idrankwhat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6499605.stm I like how we're not "sabre rattling" just training. Just like when we were heading over there for routine "training" exercises four and a half years ago.

I heard a good one the other day. "You know you've created God in your own image when he hates all of the same people you do". Anne Lamott

I think impeachment is a waste of time and resources. I have no problem however with the idea of bringing the whole lot up to an international criminal court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I think they could make those charges stick. In the long run, it would improve our tarnished international image and the US taxpayer wouldn't have to fund the retirement of convicted war criminals. $0.02

You nailed the description. What I thought was the most alarming, in the Daily Show piece, was that he indicated a couple of times that he thought that an Executive branch that isn't secretive and outside the system of checks and balances is undemocratic. One thing I will say though, he was the prefect representative for this administration...not the country mind you, but certainly those who are at the helm.

And here I thought that Republicans were for a less intrusive Federal government. http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

I think that the actual big picture is that regardless of whether or not someone volunteered to go into the military that they should get the respect and the fair treatment that they deserve. They should have a commander in Chief who is not going to misuse his military, they should be compensated fairly, and when wounded they should get the best treatment possible, no questions asked and without the soldier having to have a family member or a lawyer fight to get the basic services that they're due. Not get treatment like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml Sure, the above example is extreme but it's indicative of the problem as I see it. Soldiers are promised certain things like honorable leadership and fair treatment and when they don't get it and they're abused by the system in any form it's really really really fucking annoying to many of us to hear "well they volunteered". edited to add: Which is, I'm pretty sure, why you get responses like the one Bill sent. He just beat me to it. edited again to add: Which is also why some of us get pretty pissed off when $billions are repeatedly requested "for the troops" when that's not where the money is going, and when politicians hold up the troops, like using a baby for a shield, to deflect criticism of the war policies or proposed war policy changes. Ok, now the rant is over, I think.

I'm pretty sure that he got the response he expected.

The system is broken. I realized how badly when I heard Nader telling his story about one of the 2004 Presidential debates. He's a Presidential candidate, he's excluded from the debate but he's given an invitation to attend.........sitting in another room of course. He was also invited to a post debate interview with FOX. He shows up and the State Police have orders not to let him into the building. They turn him away threatening to arrest him if he doesn't leave. And here I was told that *anyone* can grow up to be President.

We are taling about a group of politions wanting to create a political spectical for thier own gain. I despise that on both sides. Hahahaha! No, really. You're killing me here. I questioned Clintons firings as those were more ethically questionable than these that you want to jump on. Bottom line? Firing them was his right. Same for Bush. But you dont want to see it that way now do you. (wiping tear from eye) Ok, which ones? http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33889_20070222.pdf

LOL!!!! If it doesn't automatically load click on "showdown in Washington". http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

I've attached a new avatar if you're looking for one.

Wow! Case closed! An OPINION that you agree with. Whoda thunk it? Not that it makes any difference but I wonder who wrote it. I also wonder what his opinion is of the 18 days worth of emails that haven't been released and the sworn testimonies that haven't been given. The Clinton folks could do it. And certainly the Bush folks are capable of adhering to a higher standard that the Clinton admin. Right? It's all about bringing integrity back to the WH isn't it? It's all about getting the "truth" out right? That's what Georgie said right?

(this one's so easy I almost feel guilty) Didn't they try to impeach Clinton for confidential communications with his staff?

I've been playing around with it a bit. Very neat. Our uppers have been pretty much the same for most of the winter and the program reinforces what we already figured out as wind dummies. Intuitive/very easy to use as well. Not bad for a beta release! Maybe Bill can go to work for Microsoft and fix their OS for them.

I disagree. If they were over there our administration would be working hard to find a way to end this war. But more to the point, if they had enlisted when they were 18 we probably wouldn't have attacked Iraq.

Nah, the BJ is just what he lied about. The witch hunt and smearing was real. Financed by Scaife, printed by the American Spectator and Washington Times, and written by someone who admits that in 12 years of writing hit pieces for conservative magazines they were never once fact checked. Funny thing is, when he wrote his book about Hillary for the same people, he did fact check and try to be honest for a change. As a result, he lost his job and the book sales were lousy...not in that order. But to stay on topic.......if Bush's people didn't do anything wrong, what are they afraid of edited to add: I'm guessing that they don't want to talk about the Justice Dept emails from the middle of November to the beginning of Dec, which were cut from the first round in the recent document dump

Not really. But I'm a firm believer that if you're a leader, and you're insisting on sending your people to war then you should actually lead the charge in person. Some here might even refer to that as "courage of your convictions". It used to be called honor, something horribly lacking these days.

GHW was crying because Jeb was supposed to win in 1994 and then proceed to the WH. Jeb lost and somehow W won his Texas election, laying the groundwork for the Presidential bid. Jeb was supposed to be first, then maybe W. The latter screwed it up for the former.

You mean the years of partisan witch hunting and character assassination had a reason beyond sleazy politics in its ugliest form? Please enlighten me, but let's start another thread to do it. We don't want to get distracted from current affairs, even though some would probably welcome the diversion.

Which is why the scientific method utilizes peer review prior to publication. No journal or author wants to have to deal with a retraction.

The problem with that is that if they allow the interviews now then the administration is going to say "we've already given them all of the information we have. This is over and we're not going to talk about it any more." How many times did Bush's people dump some National Guard documents and insist "this is all of it, there is no more"? You can't get rid of it all and still have some left. Although, if Bush thinks that's possible that might explain his fiscal policies. I say, put them under oath and transcribe. Maybe I should mine this forum for the phrase "if they have nothing to hide then there's nothing to worry about".

Sure we do. Years of witch hunting, digging, smearing and the issuing of over a thousand subpoenas in an effort to nab Clinton on something, anything, except for maybe something policy or work related. They finally got him on a technicality in a he said-she said situation arising from an accusation by a woman who was groomed by Clinton's detractors but then dropped like a hot potato afterwards. Some of the differences to today's topic of Executive accountability: Clinton's investigation was authorized by his own AG. The Clinton administration answered to the subpoenas and his people testified under oath. And unlike Clinton, screwing with a woman or two, the Bushies are being accused of screwing with everyone else.

No, they've got a lot to do. About six years worth of oversight for starters.

Lamebaugh won't touch that one. He'll distract with "but Clinton....93 + 30" and J J J J Jimmy Carter axed one. Where's the drive by reaction to that one? Whew, I sure picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue."

Or better yet, create two different ideas as opposing truths, to get the debate started, and keep the actual truth locked up out of sight.