PDA

View Full Version : More BHO administration paranoia...



K G
08-29-2009, 01:38 PM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Talk about invasion of privacy...:cool:

kg

Bob Gutermuth
08-29-2009, 03:09 PM
1984 is here now, 25 yrs later than Orwell predicted.

twall
08-29-2009, 03:39 PM
I was just talking to my wife about this. I think we are going to see more and more of this. Then BHO won't be president and there will be an outcry by those who advanced these issues because it is someone different with the power. Kind of like what is going on in MA now!

Tom

YardleyLabs
08-29-2009, 03:45 PM
Cyber security issues will definitely be interesting. Arguably, it is both easier and more dangerous for an enemy to attack our information systems over the Internet than it is to attack our shores. The original design concepts of the Internet were based on creating a system capable of redirecting itself in the event of the loss of major hubs. This makes it virtually impossible to block traffic except in countries, such as China, that pass traffic through single points of entry. An impact of this strength is that cyber attacks are almost impossible to track or stop. At the same time, the economics of the Internet has resulted in the creation of a small number of exchange points through which almost all traffics passes. One such exchange outside of Washington handles a substantial portion of all traffic by itself through systems that are controlled, with no supervision, by a variety of private companies operating in accordance with peering agreements that they have negotiated among themselves.

The overall architecture meets it original objectives pretty well. However, it exposes two major weaknesses.

First, any physical or software attack that focuses on a major exchange center could easily knock out half of all network traffic in the US in a matter of seconds.

Second, the entire system is more susceptible to software attacks and errors than anyone ever imagined as a direct consequence of the openness of the system. When I was more directly involved several years ago, UUNET implemented a simple software upgrade to its core routers. There was a small bug in the upgrade and the result was that the entire UUNET network, representing one-third of all US Internet traffic, was knocked out of service for 24 hours with segments off line for up to a week. Evey single router on the network had to be reprogrammed and tested before service could be restored.

Ten years ago, this was less of an issue than it is today. Most corporate networks were independent of the Internet and allowed only limited connections between corporate architectures and the Internet. That is no longer the case. There have been efforts to segregate military networks from the Internet with limited success. Corporate networks are increasingly operating across the same lines and routers and non-secure internet traffic. New standards to implement more secure transmission protocols have generally bogged down because they would require the replacement of virtually all routers in the country at a massive cost.

I haven't read or evaluated the bill (text at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text). (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text)It is clear that any plan for securing our nation's network traffic from a concerted attack will have to include provisions for securing key exchange points, root routers, and key links to financial systems. They will also need to address standards governing private systems that are of strategic national value such as the financial exchanges, core financial transaction management systems, traffic and air control systems, power grid management systems, telecommunication systems, etc.

How to do this while providing reasonable guarantees of privacy for individuals and companies will be a challenge. Failing to act in a manner that protects the country would be an invitation for an attack that would have much more serious long term implications for our survival as a country than any number of airplanes crashing into office buildings.

dnf777
08-29-2009, 05:08 PM
1984 is here now, 25 yrs later than Orwell predicted.

Been here for 8 years.....for those of us who have been checkin'...

Bob Gutermuth
08-29-2009, 05:30 PM
Big Brother just got inaugurated this past January

YardleyLabs
08-29-2009, 06:08 PM
The bill largely addresses issus with respect to studying critical systems and developing standards. It also addreses a variety of efforts to encourage development of improved tools for addressing security issues and for increasing the number and skills of security professionals. The "action" part of the bill gives the President specific powers in the event of a cyber emergency. The relevant ones from a civil liberties perspective seem to be:


(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

...
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

In the event an emergency is declared and action is taken under this bill with respect to a "US person", the President must report to Congress within 48 hours.

K G
08-29-2009, 08:28 PM
Been here for 8 years.....for those of us who have been checkin'...

And it's not going to "CHANGE" either....change everyone "HOPED" for.....:rolleyes:

Deja vu all over again regards,

kg

cotts135
08-30-2009, 06:29 AM
This is interesting. What Obama is proposing to do now is wrong. It was wrong when the previous president decided he didn't need warrants to spy on Americans. Why is it different now that Obama wants to infringe on Constitutional rights than when George Bush did it? If I remember correctly I didn't hear any outrage from the many conservatives on this board just alot of intellectually corrupt justifications.
This just shows me that when we take sides on an issue,(based on party affiliation) we are more readily able to forgive the party we support if they do it instead of seeing it is wrong regardless who does it.

Hew
08-30-2009, 06:42 AM
I'm with Yardley on this. The Chinese and North Koreans have both already successfully tested the waters on disrupting the internet and hacking into important systems in America. The ramifications of a shutdown of the internet would be crippling to us...our financial system, our power grid, transportation, defense, nearly everything revolves around computers and the internet. We should do whatever we can to protect it.

From a practical standpoint, when Obama was elected we passed him the keys to our nuclear arsenal, the keys to declaring martial law, the keys to our military, and about 100 other keys that would allow him to take over, ruin, kill, whatever this country if he wanted to. While I don't agree with much of his politics, I don't think he's a madman who intends to establish himself as our own Mao, Stalin or Chavez. If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2009, 07:02 AM
This is interesting. What Obama is proposing to do now is wrong. It was wrong when the previous president decided he didn't need warrants to spy on Americans. Why is it different now that Obama wants to infringe on Constitutional rights than when George Bush did it? If I remember correctly I didn't hear any outrage from the many conservatives on this board just alot of intellectually corrupt justifications.
This just shows me that when we take sides on an issue,(based on party affiliation) we are more readily able to forgive the party we support if they do it instead of seeing it is wrong regardless who does it.
If you actually read the bill sections, they permit the President to disconnect systems from the internet. They do not permit him to examine contents. The regulations govern standards for securing systems, but also do not permit content to be examined.

The risk is not in what the law permits but in the fact that it positions the government to act inappropriately with greater ease. Part of the legislation is the formation of an advisory group to develop standards for protecting privacy. However, there is inherent risk. The problem is that the national security risk is also real and needs to be addressed.

By the way, none of these standards apply to machines that are not hosting systems deemed to be critical to security. This, nothing in this bill would give the government access to personal computers. However, given that most software attacks are now launched through Trojans that attack and take over personal computers attached to the Internet, effective defense strategies will ultimately need to improve tools for tracking these attacks back to the hosts that launch them and from there back to the hosts that planted the original Trojans. This may not be possible without forensic assessment of the intermediate machines. These are typically personally owned machines that do not house any critical systems.

tpaschal30
08-30-2009, 05:05 PM
I'm with Yardley on this. The Chinese and North Koreans have both already successfully tested the waters on disrupting the internet and hacking into important systems in America. The ramifications of a shutdown of the internet would be crippling to us...our financial system, our power grid, transportation, defense, nearly everything revolves around computers and the internet. We should do whatever we can to protect it.

From a practical standpoint, when Obama was elected we passed him the keys to our nuclear arsenal, the keys to declaring martial law, the keys to our military, and about 100 other keys that would allow him to take over, ruin, kill, whatever this country if he wanted to. While I don't agree with much of his politics, I don't think he's a madman who intends to establish himself as our own Mao, Stalin or Chavez. If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt.

Wait a minute. He pays to destroy good capital with the cars for clunkers on the pretense of getting off our addiction foreign oil. Here is an idea! Let's get off our addiction to a communication system that cannot be secured. Build a secure system, if your going to blow tax dollars. Heck, my dad and uncles used to have their own telephone system before WW2. I think we can work that out 70 years later!!!!

TXduckdog
08-30-2009, 06:29 PM
By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

This accumulation of power is disturbing.

"If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt."

I say not a freaking chance. I would and did give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff they did because I trusted they were doing it for national security, and they were. Obama and this congress are too radical, too mysterious and so far have demonstrated they can't get things right....NO WAY I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...until they demonstrate they have US citizens well being as their primary objective....not accumulation of power for powers sake.

YardleyLabs
08-30-2009, 06:56 PM
By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

This accumulation of power is disturbing.

"If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt."

I say not a freaking chance. I would and did give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff they did because I trusted they were doing it for national security, and they were. Obama and this congress are too radical, too mysterious and so far have demonstrated they can't get things right....NO WAY I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...until they demonstrate they have US citizens well being as their primary objective....not accumulation of power for powers sake.
The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.

tpaschal30
08-30-2009, 08:01 PM
The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.

Then why would you not feel the same of Obama. Does he have less power than Bush? Should Obama be relieved of some power? Or is it you trust Obama and not Bush? If so, it is just preference.

M&K's Retrievers
08-30-2009, 09:10 PM
. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. .

I've been asleep for the past 8 years. Exactly what did he abuse and if he did way wasn't he stoped? Just wondering...

dnf777
08-30-2009, 09:11 PM
By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

This accumulation of power is disturbing.



Again, the lack of outrage over the past 8 years casts doubt on the true nature of the concerns here, when we saw power-grabbing like nothing since the Civil War!

Warrant-less wiretaps, recess appointments, stacking of the justice deptartment, war powers, executive privelages, signing statements, reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....

I was outraged then, and I am outraged now with some of the things that are occuring in the Obama whitehouse. Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.

K G
08-30-2009, 10:34 PM
Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.

7 months vs. 96.......:cool:

Hang on to your hat regards, ;-)

kg

Hew
08-31-2009, 06:12 AM
reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....

Oh my GOSH! That's horrible! I would really like to read about all those courageous reporters who were thrown in the pokey for not revealing their "Bush-unfriendly" sources. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to look for this info? Maybe a reporter's name? A link to an article? You know, those sorts of things. Thanks much.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2009, 06:17 AM
Oh my GOSH! That's horrible! I would really like to read about all those courageous reporters who were thrown in the pokey for not revealing their "Bush-unfriendly" sources. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to look for this info? Maybe a reporter's name? A link to an article? You know, those sorts of things. Thanks much.
If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.

Hew
08-31-2009, 06:29 AM
If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.
Killjoy! ;-)

While the "smear campaign" is over-the-top, nearly all sentient life forms would agree with you that she was protecting Bush admin. officials (namely, Libby).

But he did say there were reporterS, so in theory, he's still got a fighting chance to come up with another reporter's name.

TXduckdog
08-31-2009, 11:06 AM
The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.


Jeff....Obama is clear accumulating and centralizing powers and responsibilities in the WH. All his "czars" are evidence of this and are clearly obvious abuses of his presidential authority, because in fact they are clearly designed to bypass congressional oversight.

Name a couple of instances where Bush was "given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly". Did he ever create such czars to circumvent congress?

You speak of "increases in power"...who supposedly gave Bush these powers....he certainly didn't have a friendly congress.

I absolutely distrust the office when I feel the person occupying it has proven less than stellar motives and is into politicization more than anything else.

TXduckdog
08-31-2009, 11:17 AM
Again, the lack of outrage over the past 8 years casts doubt on the true nature of the concerns here, when we saw power-grabbing like nothing since the Civil War!

Warrant-less wiretaps, recess appointments, stacking of the justice deptartment, war powers, executive privelages, signing statements, reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....
I was outraged then, and I am outraged now with some of the things that are occuring in the Obama whitehouse. Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.


"Power-grabbing"....how about stepping up to the plate and doing the necessary things for an increased national security after an un-precedented attack of US citizens on US soil.....not seen since the Civil War.

Everything but the warrent-less wiretaps are the identical things EVERY administration has engaged in, in this century. As has been clearly shown....the wiretaps were aimed at over-seas calls made by non-US citizens. In regards to the reporters...well, I'm not even going there.

As far as not seeing the amount of abuse.....we are in just the first 8 months of this administration. You must be turning a blind eye to the current economic abuse being served on this country.

dnf777
08-31-2009, 12:16 PM
If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.

She reported her story, refused to reveal sources, and was jailed, was she not? What was the charge? I don't care if she takes warm showers with Bush, she did not reveal potentially damaging information via her sources, and was put behind bars. (BTW, her source which was ultimately revealed was scooter libby, who was convicted in a court of law)

ONe of the biggest farses of the warrantless wiretapping debate was that administration officials would have to wait for a judge to issue warrants. All the while, and everyone involved knew this....you could wiretap w/o a warrant if the situation was time critical, but you had to submit to judicial review AFTER THE FACT, in order to satisfy the letter of the law, while still allowing people to do their jobs and keep us safe. This had been done, and I haven't researched this, but am not familiar with any adverse outcomes from these reviews.

Are we a nation of laws, or a nation where one man can rule as he pleases? I think I know what the Founding Fathers preferred, and what they feared above all else, hence, Freedom of the Press.

YardleyLabs
08-31-2009, 12:30 PM
Jeff....Obama is clear accumulating and centralizing powers and responsibilities in the WH. All his "czars" are evidence of this and are clearly obvious abuses of his presidential authority, because in fact they are clearly designed to bypass congressional oversight.

Name a couple of instances where Bush was "given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly". Did he ever create such czars to circumvent congress?

You speak of "increases in power"...who supposedly gave Bush these powers....he certainly didn't have a friendly congress.

I absolutely distrust the office when I feel the person occupying it has proven less than stellar motives and is into politicization more than anything else.
Bush's power "grab" basically followed a pattern of asserting the most extreme vision of a unitary executive in the history of our country (with the possible exception of Lincoln during the Civil War). This was justified in some cases based on the President's "inherent" powers as Commander in Chief and in others based on the President's "inherent" authority over the Executive Branch.

The administration used the President's authority as CIC to justify the creation of a new system of "justice" for what it deemed to be "unlawful combatants" under which individuals could be denied essentially all constitutional and legal protections based on a Presidential determination. It was argued, that this determination was not subject to any judicial or legislative oversight or control even after every court review rejected this argument. This same argument was used to implement warrantless wire taps in direct contravention of law based on the administration's assertion that even the very limited oversight provided by the FISA court was too onerous and therefore could be ignored.

Under its broader view of the executive powers of the President, the administration:
made unprecendnted use of so-called "signing statements" to rewrite and reinterpret laws as it saw fit, sometimes directly contradicting the language of the legislation itself.
defined rules of secrecy over executive action that went beyond anything in the post-Watergate era, including refusal of cabinet officers to testify before congress abut issues unrelated to direct communication with the president (e.g. termination of US Attorneys), as well as asserting a unique argument claiming specific exemptions from the public records laws with regard to the Vice President based on the argument that the VP is part of the legislature rather than the Executive branch in those cases where the administration deems that to be more convenient.Signing statements were used for many purposes, often akin to a line item veto, which is not permitted. Frequently, however, they were used specifically to prevent Congress from exercising agency oversight by imposing direct requirements for Cabinet members to report on activities to Congress (your stated reason for concern about the appointment of "czars".) As one of many examples if this is the signing statement attached to a bill in 2004:

"May 25, 2006

Today I have signed into law S. 1869, the ``Coastal Barrier
Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' This Act provides for digital
mapping in support of the coastal barrier resources system and
authorizes appropriations through fiscal year 2010 for implementation of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
Section 3(c)(2) and section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require
executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the
Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a
manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of
the authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such
measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to
supervise the unitary executive branch.
George W. Bush"


Altogether, in the first five years of his administration, Bush inserted more than 750 such "signing statements" into laws to modify the intentions of Congress.

I believe the above satisfy your request for a "few examples" of ause.

With respect to having a "friendly Congress", Bush had an unusually friendly Congress for the first six years he was in office. In fact, I do not think any President since World War II had a friendlier congress for six years than Bush faced from 2001 until the end of 2006. LBJ had similar support for about three years. Clinton had similar support for 2-4 years depending on how one counts. Reagan never had that level of support.

In answer to your comment on Obama's "czars", these were used by every recent President. Obama has named more such "czars" than Bush, but even that assertion needs to be considered in light of the fact that "czars" generally exist only in the eyes of reporters. Ultimately, they are simply members of the president's staff and have no legal authority over the agencies that fall under their purview. As one who has been in such roles, I can assure you that the differece between "staff" authority and "line" authority is huge.

EDIT: BTW, the biggest criticisms of Obama from the "left" have been his failure to reject some of the powers claimed by Bush.

TXduckdog
08-31-2009, 01:41 PM
OK Jeff, now go do some research and report back with all the "signing statements" and while you're at it...."executive directives"....put out by Slick Willie, George the elder, Reagan, the peanut farmer and every other president going back to say, Eisenhower.

You'll find THEY ALL pulled this kind of crap. Might have been labeled something else. This is not an abuse created by George Bush.


"The administration used the President's authority as CIC to justify the creation of a new system of "justice" for what it deemed to be "unlawful combatants" under which individuals could be denied essentially all constitutional and legal protections based on a Presidential determination. It was argued, that this determination was not subject to any judicial or legislative oversight or control even after every court review rejected this argument. This same argument was used to implement warrantless wire taps in direct contravention of law based on the administration's assertion that even the very limited oversight provided by the FISA court was too onerous and therefore could be ignored."

Nice summation of liberal democratic talking points. The "creation" of a new system of justice, as you call it, was in response to combatting the war on terrorists. This was a unique creation to a unique situation never before encountered in the history of the US. This was not a conventional war and the "unlawful combatants" were terrorists, without a country, without a flag, and certainly not signatories to the Geneva Accords.

Therefore, they are not entitled to any kind of constitutional and legal protections.
Therefore no judicial or legislative oversight is needed or required.

Yet, the US extended them way more courtesies in regards to such things as their religious liberties. Something these same people NEVER extended to captives such as Perlman, who was a civilian, and our soldiers.

Not only did they not extend these courtesies, they summarily executed them by cutting their heads off or hung them from a bridge....and videotaped it for all the fricking world to see!!!

road kill
08-31-2009, 02:06 PM
What is happening right now should have all "FREE" men concerned.

Sorry for not using enough paragraphs to present the idea.
But drop your ideology and grab on to your common sense.

Richard Halstead
08-31-2009, 08:22 PM
I have had unsolicitated email on Whitehouse stationary signed David Axelrod. My question why can't they their own act first?

YardleyLabs
08-31-2009, 08:33 PM
OK Jeff, now go do some research and report back with all the "signing statements" and while you're at it...."executive directives"....put out by Slick Willie, George the elder, Reagan, the peanut farmer and every other president going back to say, Eisenhower.

You'll find THEY ALL pulled this kind of crap. Might have been labeled something else. This is not an abuse created by George Bush.


"The administration used the President's authority as CIC to justify the creation of a new system of "justice" for what it deemed to be "unlawful combatants" under which individuals could be denied essentially all constitutional and legal protections based on a Presidential determination. It was argued, that this determination was not subject to any judicial or legislative oversight or control even after every court review rejected this argument. This same argument was used to implement warrantless wire taps in direct contravention of law based on the administration's assertion that even the very limited oversight provided by the FISA court was too onerous and therefore could be ignored."

Nice summation of liberal democratic talking points. The "creation" of a new system of justice, as you call it, was in response to combatting the war on terrorists. This was a unique creation to a unique situation never before encountered in the history of the US. This was not a conventional war and the "unlawful combatants" were terrorists, without a country, without a flag, and certainly not signatories to the Geneva Accords.

Therefore, they are not entitled to any kind of constitutional and legal protections.
Therefore no judicial or legislative oversight is needed or required.

Yet, the US extended them way more courtesies in regards to such things as their religious liberties. Something these same people NEVER extended to captives such as Perlman, who was a civilian, and our soldiers.

Not only did they not extend these courtesies, they summarily executed them by cutting their heads off or hung them from a bridge....and videotaped it for all the fricking world to see!!!
Signing statements were not invented by GWB but were taken to a whole new level under his direction. According to a recent study, he issued signing statements challengin 1200 different sections of laws that were adopted and signed, more than twice the number of all prior administrations (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=2)

With respect to the actions taken by the administration using the GWOT argument, I would point out that the war on terror is substantially less threatening to our country than prior wars such as Korea, WWII, WWI, Vietnam, etc. However, the actions taken by the President did more damage to civil liberties in general than was done in those wars with the exception of the incarceration of citizens of Japannese descent by Roosevelt which remains a gross stain on our history. In fact, many of the actions that would have resulted in the removal of Nixon from office could be deemed legal under the authorities claimed by Bush. For a group as fearful of civil liberty violations by the current administration, I am stunned by the ready acceptance of much greater abuses by the prior administration. As I noted before, the validity of presidential powers depends on how willing we should be to trust the office, not the occupant at any point in time.

Back to my puppies.

TXduckdog
08-31-2009, 09:24 PM
Signing statements were not invented by GWB but were taken to a whole new level under his direction. According to a recent study, he issued signing statements challengin 1200 different sections of laws that were adopted and signed, more than twice the number of all prior administrations (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=2)

With respect to the actions taken by the administration using the GWOT argument, I would point out that the war on terror is substantially less threatening to our country than prior wars such as Korea, WWII, WWI, Vietnam, etc. However, the actions taken by the President did more damage to civil liberties in general than was done in those wars with the exception of the incarceration of citizens of Japannese descent by Roosevelt which remains a gross stain on our history. In fact, many of the actions that would have resulted in the removal of Nixon from office could be deemed legal under the authorities claimed by Bush. For a group as fearful of civil liberty violations by the current administration, I am stunned by the ready acceptance of much greater abuses by the prior administration. As I noted before, the validity of presidential powers depends on how willing we should be to trust the office, not the occupant at any point in time.

Back to my puppies.


Substantially less threatening? Jeff they succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, they put a plane into the side of the Pentagon and brave citizens caused the crash of a third airliner that was aimed at either the Capital or the WH. They caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians on our OWN SOIL. How the hell can you say it is less threatening??!!

Whose civil liberties? If you are speaking of the terrorists, they got plenty of civil liberties at Gitmo....more than most felons currently in US prisons. And you have not addressed the lack of civil liberties in their viewpoint...you know...the beheadings and hangings...not to mention the autocratic abuses contained in their "Sharia"(not sure of the spelling) law. Talk about civil rights abuses....summary executions of women suspicioned of affairs....public whippings and cannings....these people are animals when it comes to civil liberites yet all you can do is demonize the Bush adminstration? Whose real motivations were not for power for powers sake but for the ability to posture this country to be able to defend itself against another attack.

You ain't seen nothing, yet. The Obama's of the world seek equality. But their equality is mis-used to pursue "uniform economic and social outcomes". They will seek to enhance their power at the expense of self government and individual liberties. To these folks, liberties are the enemies....they are the enemies of their so-called social/economic utopia. The state is the priority of society, everything must be subordinated to the state.

Obama spoke of a "collective salvation" during his campaign. (Remember the Joe the Plumber conversation). He's all about collectivism not individual rights. His "equality" is all about taking away the individuals rights and through deception and coercion he can subordinate individual freedoms to the Utopia of the State.

There is a term for such subordination of individual freedoms....its called TYRANNY.

C.S. Lewis once said, and it nails the current administration...."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons(despots) than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The despots cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity(avarice, greed) may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own consciences."

YardleyLabs
09-01-2009, 07:38 AM
Substantially less threatening? Jeff they succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, they put a plane into the side of the Pentagon and brave citizens caused the crash of a third airliner that was aimed at either the Capital or the WH. They caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians on our OWN SOIL. How the hell can you say it is less threatening??!!
And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.


Whose civil liberties? If you are speaking of the terrorists, they got plenty of civil liberties at Gitmo....more than most felons currently in US prisons. And you have not addressed the lack of civil liberties in their viewpoint...you know...the beheadings and hangings...not to mention the autocratic abuses contained in their "Sharia"(not sure of the spelling) law. Talk about civil rights abuses....summary executions of women suspicioned of affairs....public whippings and cannings....these people are animals when it comes to civil liberites yet all you can do is demonize the Bush adminstration? Whose real motivations were not for power for powers sake but for the ability to posture this country to be able to defend itself against another attack.
Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President.:rolleyes: Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.


You ain't seen nothing, yet. The Obama's of the world seek equality. But their equality is mis-used to pursue "uniform economic and social outcomes". They will seek to enhance their power at the expense of self government and individual liberties. To these folks, liberties are the enemies....they are the enemies of their so-called social/economic utopia. The state is the priority of society, everything must be subordinated to the state.

Obama spoke of a "collective salvation" during his campaign. (Remember the Joe the Plumber conversation). He's all about collectivism not individual rights. His "equality" is all about taking away the individuals rights and through deception and coercion he can subordinate individual freedoms to the Utopia of the State.

There is a term for such subordination of individual freedoms....its called TYRANNY.

C.S. Lewis once said, and it nails the current administration...."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons(despots) than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The despots cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity(avarice, greed) may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own consciences."
Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad.

The notion that any individual lives their life and is rewarded based solely on their own efforts and abilities is a fiction. We all depend on the social and economic infrastructure built through our collective activity for the playing field one which we compete. Take away the roads, the communications infrastructure, the banking and trading systems, etc., and the wealthiest among us will be reduced to subsistence living. Receiving the benefits of that social infrastructure is only one half of the social contract. The other half is paying to support it. Almost by definition, the principal beneficiaries of the social infrastructure are the wealthy. They are the ones who would lose most if that infrastructure ceased to exist and by rights should pay the most to support it.

Hew
09-01-2009, 08:47 AM
And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion. Since you've pulled your Context Prism out of the closet and dusted it off, how 'bout pointing it at other aspects of the Bush/Iraq era that you find so troubling...

In the context of the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc. the supposed civil liberty violations committed by Bush are downright laughable in comparison to martial law, throwing copperheads in jail, routing veterans protest camps at the end of a bayonet, interning 100,000+ citizens and trying/executing German spies with a few weeks due process.

In the context of previous wars this country has fought, the loss of 4,000 American heros in Iraq is a fraction of the losses we suffered in a single battle in other wars.

In the context of previous wars, what we have spent in Iraq and A-Stan, as a percentage of our GNP, is magnitudes less.

Civilian deaths in 6 years of war in Iraq (even considering that most of those were at the hands of fellow Muslims) are less than one night of bombing in Dresden or one afternoon in Hiroshima.


Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. Ah, but the President is duly elected, subject to impeachment and operating within the confines of the checks and balances provided by the Constitution. Moreover, he presides over a country that is the most benevolent , fair and biggest force of good that the world has ever seen. I think that gives us/him just a tad more moral authority than say, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President.:rolleyes: Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.


Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad. Are you claiming that wealth is finite, and that one's accumulation of wealth quite naturally comes at the expense of another?


________________________

Pete
09-01-2009, 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXduckdog http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=492870#post492870)
Substantially less threatening? Jeff they succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, they put a plane into the side of the Pentagon and brave citizens caused the crash of a third airliner that was aimed at either the Capital or the WH. They caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians on our OWN SOIL. How the hell can you say it is less threatening??!!

And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion


Now I know we need to get Libs out of the white house and into the looney bin.

Lets all wait till there are more than a half million dead before we get concerned. And until then lets protect the civil liberties of those who are trying to kill us.


believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad

Jeff it is evidence that your up bringing oversea's infects your judgement.
If families were allowed to keep all that their fathers "fruit of their labors",,, you would see a much wealthier america.

The government steals it and blows it on garbage ,,,worse than a kid in a candy shop.

One of the reasons for poverty is the theft of a families wealth.
We are not talking about mega wealthy here ,,,,I am specifically talking lower middle class.
The f n government even taxes you for dieing,,, what a crock of you know what.



Pete

road kill
09-01-2009, 09:24 AM
And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.


Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President.:rolleyes: Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.


Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad.

The notion that any individual lives their life and is rewarded based solely on their own efforts and abilities is a fiction. We all depend on the social and economic infrastructure built through our collective activity for the playing field one which we compete. Take away the roads, the communications infrastructure, the banking and trading systems, etc., and the wealthiest among us will be reduced to subsistence living. Receiving the benefits of that social infrastructure is only one half of the social contract. The other half is paying to support it. Almost by definition, the principal beneficiaries of the social infrastructure are the wealthy. They are the ones who would lose most if that infrastructure ceased to exist and by rights should pay the most to support it.

This post defines precisely who you are and what the secular progressives stand for.

BTW---It is not America!!

Socks
09-01-2009, 10:04 AM
And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.



I usually try to stay out of political forums and I should have known better, but...

Jeff I think apples need to be compared to apples here. If I'm not mistaken there were more people killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor and we went to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor. So what do we do when attacked? Do we just sit back and do nothing? Appeasment won't work with these people and it didn't work with Hitler. I've heard a similar/same argument before about how many people we've lost in Iraq,/Afganistans(sp?) is more than the we lost in the attacks. So using this logic we just right these people off and say too bad you went to work that day? I say no and I say we use two sayings from WWII that come to mind and I'm paraphrasing; "All evil needs to suceed, is for good men to do nothing." and "Sometimes good men have to do bad things."

Jeff I think you were making some good points earlier, but as far as Bush or Obama at the end of the day left or right I don't think they really have our interests in mind. There are some of us who don't think anyone/office, or government entity should accumulate more power under the guise of knowing what's best for "us" the citizens. I think what Bush did in the begining after 9/11 was in unchartered water, but something had to be done. Can we change some of those policies now? I would think so, but it seems some on the left are using the chance to make more knowlegeable decisions as a way to push their agendas. Example, it seems now we're spending more time on possibly prosecuting past officials instead of going after the terrorists. Maybe this is just perception, but sometimes perceptions are closer to the truth. Becuase of perceptions and the perception that the government is working less and less for the common citizen, I don't want the government getting more power or limiting citizen rights. I hope people never have to ask "What rights do we have?" instead of "What rights don't we have?"

YardleyLabs
09-01-2009, 10:35 AM
This post defines precisely who you are and what the secular progressives stand for.

BTW---It is not America!!
You may not agree with it, but I fail to see how your beliefs define what is American. Members of my family have fought in every major war we have fought as a country from the Revolutionary War through Vietnam. I was born in this country, live in this country, and have paid cumulative income taxes at the 7-figure level. The first estate tax in this country was adopted in 1787 to help fund the creation of a national navy. The structure for estate taxes was refined during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Estate taxes became a permanent part of our tax structure in 1916. How un-American is that?

With respect to the distribution of income, it is more skewed today than at any time since the 1920's. Franco talks about the glories of the 1950's and 1960's. That was the period when we had the lowest discrepancies between the incomes of the wealthy and the incomes of the middle class. In fact, at that time we were actively urging South American countries to reform their economies to reduce the concentration of wealth because it would lead to political instability. How un-American were we then? Today, we have a concentration of wealth that is worse than that of the South American dictatorships of the 1950's and 1960's. That, in my mind, is somewhat un-American and will undermine our long term stability as a nation.

TXduckdog
09-01-2009, 12:02 PM
And Vietnam saw 60,000 of our children killed and missing. WWII saw 418,500 US deaths. WWI saw 117,465 US deaths. Without trying to trivialize what happened, the total death toll from 9/11 was less than the normal number of traffic fatalities per month in the US and dramatically less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq during our invasion.

But Jeff you have trivialized it because you refuse to see the importance of being attacked in our own country and the deaths of innocent civilians. You simply throw up statistics of combat casualties in declared wars. How dare you compare the 9/11 casualties to auto accident victims.
Without due process, there is no difference between you and a terrorist except the decision of the President. You might want to think about that given your feelings about the current President.:rolleyes: Also, it is good to remember that 230 years ago, we were the terrorists. Often, if not usually, terrorists are simply those who do not have access to the tools of war available to their opponents. They must rely on what they have.

Again Jeff, you're conviently avoiding the question....you lambast the US for their supposed lack of human rights...yet you say nothing about the incredibly shocking treatment of the barbaric terrorists on their own people and have yet to own up with what they have publicly done to the captives they took. For you not to even admit that what they did to Perlman is the height of hypocrisy.

Actually, I see nothing to make me believe this assertion. Personally, I don't expect or desire a society with equal outcomes, although I hope for one with more or less equitable outcomes even though I know this is an impossibility. I believe an income distribution as skewed as our reflects both bad economics and bad politics. I also believe that inherited wealth, if allowed to substantially skew economic opportunities for the non-privileged, is both economically and politically bad.

Ah, a believer in re-distribution of wealth are you? Pure socialist, aren't you? There is re-distribution of wealth in this country Jeff....it's called taxes.

The notion that any individual lives their life and is rewarded based solely on their own efforts and abilities is a fiction. We all depend on the social and economic infrastructure built through our collective activity for the playing field one which we compete. Take away the roads, the communications infrastructure, the banking and trading systems, etc., and the wealthiest among us will be reduced to subsistence living. Receiving the benefits of that social infrastructure is only one half of the social contract. The other half is paying to support it. Almost by definition, the principal beneficiaries of the social infrastructure are the wealthy. They are the ones who would lose most if that infrastructure ceased to exist and by rights should pay the most to support it.

Wow, Jeff. Try explaining that bit about solely on their own efforts and abilities....to the folks in this country that have scrapped and saved and created successful businesses that employ other folks, AND PAID THE FUCKING TAXES THAT BUILT YOUR PRECIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE. THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T CREATE MONEY TO BUILD ANYTHING. THEY PAID FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OFF THE BACKS OF THE WORKING CLASS OF THIS COUNTRY, YOU NITWIT. AND WE'RE STILL PAYING FOR IT, YOU MORON. And don't forget, the wealthy in this country pay more in tax dollars than a lot of people make in their lives. They do pay more and the most to support it. It's simple mathmatics. As for not having the infrastructure and being reduced to subsistance living....WRONG AGAIN....the genius that they possess to create wealth would be directed at building infrastructure.....oh wait...it already has....the government uses private contractors for every stinking bit of infrastructure developement. Name me one government run construction company that built the interstate highway system, the electric power grid, the Internet, etc, etc, etc.

Geez, Jeff....you've been drinking the kool-aid of the left for so long, you aren't hardly rational anymore. You've totally bought into the crazy left wing lunacy of today's academia....who hate America and the liberties we possess. You and the left can't stand the thought of liberty because it means you and the left can't control it....you can't create your socialist utopia where everybody pays the same without taking liberty away.

road kill
09-01-2009, 12:32 PM
You may not agree with it, but I fail to see how your beliefs define what is American. Members of my family have fought in every major war we have fought as a country from the Revolutionary War through Vietnam. I was born in this country, live in this country, and have paid cumulative income taxes at the 7-figure level. The first estate tax in this country was adopted in 1787 to help fund the creation of a national navy. The structure for estate taxes was refined during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Estate taxes became a permanent part of our tax structure in 1916. How un-American is that?

With respect to the distribution of income, it is more skewed today than at any time since the 1920's. Franco talks about the glories of the 1950's and 1960's. That was the period when we had the lowest discrepancies between the incomes of the wealthy and the incomes of the middle class. In fact, at that time we were actively urging South American countries to reform their economies to reduce the concentration of wealth because it would lead to political instability. How un-American were we then? Today, we have a concentration of wealth that is worse than that of the South American dictatorships of the 1950's and 1960's. That, in my mind, is somewhat un-American and will undermine our long term stability as a nation.
I appreciate what the members of your family did for America.

I do NOT appreciate what people like you are doing TO America.

I do not define Liberty, Justice and Freedom.
And YOU do NOT get to take them away.

Enough!!

YardleyLabs
09-01-2009, 12:54 PM
I usually try to stay out of political forums and I should have known better, but...

Jeff I think apples need to be compared to apples here. If I'm not mistaken there were more people killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor and we went to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor. So what do we do when attacked? Do we just sit back and do nothing? Appeasment won't work with these people and it didn't work with Hitler. I've heard a similar/same argument before about how many people we've lost in Iraq,/Afganistans(sp?) is more than the we lost in the attacks. So using this logic we just right these people off and say too bad you went to work that day? I say no and I say we use two sayings from WWII that come to mind and I'm paraphrasing; "All evil needs to suceed, is for good men to do nothing." and "Sometimes good men have to do bad things."

Jeff I think you were making some good points earlier, but as far as Bush or Obama at the end of the day left or right I don't think they really have our interests in mind. There are some of us who don't think anyone/office, or government entity should accumulate more power under the guise of knowing what's best for "us" the citizens. I think what Bush did in the begining after 9/11 was in unchartered water, but something had to be done. Can we change some of those policies now? I would think so, but it seems some on the left are using the chance to make more knowlegeable decisions as a way to push their agendas. Example, it seems now we're spending more time on possibly prosecuting past officials instead of going after the terrorists. Maybe this is just perception, but sometimes perceptions are closer to the truth. Becuase of perceptions and the perception that the government is working less and less for the common citizen, I don't want the government getting more power or limiting citizen rights. I hope people never have to ask "What rights do we have?" instead of "What rights don't we have?"
We went to war with Afghanistan and al Quaeda in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Those were the right wars to launch. I only wish they had been pursued to their conclusion eight years ago so we would not be having to start over now. The issue was to what extent did the attack on 9/11 represent an existential threat to our survival justifying an extraorindary rewriting of our civil liberties. In my mind, the threat was not existential and did not warrant such actions by the administration. What was warranted was finishing the job in Afghanistan and that is the one thing that was botched as the administration pursued other agendas.

K G
09-01-2009, 03:21 PM
What was warranted was finishing the job in Afghanistan and that is the one thing that was botched as the administration pursued other agendas.

So explain to me WHY this administration thinks it can "win" in Afghanistan???

Oxymoronic regards,

kg

TXduckdog
09-01-2009, 06:42 PM
We went to war with Afghanistan and al Quaeda in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Those were the right wars to launch. I only wish they had been pursued to their conclusion eight years ago so we would not be having to start over now. The issue was to what extent did the attack on 9/11 represent an existential threat to our survival justifying an extraorindary rewriting of our civil liberties. In my mind, the threat was not existential and did not warrant such actions by the administration. What was warranted was finishing the job in Afghanistan and that is the one thing that was botched as the administration pursued other agendas.


Jeff, I actually agree with some of your points. I think the conflict has been pursued to the best of our abilities. The problem is this conflict is a 2 front war. The politics involved have slowed to a crawl what could have been accomplish militarily, if our forces had been given a green light.

How do you define existential? When you speak of the 9/11 attacks representing an existential threat that somehow justified a rewriting of civil liberties....don't you think it was morally justifiable to do anything that would prevent another attack? Extraordinary measures were taken to secure this country.....static and pro-active. Measures were taken to prevent security lapses as well as hunt down and destroy the infrastructure that was responsible for orchestrating the attack. In the vernacular....we went after the head of the snake. I believe the national psyche required the Bush admin to do just that and the majority of the American public viewed this as morally acceptable. They saw the threat as the bad guys and America as the good guys. The basic good vs evil. It was the national will to protect ourselves.

Now liberals in this country do not see the US as being good and definitely have no moral authority to visit destruction on those whom we deem as evil. In fact, liberals resent the fact that America sees itself as superior in any way to anybody. Because of this philosophy, appeasement is their answer to everything foreign policy and national security wise. So they believe there is no justification, existential or otherwise to go after the terrorists.

Bush chrystallized the national will in his Axis of Evil speech, it was a reflection of the national will...not just he and his admin. Overwhelmingly, the American public supported this. He understood, correctly that this enemy was not about to be appeased in any form or fashion but only understands things from a dominance perspective. That is, dominate or be dominated. Kill or be killed. The libs still don't get this. Despite the beheadings.

But the libs went crazy and proceeded to demonize Bush. It was so antithetical to their viewpoint they became rabid dogs in their opposition. Like liberals do, instead of staying on the philosophical ground...they proceeded to marginalize and destroy the individual....it's right there in Alinsky's book. They say Bush was incompetent.....but tell me Jeff...has there been any further attacks on US soil? Are not Al Queda pretty much pinpointed in Afghan and Iraq? Have we not pretty much put a hurting on them? Are'nt we in the process of destroying them?

Now...just what do you see as the extraordinary re-writing of our civil liberties? Have any of your civil liberties been affected? Mine haven't. I dare-say the American public would not know what you are talking about.

Don't speak of the civil liberties of the captured terrorists....they don't matter.....America has the choice to extend or not extend some, any or all American civil liberties to these terrorists. America has the moral authority to do whatever it wishes as a sovreign country.....you specifically said "an extraorindary rewriting of OUR civil liberties".

To steal a line from a favorite movie..."Just what ever do you mean, huckleberry"?

dnf777
09-01-2009, 09:17 PM
So explain to me WHY this administration thinks it can "win" in Afghanistan???

Oxymoronic regards,

kg

What happened to the republicans being for accountability and personal responsibility? Trying to push blame for Afghanistan off on Obama after Bush's utter failure to complete or even to attempt to complete the mission in A-stan shows lack of BOTH. And Afghanistan was the one 'just' war out of his two.

It was predictable that these two wars, the economy, and the debt would all be blamed on the guy coming into office, after the web was spun. We're seeing those predictions coming true faster than I thought.

Socks
09-02-2009, 12:29 PM
We went to war with Afghanistan and al Quaeda in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Those were the right wars to launch. I only wish they had been pursued to their conclusion eight years ago so we would not be having to start over now. The issue was to what extent did the attack on 9/11 represent an existential threat to our survival justifying an extraorindary rewriting of our civil liberties. In my mind, the threat was not existential and did not warrant such actions by the administration. What was warranted was finishing the job in Afghanistan and that is the one thing that was botched as the administration pursued other agendas.

I would maybe agree that Afghanistan might not have been handled properly, but here's another thought. Iraq lost the war and had sanctions placed on it by the U.N. Out of this came the oil for food scandal. Also, Iraq would on a reqular basis launch missiles at our aircraft in the no-fly zone. From what I know in the terms of the surrender this would be cause for resuption of the war. Yet, this went on for months if not years and we did nothing about it, but bomb the launch sites. Thinking outside of the box here a byproduct of this is that we ended up fighting most of the terrorist in Iraq vs the terrain in Afghanistan that helped defeat the soviets. On top of the that the pashtun tribal society in Afghanistan makes fighting there even harder. With the political climate in this country there is a vocal core group of people that think we shouldn't fight no matter what and I think this has contributed to not enough troops being supplied in both conflicts along with how they were conducted.

As for our civil liberites I do think the patriot act went a little to far, but to do nothing isn't a solution either. We were working blind and scared to an extent. Now doesn't the patriot act expire at some point? Not sure on that and if it does, all the politicians have to do is not vote for it again. Even if it doesn't expire all they have to do is, GASP!, do their friggin job and change it or get rid of it. Again right or left they're so caught up in their elitist world and don't really represent us as citizens.


What happened to the republicans being for accountability and personal responsibility? Trying to push blame for Afghanistan off on Obama after Bush's utter failure to complete or even to attempt to complete the mission in A-stan shows lack of BOTH. And Afghanistan was the one 'just' war out of his two.

It was predictable that these two wars, the economy, and the debt would all be blamed on the guy coming into office, after the web was spun. We're seeing those predictions coming true faster than I thought.

Uh...seriously? The Bush admin warned us about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and were called uncaring and racists for it. Also, exactly how is Bush himself responsible for the economy when congress has to vote on stuff too? Congress voted to remove some of the safety gates that were in place(under 1st Bush, Clinton, and 2nd Bush) and also pushed for more relaxed lending for things such as homes. Also, have you seen Obama's budget and the proposed health care reform costs?

This makes my point in a sense. We're pitted against each other when we should really be upset with how our politicians are running the joint. Yes the President has a lot of power, but he/she is not the government all alone. We the people are supposed to have the Congress representing us and I personally dont' think they're doing that great of a job.

dnf777
09-02-2009, 01:31 PM
We're pitted against each other when we should really be upset with how our politicians are running the joint. Yes the President has a lot of power, but he/she is not the government all alone. We the people are supposed to have the Congress representing us and I personally dont' think they're doing that great of a job.

Agree with you there, but "we" put Bush and a republican congress in office for 6 years, and they bankrupted the country, got us into two wars, ignoring the one that mattered, then handed it off with blame to the next guy! The last two years were basically dead time, with a do nothing congress, who rubber stamped the budget proposals and gave Bush everything he wanted except Harriet Myers. (in the judicial sense)

and no, I'm not happy with Obama, and given the chance he may screw things up, but that's yet to be seen. It is inaccurate and deflecting responsibility to blame our current woes on him, however. These are Bush's wars, and Bush's economic policies coming to maturity.

Would be like me buying a new dog, shotgun, ATV, and truck, then handing my wife the checkbook and bills at the end of the month and saying, "look what you got us into!" (don't try this at home, it doesn't work!)

K G
09-02-2009, 07:36 PM
What happened to the republicans being for accountability and personal responsibility? Trying to push blame for Afghanistan off on Obama after Bush's utter failure to complete or even to attempt to complete the mission in A-stan shows lack of BOTH. And Afghanistan was the one 'just' war out of his two.

It was predictable that these two wars, the economy, and the debt would all be blamed on the guy coming into office, after the web was spun. We're seeing those predictions coming true faster than I thought.

You got all of THAT out of my simply asking the question WHY this administration thinks it can win the war in Afghanistan, which you didn't even come CLOSE to doing....:rolleyes:

Tells me what kind of faith the left has in BHO's ability to lead the country to victory. The game plan is already in place to blame Bush 43 for starting it all.

Got it. Wasn't an increased presence in Afghanistan a major plank in BHO's campaign? Guess that one should have been painted red....

Typical response regards,

kg

dnf777
09-02-2009, 07:54 PM
You got all of THAT out of my simply asking the question WHY this administration thinks it can win the war in Afghanistan, which you didn't even come CLOSE to doing....:rolleyes:

Tells me what kind of faith the left has in BHO's ability to lead the country to victory. The game plan is already in place to blame Bush 43 for starting it all.

Got it. Wasn't an increased presence in Afghanistan a major plank in BHO's campaign? Guess that one should have been painted red....

Typical response regards,

kg


First, not totally agreeing with you does not make me a leftist. You should talk with my liberal friends who have me pegged as a conservative, maybe you guys could figure out together that I'm independent, not ascribing blindly to either party or network of talking heads.

Second, I don't pretend to know why Obama wants to escalate A-stan. Right after 9-11, when bin laden was within our grasp, was the time to escalate and complete the mission. We didn't know what victory was (is) in Iraq, and I don't pretend to know what "victory" in Afghanastan will be. Maybe we should ask the former Soviets what victory in Afghanastan is? Whatever it is, it damn well better be worth it, 'cause we can't really afford it right now! If you want to know why the administration thinks it can win, you should ask them. My opinion doesn't really matter much.

Capturing/killing bin Laden would be nice, but largely symbolic. I doubt he is the mastermind anymore. Disrupting their network by employing regional diplomacy and severing their financial supply lines would be the first line in disabling their ability to carry out terrorism. Second, education of the populace and allowing democracy to spread will take time, but will ultimately pay the largest dividend. We cannot force democracy upon people with bullets. Nobody did that for us. Only if you fight and die for it, do you really want, or deserve freedom.

atypical response regards,
dave