posted on January 23, 2003 10:35:03 AM new
Sorry, no links to anything.
Opinion
-------
When Bush took office, he tried to do a Deal with the Taliban for the Khazak Pipeline. When it wasn't in his favor, he threatened military action against them. After Al-Queda/Taliban made a pre-emptive strike on America, Bush went after them.
However, towards the end, a New Deal was done. This was supposed to be between the Afghanis and Al-Queda holed up in that stronghold. The high leadership was allowed to slip away free while the lower-end was butchered.
No doubt, the United States (you and I via Bush) was also secretly included in that Deal. Now there was a Pipeline Deal and Bush has agreed to stop pursuing Al-Queda.
posted on January 23, 2003 11:02:38 AM new
Opinion -
There have been many presidents, including President Bush, who have done lots of things they have felt were in our nations best interests.
Like this pipeline you keep bringing up. You forgetting that the exact same thing was done under Clinton's administration? What did he have to personally gain? Presidents [both sides] act in what they think are the best interests of our country. You don't agree? Fine...but your continual 'blame Bush for everything that has ever happened on the face of the earth' is getting real old.
And the President has not forsaken AQ. You keep saying this all the time too. It's just not true. If you're reading any news sites at all, you will constantly see what efforts are being made. Terroris are being arrest all over the world. They're being arrested in the US too.
It's because of Bush that the whole world is now not only focused on, but doing something about the terrorists.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 23, 2003 11:04 AM ]
Your unconditional support for Bush while our country is going to hell in a handbasket is "getting real old" to me. I almost don't want to read this board when I see your name. Look at the economy, the schools, the health care system, the loss of civil rights, the abuse to women's rights...I could write forever.
Your president is on "his" target and that is oil and power. The pipeline is now in the works after thousands of innocent people were killed. Clinton didn't do that.
posted on January 23, 2003 12:21:21 PM new
>Like this pipeline you keep bringing up. You forgetting that the exact same thing was done under Clinton's administration?
Linda, you are making a reference to something that I am not aware of. However, I can not figure out exactly what it is. Would you be so kind as to elaborate enough so that I can go look it up for myself? There's just too little information for me to go on.
posted on January 23, 2003 12:28:07 PM new
>Terroris are being arrest all over the world. They're being arrested in the US too.
Arresting "suspicious persons" is OK if you have any proof. Unfortunately, most of these cases it is an arrest due to someone else being pressured to speak. While this method worked fine to get at the Mafia (which is still doing just fine, BTW), it hardly amounts to an effort to eradicate Al-Queda.
Consider that the Sudan is Al-Queda Main Base #2. No suggestion of an attack there! And Pakistan is rife with ex-Talibanners and other AQ and little is being done. In fact, the only time that something is being done is when violence occurs and AQ publically takes credit for it! And on top of that, AQ and the Taliban are back in Afghanistan, taking back over -- seemingly with little opposition from US forces there under the command of Dubya.
I could go on and on. The point is, is that what little has been done is being used to expand the authority of the governments of the Democracies of the Free World to a very large extent. And Bush has all, but dropped America's pursuit of these villians. Why?
posted on January 23, 2003 12:45:55 PM new
Helen -
I have tried to tell you time and time again that the support you see from me is in favor of OUR COUNTRY, whenever the subject has to do with dealing with any threats from other nations.
I support my president when it comes to issues of national security. I, unlike you and Borillar, am NOT of the opinion that our president's every move is ONLY to do something to destroy this nation.
And your reference to Hillary and Bill - Is there a problem with me bringing them up about 1/100000 of the time you do Bush? Is she not one of our Senators? Has it not been discussed that she'll probably run for president in 2008, if not 2004? When I brought her name up it was to show she and other democrats sided with the President's thinking. I guess that's my way of saying EVEN someone as far left as Hillary is, agrees that we need to be proactive in defending our nation. Saying that she AND other democrats agree. You might not like that, but they do.
posted on January 23, 2003 12:57:07 PM new
Borillar - You don't remember it? You're the one that posted almost this exact same subject on Bush and this pipeline in Afghanistan. And oklahomastampman proved to all of us that it was under the Clinton administration that the pipeline was first suggested and attempted. He used the information on the link that [I believe] krs had posted. Oklahomastampman pointed out the facts using the dates this and that happened [in the article] to prove what you and others were claiming Bush had done was not true.
But that's not MY point. My point is ANY president whether or not we agree with everything they're doing is acting in what they see/judge as being the best interests of our country. They aren't out to destroy it as you so often claim. Maybe they end up making the wrong decisions...maybe [if we're all lucky] they accomplish great things. But I will never believe any president would purposely set out to destroy our nation.
When any administration is in power, they ALL do their best to reward their supporters. This doesn't just happen under the Bush administration or any Republican administration. It happens under ALL of them.
The oil issue is always blamed on Bush and his supporters. Okay, then I ask is having/obtaining oil for our country to function not important to all Americans? Whatever party we belong to we need oil for our nation, it's business, our people to live and function. Is that making my point any clearer?
posted on January 23, 2003 02:40:30 PM new
Yes, that article speaks to many of the issues that we've discussed today.
I believe that Bush probably held back his natural reactions to do just that. Bomb the $$it out of them. He would not have had public support.
I have no doubt that if Bush had just rushed in [immediately] we'd still be listening to all the objections of what murders we were.
The American public no longer has the 'stomach' for hurting anyone. No matter the reason or the seriousness of the threat.
We, as a country, have turned in to nation of 'softies'. You'll have a harder time finding a WAR democrat. If you have one of the 6 or 7 now saying they'll run, please name him [them].
posted on January 23, 2003 02:50:00 PM new
Thank you, Linda. I do recall oklahomastampman comparing Apples to Oranges over this. He brought up Bill's involvement in order to spread the blame around. However, it was Bush who threatened military action against the legal government of Afghanistan for not giving him the Deal that he wanted.
Do Presidents ALWAYS work in the Best Interests of the American People?
Let's not derail this discussion with a long list of abuses by past Presidents and we'll assume that your theory of government is correct. Therefore, the abuses are due to incompetence, not criminal activity on the part of Presidents.
Where does that leave Bush, then?
OK, aside from the fact that Bush took over the Presidency after being given it by the US Supreme Court (BTW - Bob Dole would NEVER have accepted the Presidency -never! He has PRIDE and INTEGRITY and would have been to damn stinking proud to sink so low as to slime his way into any office!), let's see what Bush has been up to so far.
We have to guess at his agenda, because he never tells us what his 'vision' is. That's just like his father was with his "New World Order", which he never explained that to us either. In both cases, We the People have to take guesses at what he's up to then. A reasonable person would use the actions taken by this President as evidence, rather than listening to political hype.
So far, he has not acted in the Best Interests of the American People. He has done this by siding with the large corporations over the health and welfare of the people that he is charged and sworn to protect. It is NOT in our best interest to drink higher does of arsenic in our water supply, nor to breath in more pollution, nor to be exposed to job hazards, nor to have such protections rolled-back (see - REMOVED). That is definitely not working in the country's Best Interests, but in private interests.
Another example is this Homeland Security. Combining most of the policing agencies into one super-agency is a great idea, as it streamlines the work efforts and hopefully will be more cost effective.
What is wrong is that (1) Bush made this new super-police agency accountable only to him. Was that just a mere oversight on his part? (2) The People of the United States can not use the Freedom of Information Act to get unclassified documents from this new super-police agency. What are they going to be hiding, any reasonable person would ask? (3) And if there is an honest cop or bureaucrat in the agency who would like to come forward and warn superiors or the President or the media if need be and blow the whistle on wrongdoing within the super-police agency, the Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to this super-police agency because Bush made sure that would be the case. Why? Doesn't he want to know when things go wrong? (4) He has also granted new, wide sweeping powers that are clearly unconstitutional and criminal in nature. These new powers are NOT NECESSARY for doing the job at hand. The only thing that they do is to justify Constitutional abuses by the super-police agency.
Incompetence? Please, Linda! That's being too naive! You can't expect anyone else to believe that Bush is smarter than we are and therefore, we have to trust him to do the right thing when he clearly NEVER does the right thing!
I could go on and on, listing abuse after abuse after abuse of the US Constitution, existing consumer and worker protection laws, fraud, theft, lies, deceit, and other outright criminal behavior on his part. He is NOT the President, he is a Mafia Don in charge of this country and a madman to boot!
posted on January 23, 2003 02:58:20 PM new"I have no doubt that if Bush had just rushed in [immediately] we'd still be listening to all the objections of what murders we were. The American public no longer has the 'stomach' for hurting anyone. No matter the reason or the seriousness of the threat."
"We, as a country, have turned in to nation of 'softies'. You'll have a harder time finding a WAR democrat. If you have one of the 6 or 7 now saying they'll run, please name him [them]."
Jesus H. Christ, Linda! WhatintheHell Country do you think it is that we live in? This is a DEMOCRACY and in a Democracy it is the PEOPLE who decide when or if at all if we will drop bombs! We do that through our elected officials with OUR CONSENT! It is NOT the Whim or JUDGMENT of a President to go drop bombs anywhere at anytime that he pleases! That this has happened before is a violation of each and every American! Furthermore, Democracies are peace-loving, not warlike nations run by Warlords! We prefer to use OTHER MEANS THAN KILLING!
posted on January 23, 2003 03:11:02 PM new
We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic, with a written Constitution.
In a DR, the people do not get to vote on issues, they only get to vote for their representitives, who in turn vote on the issues.
Ideally in a DR the representitive does what he/she thinks is the right thing to do, many times in contravention of public opinion. If they're right they are heroes, if they are wrong they are voted out of office or impeached/censured etc..
posted on January 23, 2003 03:21:40 PM new
Really, REAMOND? Technically speaking, also, our so-called 'elected officials' are elected to represent US and our WISHES, not whatever the hell that hey please! This Democratic Republic government was never meant to be a tyranny and that's just what you get when officials run off doing as they please and hope that it works out. We are a REPRESENTATIVE form of government, REAMOND, and that means that it is OUR Will that takes precedence. Of course, the Founding Fathers did not want the Tyranny of the People either, so they made a balance out of it with this DR. Still, we do not elect people into office so that they represent any interests but our own, nor do we elect them to work against our behalf.
posted on January 23, 2003 03:28:40 PM new
The only problem Bor is that there is no such thing as "our" wishes. The only wishes that are valid are at the ballot box when electing representitives. Once elected the representitive goes in whatever direction he/she sees fit. That's how the system was set up. There was no way for voters to efficiently communicate with representitives when the country was founded. The representitive represents a geographic political subdivision, not everyone's wishes that resdie in that subdivision.
There are many examples of reps voting in opposition to the majority of people in their district. They are not bound by law or anything else to vote with the latest opinion poll from their district.
posted on January 23, 2003 03:56:42 PM new
No, they are not bound by law. But the whole representative system was put into place as the best measure possible at the time in order to get the majority thoughts into running this government. Taken back then, it was as good a system as there could possibly be. If our representative form of government envisioned by our founding fathers had kept pace with the technological advances that have altered our world, your point would be moot. As it is, your point only states that there is a need to update our form of government to more clearly come into line with our original founding father's intent, and that was to keep government officals from making unilateral decisions that advsely affect the people.
