, the words you post, not only reflect on you, but on our fine Navy as well.

I have this awful sense that you do not fully feel the support that is here for our troops in the civilian world. Trust me, it is more than there. Give yourself some time to acclumate yourself to the civlian world. I do understand what a difficult transition it is.

This is an incredible site with amazing and talented people. You truly will enjoy it. Relax a little. Believe you me, I fully understand your upset. When I hear negative about our President, my back gets up as well. Its instictive. To me I have a hard time making the disconnect from a degrogatroy statement about our Presdent, from a degrogtory statement about our Country and brave military.

Starting to feel like I am rambling. Hope what I am sharing is helpful.

By the way, I missed what you wrote about Excon. He's another fine individual. Hope you are able to see that for yourself and respect it as well.

Hello gaze:

So, that excuses Georgie? No, it doesn't. Haven't you right wingers heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? Nope, no you haven't.

excon


Hello:

DUM, DUM, DUM - another one bites the dust.

excon


Who has a tendency to insult, I found many more. I can say this for excon, he does give great advice on dealing with the Police.

Oh LOL RN - sometimes that is just is wondeful gift of humor. He is amazing. Honest. (and good hearted).

I am sorry I had to step away for a moment.

You are absolutely correct that those that fight for our rights should not be attacked for serving our country. I have been looking but I can't seem to find the posts in which someone attacked you for that. You will have to forgive me, but I am a bit tired and maybe I am missing something here. But, I would most definitely defend you too for being attacked in that manner.

I can't find the post you are quoting after my post. This is what I am finding in which the attacks actually first started. Please correct me if I am wrong and have missed the first personal insult thrown by Excon.


Well, if you are not a terrorist or a criminal then what are you concerned about. Even if you where a criminal (US Citizen) then the wiretapping would not affect you becuase it only focused on terrorism and if something outside of that was discovered it would be dropped in our court system. Also, how do you think they wiretape. It is a computer that only keys on specific words to known areas of interest. Only when it meets a specific criteria does a human listen. So call the adult 800 number will be ignored.

Hello Retired:

The above presumes you believe him. I don't - not for a minute. I think they're gonna listen to anyone they damn well please.

You believe him, huh? You were in Iraq? So, how many WMD's did you find?

excon

PS> Not that it matters, but for your information I spilled a few quarts of my blood in the Vietnamese dirt.

If you where in Vietnam, I would say I am glad you served your country. Your experenses says it all of the man you truely are. And CEO of a 500 company, please save me. If you bio is true, no company would ever allow you to get into management. Something about following rules, governance, respect, honest, and loyalty.

Well it is good to see that Conspiracism is live and well. Everyone is out to get you, the Federal Governement, the State Government, and the Local Government.

This is where it appears that the personal attacks began. Then, it started really breaking down between the two of you, and you both became personal. I realize that you haven't been here long enough to realize that most people don't fill our their personal information completely and honestly. Some of us make jokes. Most people prefer to stay completely anonymous.

RN, I am sure that excon is haunted by his past mistakes. All I am saying is, there really isn't any reason to "rub salt in the wound." Argue about your position. You have as much right to your opinion as anyone else here. I agree that excon has attacked you personally during this thread. But, it appears that you hurled the first stone. So, it is best if we stay on track and focus on the initial post, and avoid insulting one another any further.

The beginning is the wiretap opinion, you are correct. However, the first comment on wiretaping is just that not against excon. If you are not currently involved in criminal activitythe you will not be harmed by any alleged eaves dropping. I have found that those how have something to hide raise their voices the loadest against possible capture. So, if excon is not involved in criminal activities now, the comment was not directed at him but at current terrorist and CURRENT criminals.

It is time to drop this. It is appearant that excon has his presence established. I will avoid excon.

The beginning is the wiretap opinion, you are correct. However, the first comment on wiretaping is just that not against excon. If you are not currently involved in criminal activitythe you will not be harmed by any alleged eaves dropping.

I have to go back to this, because you seem to be missing the point. First, let me point out the taps are not "alleged" the govt has admitted them. Second, I agree with and have used the same argument when supporting legal checks on our privacies and freedoms.

But you go down a very slippery slope when you apply that argument towards ILLEGAL surveillance. The issue, to me, is not that the eavesdropping went on but that it was done with a disregard for the Constitution. The fact is there is a mechanism already in place for the govt to quickly, privately and legally obtain such taps. The Bush administration ignored that mechanism and eavesdropped on citizens in violation of the law! That people will not be going to jail for it is another crime.

Very good point, when I first heard of the tapping I was outraged as most American. However, once everything came to light, there was "Checks and Balances" set. If he had avoided and/or broke the law then our other Representatives and Judicial system have also failed. Branches of government that cannot be influence by Bush. We must be careful at whom we point the fingers. Since we, kept Bush in office and kept most of our current Representatives in office, who failed and/or are the issues. Them or us for keeping them in office.

Oh, I forgot to say. I do enjoy these types of conversations. I was probably just as quilty, we need to ensure we understood what the individual was saying.

A federal judge ruled the wire taps were illegal. I'm not sure how they finagled their way around that, but they did.

Justice can't be influenced by Bush? Have you read the papers recently? People are calling for AG Gonzalez's resignation because of the firing of 8 attorneys who refused to prosecute cases the way the Bush Administration wanted them to.

Just another example of the administration's disregard for the system of Checks and Balances.

When you bring up about the firing of the attornies, it is up to the perview as to whom the hire and who they fire. Challanging governmental authority violating constitutional authority it onething but when we start challenging what is the legal authority is another. There are many laws that are granted to our governmental authorities. There is a difference to discovering a witch without going on a witch hunt. When you go one a witch, a mob will find a witch.

Please prove to me, (actual law) that anthing was violated in the attorney situtation. We are a contry of law not of personal beliefs in morals and ethics.

Oh, I forgot about the firing of 93 Federal Attornies by President Clinton. Where was the concern then. Only 8 was fies by Bush.

Please prove to me, (actual law) that anthing was violated in the attorney situtation. We are a contry of law not of personal beliefs in morals and ethics.

I didn't say laws were broken. You claimed that Bush could not influence the Justice department and I responded by pointing out the firing of 8 US Attorneys in an attempt to head off prosecutions WAS influencing Justice.


Oh, I forgot about the firing of 93 Federal Attornies by President Clinton. Where was the concern then. Only 8 was fies by Bush.

I'm glad you bought that up. It shows the desperation of Republican spinmeisters in this case. Clinton (actually Reno) terminated ALL US attorneys when the Clinton Administration took over. This happened at the beginning of the administration and was not an atypical cleaning house when a new administration takes over. Bush did the same thing, though not as precipitously, during his first year in office.

But these 8 were fired because of what they were doing or refused to do. Not because they were part of a previous administration.

Please prove to me, (actual law) that anthing was violated in the attorney situtation. We are a contry of law not of personal beliefs in morals and ethics.
Yes, well, we used to be, before Dubya and his cronies took over. As to violations of "actual law", Monica Goodling has just been granted immunity from prosecution and compelled to testify about what she knows. While the US Attorneys themselves are political appointees, the assistant attorneys and other staff that work under them are not, and using political criteria in screening and hiring them IS illegal. It looks like that's why Monica felt that she needed to take the fifth and refuse to testify without a grant of immunity. Her testimony will be most illuminating.

The issue, to me, is not that the eavesdropping went on but that it was done with a disregard for the Constitution.

ScottGem- I had to do some research to this matter. There is a difference between unconstitutional and illegal. The Olmstead Case quoted under 1. states that if convictions obtained without a warrant on wiretap is a violation. Basically, unauthorized wiretap cannot not be used in prosecution. The Federal Communications Act restates that conversation obtained without a warrant could not be used in a convection and it expands the law and saw it is not illegal to wiretap as long as the conversation does not go outside the confindes of the Governmental Agency. Under the newest Judicial law with Bush, Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance address two types of warrantless wiretapping. Under National Security "the President does have the authority to authorize wiretapping for National Security. Where he failed was under domestic subversion, a warrant must be obtained.

What it boils down to is the interpretation of the law, under the examples 1 and 2, Bush was acting in a legal conjecture. The People of the United States did not agree thus the Judicial Branch made it legal for the President to authorize wiretapping for National Security and made it illegal for domestic subversion under 3.

With this, the "Checks and Balance" in our system works very well. If the people are still not satisfied with giving the President the power to wiretap for National Security, then they must enact their rights and have the laws modified again. The below quotes are sited from FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 5 of 6 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html).

1. in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law.

2. the Court held that wiretapping by federal officers could violate Sec. 605 if the officers both intercepted and divulged the contents of the conversation they overheard, and that testimony in court would constitute a form of prohibited divulgence. Such evidence was therefore excluded, although wiretapping was not illegal under the Court's interpretation if the information was not used outside the governmental agency.Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation

3.The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.


Yes, well, we used to be, before Dubya and his cronies took over. As to violations of "actual law", Monica Goodling has just been granted immunity from prosecution and compelled to testify about what she knows. While the US Attorneys themselves are political appointees, the assistant attorneys and other staff that work under them are not, and using political criteria in screening and hiring them IS illegal. It looks like that's why Monica felt that she needed to take the fifth and refuse to testify without a grant of immunity. Her testimony will be most illuminating.

I am not even going to pursue this. The Bush witch hunt is not worth my time. Time will tell as to this matter once the formal preceding takes place. Guilty until Proven Innocent when it comes to Bush by most. Suck it him, he is the President and the only thing most gain do it complain about something they cannot change. Well at least for the next 1 and a half years.

ScottGem- I had to do some research to this matter. There is a difference between unconstitutional and illegal.

You have me there. That is a valid point and good research. But, in my opinion it really doesn't matter whether the Constitution was disregarded or laws were broken. It shows an arrogance and disdain for the rights of citizens.

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can. Now matter how much people complain he is the appointed LEADER of the United States. Terrorism has brought a significant change to our world and he has the guts to lead us through it. Sometimes a Leader does thing that is not popular but what he believes is out of necessity. He is making discission everyday that the average citizen could not.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision. Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

For those that take offense to an educated decision does not mean scholar decision (ie, Doctors or Harvard Grads) but by learning through research both institutional and self teaching.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision.

Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.Hello again, Navy:

Pure, unadulterated POPPYCOCK. It oozes arrogance. It presumes that only insiders such as yourself know the truth. Plus, you have the audacity to suggest that anyone who is against your position is uninformed and uneducated. They only have their feelings to go by. Certainly, they've made no “attempt to gain information” – apparently like you have.

Dude, it's clear that you're not going to get any of the communication I'm delivering here. You are just too clouded.

Fortunately for the country, there ain't too many of your ilk.

excon

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can. Now matter how much people complain he is the appointed LEADER of the United States. Terrorism has brought a significant change to our world and he has the guts to lead us through it. Sometimes a Leader does thing that is not popular but what he believes is out of necessity. He is making discission everyday that the average citizen could not.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision. Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

For those that take offense to an educated decision does not mean scholar decision (ie, Doctors or Harvard Grads) but by learning through research both institutional and self teaching.


Whether you are a Bush supported or not, you have to admit, this fine young (your welcome) man, surely is holding the load of his beliefs strongly and proudly. RN, I am truly proud to say you represent our fine Navy and now do resemble the fine, upstanding, dedicated, selfless, proud to serve, Naval personnel that I am proud to know and adore.

Bravo Zulu to you and continue to support your beliefs in a proud and respectful manner. It is this type of dedication, which for those who are unaware, is tireless and endless that our forces demonstrate every day. This is why I am so incredibly proud of them. From our enlisted to our Officers, you would be more than impressed and proud of our fine military, specifically our Navy.

I fear I am not expressing well what I am trying to get across. All I can say is our military give and where they give from is so deep.

Thank you for your sacrifices that you and your family have given and for your unwavering dedication.

Once again, Bravo Zulu!

excon, you are absolutely correct. It is hard to discuss thing with ignorance. The information I found was done through public access through Google. If you do not research information to make your own informed discission then you are just belonging to the realm of requiring someone to guide you.

How am I arrogant in research information for myself to make an opinion. I believe that you are the arrogant one basing opinion on blinded knowledge.

Retired Navy, while I congrat you for what you are trying to do, this is the reason I did not post here, it was a obvoius we hate Bush post and to those that hate him, no evidence or proof will ever been good enough, the Media has sold them all a bill of goods and nothing will change their minds.

Chuck, I won't say nothing can change my mind, but I haven't seen any evidence that says I should. Is the media that has sold those who don't like Bush "a Bill of goods" or it's the Republicans who have sold that bill of goods, to the waning few who still stand by Dubya. I have my opinion, you have yours.

RN,
I say its arrogance. When you look at the Big Picture a pattern of arrogance is clear to me. But that is my opinion.

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can. Now matter how much people complain he is the appointed LEADER of the United States. Terrorism has brought a significant change to our world and he has the guts to lead us through it. Sometimes a Leader does thing that is not popular but what he believes is out of necessity. He is making discission everyday that the average citizen could not.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision. Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

For those that take offense to an educated decision does not mean scholar decision (ie, Doctors or Harvard Grads) but by learning through research both institutional and self teaching.Hello again, Navy:

The above post is not research. It’s not information. It’s nothing you found on Google. It’s not informed.

It’s opinion and conclusion, and it’s POPPYCOCK.

excon

I am not even going to persue this. The Bush witch hunt is not worth my time.
Well, I do agree that compared to starting an unnecessary war in the Middle East, flouting the law and corrupting the administration of justice here at home is pretty small potatoes.


The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can.
Both. Arrogance and disdain appears to be the best he can do.

Well,
I feel for Bush because he is between a rock & a hard place. I think he was quite stubborn about this war. Now they have the congressional Republicans saying they think he's going to lose the next general election for them by siding with him, so they say they will support him till t
He fall. Then there must be benchmarks to show improvement in Iraq.
As much as we would like to see democracy there, from the reports about the Iraq soldiers & parliament (which said they are taking a 2 month break soon) I just don't see democracy happening when the sectarian divide is how it is now. The Shiite there appear to not want the Sunnis at all. Iran wants that (bc they are mainly shiite) So, how's democracy going to work the way we planned it for the 2 sects to live together?
And we hear from the big hawk- Cheney is that if we left Iraq now-it will be another Darfur there.
Really? Hasn't it been like that already for the Iraq people? Oh skip it Cheney, you know it's about the oil too anyway-so that's really important too-that's a fact.
At this point I'm still praying for some measurable success there- but to leave we can't I think because of Iran. Iran wants to move into Iraq- set up terrorist camps, & take the oil. The thought of that alone makes me want to vote for a Republican because we have to keep Iran in check or be able to let Iraq "go" & face the consequences of what Iran is capable of actually doing.
I don't know. Enlighten me. I voted for Gore the pacifist from the get go!
For the love of God, what's the plan?

Chuck, I won't say nothing can change my mind, but I haven't seen any evidence that says I should. Is the media that has sold those who don't like Bush "a Bill of goods" or its the Republicans who have sold that bill of goods, to the waning few who still stand by Dubya. I have my opinion, you have yours.

RN,
I say its arrogance. When you look at the Big Picture a pattern of arrogance is clear to me. But that is my opinion.

ScottGem, When I was driving to a cookout today, I thought about what you said. I think I can agree on your statement in that Bush Leadsership and Management style is not what the public chooses. He comes across as blunt, rude and present it like he is the President and that is why. This has been one of the biggest issues as to why he is having problems with public perception.

Well, I do agree that compared to starting an unnecessary war in the Middle East, flouting the law and corrupting the administration of justice here at home is pretty small potatoes.


Both. Arrogance and disdain appears to be the best he can do.

I have no problem having conversations about Bush and the current administration. I was simple stating the excon was not worth my time. Every time his point is determined mute he starts with the personal attacks. He got me caught in his game but others made me realize that his retorice is useless.

Hello again:

Leastways, I can spell.

excon