"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's spokesman sharply condemned the Senate and vowed a presidential veto as the chamber's Democratic majority claimed enough support to keep labor unions happy and deny him new management authority over the proposed new Department of Homeland Security."
Bush is quoted as resenting the proposed bill because the Democrats wouldn't allow allow Homeland Security forces to wear lightning bolts on their collars. Go figure!
posted on September 25, 2002 03:58:50 PM new
If Bush gets his way he'll be able to dictate as he likes. Wonder if he'd even leave office if not re-elected? Or at the end of 2 terms as required?
posted on September 25, 2002 04:43:41 PM new
>Wonder if he'd even leave office if not re-elected?
Would Adolph Hitler - his HERO, have?
He's trying to bring about the Nazi Fourth Riech - the New World Order. He already has grabbed too much power and authority and acts like as if he's so impatient to get the rest, that he treats Congress like they're a "mere Constitutional formality." Once this Homeland Security Bill passes, in whatever format it eventually comes out as, that is the official beginnning of the American Gestopo.
posted on September 25, 2002 05:15:30 PM new
Aww, what's the matter Katy? Patrolling the forums to see what other threads you can censor? Which ones meet your personal approval and which ones don't? Making sure that the content and disscussion between posters meets your exacting standards, or else you'll make sure that they get censored and removed? Poor you - so bored, nothing to do but be nasty to others. Must be a curse, but I guess that's just a cross that you're destined to bare. In the meantime, I'll say whatever the hell I please dispite your censorship.
posted on September 25, 2002 05:34:29 PM new"Aww, what's the matter Katy? Patrolling the forums to see what other threads you can censor? Which ones meet your personal approval and which ones don't? Making sure that the content and disscussion between posters meets your exacting standards, or else you'll make sure that they get censored and removed? Poor you - so bored, nothing to do but be nasty to others. Must be a curse, but I guess that's just a cross that you're destined to bare. In the meantime, I'll say whatever the hell I please dispite your censorship."
Being nasty to others is without a doubt your province lately, Borillar. You hold the entire group as inferior. Go ahead and say whatever the hell you please but soon nobody will bother to listen.
posted on September 25, 2002 06:06:40 PM new
There there, Borillar. We can all relate to what you're going through. A hot bath followed by a glass of warm milk will do wonders for that cacophony in your head. Just repeat this mantra, "it's just my imagination.. it's just my imagination.." Things are bound to look better in the morning. That's a good boy....
posted on September 26, 2002 05:22:30 AM new
More people seem to be waking up to the Bush administration's dismantling of our society, its unparalleled propagandizing, its sleazy political tactics, and its imbecilic assertions about almost everything of consequence. This editorial below from the Star Tribune is direct and gets to the heart of Bush's desire to dictatorially control the Department of Homeland Security as well as most of his other major offenses to dignity, integrity, decency, and civilization. Others of prominence, such as Gore, Daschle, etc., are finally pointing out what Republicans of intelligence and stature such as Stowcroft, Kissinger, etc., stated more sublely before. The US newspapers with more literate writers and readers have begun critizing the opposition for not speaking up about the Bush administration's inane and irresponsible behaviors.
The Guardian has an excellent editorial BTW about Tony Blair's shift the last two days since the polls revealed that 86% of the British did not support unilateralsim. Tony may not be invited to join the Carlyle Group after he retires, like Maggie Thatcher was, if he can't "control his people" better than that.
There are more than a few editorials now with similar but more muted viewpoints to this:
Editorial: King Bush / Democrats finally say no
Published Sep 26, 2002 ED26
President Bush is using the war on terror and the threat from Iraq as a cover to radically reshape American policies in a host of areas that have nothing to do with security. Those who have the guts to disagree with almost any aspect of his radicalism get branded as naive peaceniks or as cowardly, unpatriotic sorts not interested in protecting the American people.
All of that is absurd, and people are beginning to say so -- people with such stature and experience that they can't be so easily dismissed. Former Vice President Al Gore is one. Former generals like Wesley Clark and John Shalikashvili are others.
Now come the Democrats in the Senate, joined by one Republican, to say no to Bush. The issue is whether federal workers in the proposed department of homeland security should enjoy traditional civil-service and labor-union protections. Bush wanted broad authority to hire, fire, promote and demote them at will, and to decertify their union affiliation. He argues that the White House needs that much flexibility to fight the war on terror.
The Senate has refused, reasonably, to give him the carte blanche he sought. Civil-service protections and labor contracts exist for a reason: to protect federal employees from arbitrary, often politically motivated, abuse. Bush has failed to make the case that such protections would truly weaken the nation's security.
But the Senate did provide a compromise, drawn along the lines of existing exemptions for personnel involved in intelligence and other national-security related work. The compromise, put together by Sens. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and John Breaux, D-La., would allow the White House to loosen civil service protections but also give unions the right to object. Issues that couldn't be worked out between the two sides would go to the Federal Services Impasse Panel for arbitration.
The Chafee-Breaux compromise also would allow the president to decertify an employee's union affiliation if national security required it, but only if the employee's main duties involve intelligence, counterintelligence or terrorism investigation. The compromise appears acceptable to federal-employee labor unions.
Chafee made the valid point that if the new department is going to function well, it must have the cooperation of the unions.
But Bush is buying none of it. A veto has been promised, and the president accused the Senate of wanting "to micromanage the process."
That last statement has the ring of ultimatum to it: Take what I proposed and make no changes, the president is telling Congress -- ignoring the congressional role in lawmaking set down in the Constitution. This is the same tone the administration has adopted not only with Iraq, which deserves it, but with NATO, with the United Nations, with just about everybody in the world.
The arrogance of Bush's approach is breathtaking. On every question, he and those around him know best; consultations with others are a courtesy, frequently an unnecessary one.
Bush wants to turn the world upside down in many areas. But who gave him that mandate? When was any of this discussed with the American people, let alone with America's allies? When, in fact, did the American people agree to make this a kingdom and put Bush on the throne?
Finally, Senate Democrats, along with Chafee, are finding their voice and asking the hard questions it is their duty to ask about Bush's radicalism. They need to keep it up.
posted on September 26, 2002 06:28:55 AM new
It's all political. What I have trouble understanding is why Gore supported a regime change in Iraq when clinton was in office, but now that Bush is in office he sees it differently. What's changed? Is Saddam less a threat to the US than they were then?
From the NYT yesterday:
One of Mr. Gore's advisers said this morning that his decision to make this speech was an attempt to get back in the game and to quell the talk among some Democrats that he would not challenge Mr. Bush again this year. Mr. Gore was back on the stage again today.
I do believe this is political grandstanding. Gore doesn't know who he wants to be, or what he really believes in. I only hope he is the one the democrats decide to nominate to run in 2004.
As I mentioned earlier, Trent Lott asked the Senate, "Who is the enemy here - President Bush or Saddam Hussein? When this question is cause for serious consideration, the United States and the entire world is in trouble. Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School wrote this analysis. His conclusion answers Trent Lott's question.
"The president is right about one thing, however. Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent, arrogant and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president."
posted on September 26, 2002 07:22:03 AM new
That's one persons opinion. Can you answer my above question Helen? What do you see as being different now, when Gore criticizes Bush, than when HE supported a regime change when VP? I'd really like to understand your position. Or were you against Gore's belief that we needed to make a regime change at that time too?
posted on September 26, 2002 09:06:46 AM new
Linda, the circumstances were different when Al Gore was in favor of a regime change. The terrorists had not attacked the WTC and killed 3000 people.
As Gore pointed out, now we need an international consensus to fight terrorism.
And, While Israel and Palestine continue their battle and Afghanistan is still in a state of chaos, it's not a good time to go to war with Iraq...especially an unprovoked war.
Since we don't have the coalition to share the cost of 'this' war, it will cost the taxpayers hundereds of billions.
This was Gore's position in 1991...from his speech
Now, back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War, and I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, groups that we had, after all, encouraged to rise up against Saddam.
But look at the differences between the resolution that was voted on in 1991 and the one this administration is proposing that the Congress vote on in 2002. The circumstances are really completely different.
Just to review a few of them briefly, in 1991, Iraq had crossed an international border, invaded a neighboring sovereign nation and annexed its territory.
Now, by contrast, in 2002, there has been no such invasion. We are proposing to cross an international border. And, however justified it may be, we have to recognize that this profound difference in the circumstances now compared to what existed in 1991 has profound implications for the way the rest of the world views what we are doing, and that in turn will have implications for our ability to succeed in our war against terrorism.
.................
Abe Lincoln's quote ..."As our case is new, we must think anew and then we will save our country."
posted on September 26, 2002 10:39:24 AM new
Helen - I'm not only referring to his stance in 1991, I'm talking as recently as 2-2002 when the BBC News reported: [i]US VP Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the US remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. [Gore quoted: There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbors." Again, Helen, this was 2-2002.
At that same time the New York Times [2-2002] said: Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.
Then from an AP this week about Gore's statement in CA, "a sweeping indictment of President Bush's threatened attack on Iraq, calling it a distraction from the war on terrorism that has 'squandered' international support for the United States."
A flip-flop just like DeSquirrel said.
You are against any war....understood.
It's my position that we need to do whatever it takes to go after the terrorists...just like President Bush said in his statement after 9-11. Some ask...will this continue? What country will we go after next? Bush made it clear that we would continue to hunt down terrorists and that it would take a long time. I hope he and any president that follows will continue to go after those who are working dilligently to destroy our way of life.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:05:13 AM new
Regime change does not always mean an all out war, Linda. Sometimes it is done covertly and that,I believe, is the way that Clinton-Gore were trying to do it. You do realize that they were after Bin Laden for years and had as much success in that arena as Bushy? I am quite certain that there are many things we as a people are not privy to when it comes to what happened during the last administration....or what is happening in this one. All out war on a country may not be the best way to go about this. I believe Saddam has to go but I disagree with the current thinking as to the method of removing him. I think Clinton-Gore had other plans but still supported regime change. Thus I think that what Gore said made perfect sense and I am glad that finally someone is speaking out.
We "regime changed" in Panama and we didn't have to go to war to do it. Why do we have to start a war this time? There has to be a better way.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:13:06 AM new
Linda,
"Considering ways to oust President Saddam Hussein" is a far cry from full scale war. As you probably know, the Iraq regime change has been a US policy committment for years. The fact that Gore is discussing it now is not unusual. He made it clear in his most recent speech that he supported a regime change but stressed the war on terrorism first. I just believe it's such a volatile situation in the mideast now that a war in Iraq is not in our or any other countries best interest.
The flip flop that you perceive may be a contradiction in the use of "attack" and "consideration of change" and how that is best achieved. I think that we should be focused on disarmament now.
I don't believe that one war after another is a way to achieve the peace that you and I are looking for. It will destroy our way of life and millions of other lives also.
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do Evil in return.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:25:23 AM new
Hi rawbunzel - I can respect your opinions, although they're different from mine.
First of all, we don't know exactly what Bush intends to do. He has asked for support to send in troops, he has asked [insisted] the UN do what it should have done 11 years ago....but I haven't read anywhere where he's made a final decision. Agreed it's looking that way. And I will support his decision because he and his defense people do have more information that we, the public, are privy to.
Second, I don't care what way clinton or gore were going to handle the terrorists or Saddam. They spoke of regime change, but did nothing to do so. Eight years and they didn't. Things got worse [9-11] and now I agree Bush needs to deal with it. Like ignoring a misbehaving child...you can only ignore them for so long before you come to realize this isn't going to change unless something is done.
And I'd like to share an article about Saddam and the UN for those who insist we cannot do this without their permission/support. And I'll ask...what has the UN done when Saddam violated their position 16 times? Nothing. A lot of no one doing anything.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002335.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:41:26 AM new
Helen - I question why I'm even responding to a total 'doves' comments. If you don't believe in war, for any reason, I must respect your opinion....but I am very much for protecting our country from these threats. I could never be one that sat by and watched our country be attacked and not do something about it.
He made it clear in his most recent speech that he supported a regime change but stressed the war on terrorism first. I just believe it's such a volatile situation in the mideast now that a war in Iraq is not in our or any other countries best interest. See...exactly what I mean. The war on terrorism first? You don't see Saddam as a terrorist? You don't believe he's financially supporting/rewarding the families of the suicide bombers? You don't believe he's actively pursing WOMD? HE IS A TERRORIST, Helen. This is a continuation of our war on terrorist...not a side step....and then back to the REAL terrorists. I just can't understand that thought process.
And the US and the UK have been spending money protecting both the north and the south from Saddam....[the no fly zone] You think that hasn't cost the US and the UK big bucks for all these years...keeping him in line?
posted on September 26, 2002 11:43:37 AM new
Things got worse 9-11 but it wasn't the last administrations fault. This,terrorism, has been going of for decades it isn't something that just cropped up.
Saddam ,who the administration via Ari Fleisher yesterday said they had nothing to link him to terrorists at all,IS playing the UN and the world for fools and they all know that but why ,given that all the leaders of all the other countries and the UN have all the same information that Bushs administration has, why is it that Bush and Co. are the only ones [besides Tony Blair...but the he is part of the same secret society that all the rest are...see the thread I started for more info on that]that have come to the conclusion that war is the only way? Why aren't we focusing on terrorists and getting them ? They are the ones who can harm us in our own country,not Saddam.
Boy is that a complicated sentance!! ACK! Terrible structure...but I'm leaving it anyway.
posted on September 26, 2002 12:09:51 PM new
I'm not trying to place blame...I'm trying to state facts.....you said clinton was working on it...I said nothing changed in 8 years. So what I was implying was that whatever he was doing...didn't work. Things got worse.
IMO, not confronting the problem....didn't make it go away. That was my point. I believe that when people like Saddam are allowed to take an inch...they'll try for that mile. Limits were set on Saddam, but they've had no teeth for 11 years.
It's okay, with some, that the democrats [or Bush haters] on this board were all screaming that Bush knew about the attacks prior to 9-11 and did nothing to prevent it, but when he is actively trying to do something about 'future' threats....they're still up in arms. Nothing he could do would please most here.
You speak of only the US and the UK supporting this. I wouldn't care if we didn't have his support, and had to stand alone. IMO, Blair is acting more American than many American's here. Sorry...but it justs gets the hair on the back of my neck standing upright when Americans support a dictator like Saddam against the protection of their own country. Blair seems to agree Saddam is a threat to both countries. We're the most likely ones to experience Saddam's WOMB when he's able.
And on Trent Lott's statement - who's the terrorist here? - I've personally never cared for Lott. But I agree with the statement he made. The disagreements the dems and reps are having should be being discussed in private...not in front of the cameras for political gain. Gives the terrorists the wrong impression, IMO. Like two parents arguing over a childs discipline, the child should see a united front.
posted on September 26, 2002 12:17:38 PM new
"It will never happen....but it's a dream I have" This is America, it's not supposed to happen. We are supposed to discuss and srgue and talk until we are satisfied.
I'm not satisfied with the way things are going so I am talking...and listening. I do respect the opinions of all of you here, and just because I state my own doesn't mean a am not paying attention to what you are saying.
Disagreeing about the method of regime change does not translate into supporting Saddam. That statement DOES get my goat. Completely out of line if you ask me..of course you didn't..I in no way support Saddam or any single terrorist . I can disagree on methods can't I? That really is the way America is supposed to work and it is NOT unAmerican to ask questions. If it is I'd like to know when it became un-American to speak out and have an opinion?
posted on September 26, 2002 12:31:31 PM new
"I'm not trying to place blame...I'm trying to state facts.....you said Clinton was working on it...I said nothing changed in 8 years. So what I was implying was that whatever he was doing...didn't work. Things got worse."
Actually, you are trying to place blame. How do you know nothing changed in 8 years? We don't know what happened during the Clinton administration. Maybe that administration did do some things that kept the terrorists at bay for all those years. They were certainly after them.We didn't go to war if that's what you mean. Unless you know what happened during the last administration...and I don't think you do any more than I do...then you are placing blame without information.
posted on September 26, 2002 12:39:24 PM newHelen - I question why I'm even responding to a total 'doves' comments. If you don't believe in war, for any reason, I must respect your opinion....but I am very much for protecting our country from these threats. I could never be one that sat by and watched our country be attacked and not do something about it.
Linda - Don't bother to respond if it's a questionable problem for you. I simply answered the question that you asked. You say above that you could never be one that sat by and watched our country be attacked and not do something about it. Neither would I.
Helen
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 26, 2002 12:42 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2002 12:41:55 PM new
The hair on the back of my neck, and your 'goat'.
It's this medium I tell you.
I'm not saying WE shouldn't be discussing it. I'm saying that rather than all the POLITICANS grandstanding for the cameras....both blaming the other that their motivations are suspect...it would be better if this were argued behind closed doors, a decision reached and the terrorists would see a united front.
Disagreeing about the method of regime change does not translate into supporting Saddam. No, it doesn't...I agree. What I am referring to is Gore's statement, that any thought of war/regime change [at this time] is taking our energys and monies away from the war on terrorism....which he fully supported Bush on immediately following 9-11.
posted on September 26, 2002 12:43:14 PM new
The FBI was concerned about racial profiling. Moreover, it wasn’t used to gathering intelligence, especially domestically, given American sensitivities about intrusive government and civil liberties. Its intelligence-assessment system was almost laughably antiquated. And under Attorney General John Ashcroft, the department was being prodded back into its old law-and-order mind-set: violent crime, drugs, child porn. Counterterrorism, which had become a priority of the Clintonites (not that they did a better job of nailing bin Laden), seemed to be getting less attention. When FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents, they got shot down even as Ashcroft began, quietly, to take a privately chartered jet for his own security reasons.
The attorney general was hardly alone in seeming to de-emphasize terror in the young Bush administration. Over at the Pentagon, new Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elected not to relaunch a Predator drone that had been tracking bin Laden, among other actions. In self- absorbed Washington, the Phoenix memo, which never resulted in arrests, landed in two units at FBI headquarters but didn’t make it to senior levels. Nor did the memo get transmitted to the CIA, which has long had a difficult relationship with the FBI—and whose director, George Tenet, one of the few Clinton holdovers, was issuing so many warnings that bin Laden was “the most immediate” threat to Americans he was hardly heeded any longer.
posted on September 26, 2002 12:47:45 PM new
So Helen...as a dove, who is against any war, what would you recommend doing say like right after 9-11? Should we have tried convincing the terrorists they shouldn't have done what they did. Just talk it out?
posted on September 26, 2002 12:55:40 PM new
Raw - Clinton himself said he was obsessed with bin Laden. If he'd done anything we'd have read/heard about it...just like we are with the way Bush is now. Saddam....do you remember the time during the impeachment hearings, when the democrats asked the republicans to put aside the hearings while clinton dealt with the 'war'?
Call it blame if it makes you feel better. You're missing my point. Bush senior should have, IMO, taken Saddam out right then and there. This isn't about politics to me. It's about our country's safety.
As I said before, I would be supporting any president who was doing exactly the same thing. Maybe if we show the arab world we're not going to sit quietly by while our ships and embassies are blown up...and do nothing...others might decide not to go this route. And if it doesn't....then I support this administrations hunting them down one by one if necessary.
posted on September 26, 2002 12:58:49 PM new
Thank you Snowy.
They've had programs concerning this issue on PBS too and it is scary to see how anything that the former administration was doing was dropped almost immediatly and poo-pooed by the current administration.They didn't believe that Bin Laden was a threat I guess and chose to ignore the warnings.
Linda I agree that this medium leads to many misunderstandings.Better my goat than my hair!!!
posted on September 26, 2002 01:12:30 PM new"So Helen...as a dove, who is against any war, what would you recommend doing say like right after 9-11? Should we have tried convincing the terrorists they shouldn't have done what they did. Just talk it out?"
Linda, I believe in self defense. For example, if this country is attacked by Iraq. That has not happened. Of course I believe in negotiation. I believe in the international community and being a respected member of that community. I believe in working toward disarmament.
Terrorism just invites retaliation. When Saddam's back is to the wall he will retaliate.
Bush wants a perpetual war.
Now, at this late date, Rumsfeld is trying to establish that there are in fact, Al Queda terrorists in Iraq. When the news reporters tried to verify his information related to one source, he said that it was based on different types of sources of varying degrees of reliability -vague. He was asked for information regarding links or proof and he could only say that "things are risky". Everything he said was inuendo. He had trouble defining the difference between a preemptive and a preventive war. He said that he needed a dictionary and then pointed out that it was probably a legal issue. Then he started talking about connecting the dots and how difficult that was.
We don't have all the facts and the attempts to justify this war now, are now changing.
