Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[JBrainard]

What I am saying is that you keep saying that the president has broken the law when no one in any position of authority, even in the democratic party, is saying that.

That argument really doesn't work. If someone actually did accuse the president of breaking the law, this is what would happen: They would get hammered by the media for not being a "patriot," they would then get ignored, then would follow the media blitz showing we the people how, regardless of any evidence, the president is not guilty of breaking the law.
No one in our government is going to risk their cushy job by telling an unpopular truth.

 

[michaeledward]

Forbes magazine is reporting this morning, that Congressman Ney, (R-OH), will withdraw from his re-election bid. The Congressman has been plagued by ties to Jack Abramoff. He is widely understood to be 'Officia 1' in some inditements handed down earlier this year.

It was further expected that he would be indicted for his activities with Mr. Abramoff.

The Ohio Republican Party will now have to hold a second primary to determine a Republican Candidate for the 18th district in November's election.

 

[michaeledward]

I have watched closely as yesterday's news concerning a planned terrorist event unfolded. Listening to Secretary of Homeland Defence Chertoff, and Attorney General Gonzales praise the 'close cooperation' between British and American law enforcement ... but never indicating that there was any American involvement in the infiltration and monitoring of the terror cell.

Congratulations ... and great thanks to British law enforcement.

Late yesterday, we see this ....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060810/pl_afp/britainattacksairline_060810185330

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

So, an attempt to destroy aircraft overseas, killing hundreds, or perhaps thousands, is reduced to 'political gains' that will 'play big'.

I'm going to go vomit now.


P.S. And apparantly, the Bush Administration had been regularly updated concerning the pending British arrests since Sunday, August 6th. (Good Cooperation from the British) Ken Melhman and Vice President Cheney were out meeting with the public, drumming to the Democrats are weak beat on defense on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, knowing the arrests were going to happen.

 

[Don Roley]

Well, the first post on the English terror plot has been posted and as I suspected, it was an attack on Bush.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, the first post on the English terror plot has been posted and as I suspected, it was an attack on Bush.

I see you left off the recognition of the British Policy work in your analysis of my post.

And, are you saying you approve of the White House using the break-up and capture of the British Criminals as a point of attack on Democrats.

 

[Monadnock]

The Republican comments are really no big surprise. Everyone knows Democrats are weak on Defense. As for using war for political gain, I've long run out of barf bags listening to the Left.

 

[michaeledward]

The Republican comments are really no big surprise. Everyone knows Democrats are weak on Defense. As for using war for political gain, I've long run out of barf bags listening to the Left.

There was a time, Mr. Mike, when I thought you were a principled Libertarian. But comments like this, seem to indicate stereotypes as opposed to thoughtful reflection.

I do not accept your claim that 'Every knows ... ' about anything. The most recent Democratic Presidential Candidate was a decorated combat soldier. Representative John Murtha is one of the Republican Party's whipping posts at the moment. Regardless of how else you might describe him, 'weak on defense' is not a realistic or truthful description.

And, to your last sentence ... Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean to say.

 

[mrhnau]

I do not accept your claim that 'Every knows ... ' about anything. The most recent Democratic Presidential Candidate was a decorated combat soldier. Representative John Murtha is one of the Republican Party's whipping posts at the moment. Regardless of how else you might describe him, 'weak on defense' is not a realistic or truthful description.

Lets not get into the "Kerry was decorated" fiasco again . Tossing away someone elses ribbons hardly seems patriotic, or strong on defense. You claim the Republicans are using the recent event, you think the Dems are not? Kerry reminded every -several- times he was a veteran. Got tired of hearing it.

And, to your last sentence ... Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean to say.

He was quite clear

I've just trained myself to ignore Dems comments on the war. Mostly irrelevant and a cry for attention it seems... Once in a while I'll hear something relevant though... What I hear are litanies of complaints with absolutely no offered solution. Sounds like Kerry. "I have a plan. I can't tell you what it is, but I sure do have one."

 

[mrhnau]

I see you left off the recognition of the British Policy work in your analysis of my post.

Dude! You are the KING of ignoring portions of posts! Or ignoring them altogether. hehe

And, are you saying you approve of the White House using the break-up and capture of the British Criminals as a point of attack on Democrats.

Are they attacking Democrats? Or simply stating that we still have a need for security in this country. We can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Things like this remind us we need those phone monitoring programs, we need careful surveillance and such things. Notice, these guys were British Citizens. Nothing to say we won't be having American citizens doing the same thing. I'd hate to miss an event like this in the US because some Dem cries "stop listening to me ordering my pizza".

To me, this is a call to arms. A recommitment to our security rather than to politics.

 

[Marginal]

To me, this is a call to arms. A recommitment to our security rather than to politics.

The British stop a plot in the UK, and the US, which has foiled such dastardly plots as plans involving dismantling the Brooklyn bridge with blowtorches is suddenly back under attack, in an endless war.

Good news for the good guys!

 

[michaeledward]

Lets not get into the "Kerry was decorated" fiasco again . Tossing away someone elses ribbons hardly seems patriotic, or strong on defense. You claim the Republicans are using the recent event, you think the Dems are not? Kerry reminded every -several- times he was a veteran. Got tired of hearing it.

He was quite clear

I've just trained myself to ignore Dems comments on the war. Mostly irrelevant and a cry for attention it seems... Once in a while I'll hear something relevant though... What I hear are litanies of complaints with absolutely no offered solution. Sounds like Kerry. "I have a plan. I can't tell you what it is, but I sure do have one."

Dude! You are the KING of ignoring portions of posts! Or ignoring them altogether. hehe

Are they attacking Democrats? Or simply stating that we still have a need for security in this country. We can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Things like this remind us we need those phone monitoring programs, we need careful surveillance and such things. Notice, these guys were British Citizens. Nothing to say we won't be having American citizens doing the same thing. I'd hate to miss an event like this in the US because some Dem cries "stop listening to me ordering my pizza".

To me, this is a call to arms. A recommitment to our security rather than to politics.

Ok, Now ... The Vietnam War was a highlight for American Foreign Policy.

I made no comments about 'the war' ... I posted this message on this thread, because - YES - the White House is going to use the arrests in Britain against Democrats.

Didn't you read the quote ... "A White House Official" ...

And, if this is a call to arms ... British Intelligence was successful in this project because they worked closely with Pakistani intelligence ... The United States still won't engage with Syrian intelligence services in the cause of protecting Citizens, not to mention any discussions at all with Iran. How's that working out for us?

Yes .. The Republicans are using this terror arrest against Democrats ... Look at Vice President Cheney's statements from Wednesday, (made by taking time away from vacation - he never does that) those comments were made with full awareness of the upcoming arrests.

 

[Don Roley]

those comments were made with full awareness of the upcoming arrests.

He always makes comments like that. Democrats always find a way to attack the republicans over certain things, and the republicans do the same with their version as well.

And the thing is, the comments some of the republicans made are valid points. It kind of makes me sick that the democrats and those that support them have tried a version of political jujutsu to turn the valid critisisms against them against their accusers instead. Instead of dealing with the points being made, they use this incident to try to attack the republicans. It was not even 24 hours before I heard democrats jumping on this case to attack the republicans.

The Democrats are the ones using this to attack the Republicans. I never heard a Republican use this case specifically to attack the Democrats, but the reverse is not true.

 

[Monadnock]

There was a time, Mr. Mike, when I thought you were a principled Libertarian. But comments like this, seem to indicate stereotypes as opposed to thoughtful reflection.

You know, this is quite true, I am. In the past, before everything was so party-lined, these generalizations were hard to pass off, but now I think we've reached that point ;-)

 

[mrhnau]

You know, this is quite true, I am. In the past, before everything was so party-lined, these generalizations were hard to pass off, but now I think we've reached that point ;-)

Along that lines, it seemed shortly after 9/11 there would be some hope that we would be a unified nation. For a short while, I think we were... then the pursuit of party/personal power started to sneak back in for both sides. Its a shame that things so critical, like national defense and security, have to be so devicive.

 

[michaeledward]

Is national defense decisive?

I don't think any Democrat would argue that, or even a 'leftist', as some like to label me.

But, I will gladly listen to any argument that can make the 250 Million Dollars a Day Iraq fiasco fit into national defense. I have yet to hear a single credible argument.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Is national defense decisive?

I don't think any Democrat would argue that, or even a 'leftist', as some like to label me.

'decisive' or 'devisive'?

I submit as evidence this very message board. Hundreds of people who train, practice and teach personal self-defense and yet dozens of opinion on how to do it 'right'. Some have personal or financial stake in the outcome.

Expands to national defense where the money, the power and the stakes are much higher, and it's got the potential to be very devisive, from those with a stake in the game to those who just have very sincere and honest differences of opinion on how to best accomplish it.


But, I will gladly listen to any argument that can make the 250 Million Dollars a Day Iraq fiasco fit into national defense. I have yet to hear a single credible argument.

That requires a willingness to accept that such an argument could even exist, which I seriously doubt you have if you call it "250 Million..Fiasco". One can present an argument, but if the listener has an a-prior disposition that is so negatively against the conclusion of the argument, the argument will never be seen as 'credible'.

 

[michaeledward]

But, I will gladly listen to any argument that can make the 250 Million Dollars a Day Iraq fiasco fit into national defense. I have yet to hear a single credible argument.

That requires a willingness to accept that such an argument could even exist, which I seriously doubt you have if you call it "250 Million..Fiasco". One can present an argument, but if the listener has an a-prior disposition that is so negatively against the conclusion of the argument, the argument will never be seen as 'credible'.

Present your argument. I'm listening.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Present your argument. I'm listening.

I personally don't have an argument; the closest I have is a few ideas that I would consider at least rationally plausible if not definitive. I cannot, however, envision an argument that youw would consider 'credible'

 

[michaeledward]

Present your argument. I'm listening.

I personally don't have an argument; the closest I have is a few ideas that I would consider at least rationally plausible if not definitive. I cannot, however, envision an argument that youw would consider 'credible'

So this is the 'Because I said so' argument?

I ask that you retract this statement ...

That requires a willingness to accept that such an argument could even exist, which I seriously doubt you have

 

[Don Roley]

But, I will gladly listen to any argument that can make the 250 Million Dollars a Day Iraq fiasco fit into national defense. I have yet to hear a single credible argument.

Then perhaps you just don't want to hear the answer.

Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US.

But what about biological weapons? How much does it take to develop it and then sneak it into a country via a diplomatic pouch?

Before I go on, I would point out that if you shoot someone you need to tell the officer that shows up why you did by pointing out that you believed the other guy had the means, intent and oppurtunity to attack and kill you. If you apply that here, then you can see that Hussein should have been blown away.

America did have an anthrax attack on its soil. Thank goodness it was not something more deadly like smallpox.

But the key thing is, whoever did it got away clean. We still do not know who did it.

We know Hussein was in love with bio weapon programs. He ran a program right under the noses of the UN inspectors and we were only aware of it when his son- in- law defected and blew the lid off if it.

And we know that France, China and Russia were doing all they can to get rid of the sanctions and inspectors so that they could start making money off of Hussein as soon as possible. Even without the eventual and inevitable lifting of the constaints on him, he was making billions off of ileagle trade with the help of a lot of people.

And we know that he had cut- outs in the form of terrorists that owed him favors. I know where you might go with this so I will say that these guys were not Al Queda. But they were terorists, they were willing to die for a cause and they hated America with a passion.

And Hussein was a guy that got his head handed to him by America in one war and yet still thought he could out smart and out fight them the second time. We could not bet that he would not think that he could do something like a biological attack on the US and get away with it.

Oh, and you don't launch smallpox against a goverment. You launch it against a people. If he gave guns to terrorists they could aim them at him. But unless they were willing to kill off millions of innocent Muslims, they could not use smallpox in Iraq. But they would gleefully use them in America.

If you put yourself in his shoes when he saw that someone got away with attacking the US with biological weapons, can you honestly say that he probably did not think about doing the same? Are you willing to bet with millions of American lives that he would decline from doing so? Some folks we can reach and convince to not do things like that or else face our wrath. But Hussein thought he could beat us in two different wars despite all the evidence to the contrary.

So it was a very real risk that Hussein would get the UN controls lifted on him in time because of the three members of the security council that wanted to make money off of him, he would then be able to get dual use medical supplies that could be used for biological warfare and then use his contacts with terrorists to launch those weapons on America.

Sure it would not go over in a court of law as something to convict someone. But I would use it in a defense if I had to shoot someone and be on good legal ground. And I am sure that there are people who will demand 100 percent proof that someone is about to launch an attack on the US before they would condone violence against them. I say that such people are soft on defense since that might be too late and we may never know until after the attacks like 9-11 and the anthrax cases.

But I don't think you should expect the president to say these reasons out loud. Can you imagine the politacal hell that would follow if he went on the air to announce the following?

My fellow Americans. I have decided to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein because there is reason to believe that France, Russia and China will let him get out of the sanctions he has now due to their lust for the money he has promidsed them. At that point, he will probably try to redevelop the bio- weaponos program he was running even under our noses and then he may use terrorists living in Iraq to deliver them to the US. So I am going to take the turkey out before he gets the chance.

You can imagine how that would go over in Moscow, Paris and Beijing.

It is not a case where we would have proof of something. But it is a case where we can see that Hussein had the intent to do the US harm, had the means in the near future after the sanctions was lifted and had the oppurtunity by way of his terrorist contacts. He was a danger. And we could not take the chance that he would not do something like this after all the things he has done in the past.