GratisNet: "Honor those that served to protect and defend our liberty and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in that service.
Thank a veteran today."
Monday, May 30, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
EMAIL to Senator Martinez
GratisNet: "Mel_Martinez@martinez.senate.gov wrote:
'Dear Mr. Sakowski:
Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the United States Senate must 'advise and consent' to each of the president’s judicial nominations. In this role, we have a great constitutional responsibility to ensure a strong and qualified judiciary.'
The responsibility does not require the Senate of the United States to be a 'rubber stamp' organization as republicans so ably demonstrated during most of the Clinton administration, when they obstructed his judicial nominees by every method avaiable to them, including the fillibuster and the undemocratic 'Blue Slip' tactic. It is interesting to note that Senator Hatch decided that the 'Blue Slip' tactic was no longer a good idea once he was returned as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Did he have an epiphany or was he merely being hypocritical when he denied the Democrats the use of the dubious 'Blue Slip' tactic used so effectively by republicans during the Clinton Administration, in keeping 'qualified judicial nominees' from having 'the opportunity for an up or down vote on the Senate floor?'
Senator Martinez continued:'I am unable to fulfill this duty when qualified judicial nominees are denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.'
Nonsense Senator, can you possible be as stupid as that sentence makes you sound? Your 'duty' under the constitution is to consider each appointment, perhaps you can tell me where, in the constitution, the requirement of '...an up or down vote on the Senate floor' is required. Exact wording please, especially in light of the fact that your party is so fond of 'strict constructionism' regarding our governing document. Were you as incensed over this occurring during the Clinton administration? Regardless of any caveats you may offer as to why this time it is different, I would offer that it is not and such protestations are simply an attempt at rationalization on your part for what is plainly a hypocritical position.
Senator Martinez: 'On May 23, 2005, a compromise was reached allowing a vote on several of the president's judicial nominees who previously had been filibustered. I still strongly believe that all nominees who enjoy majority support deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.'
'...all nominees who enjoy majority support...' This, Senator, is the rationalization to which I was referring. You can slice it and dice it any way you wish but the fact remains that the conservative position is one of hypocrisy.
You may not count on my vote when you stand for re-election, but you may assuredly count on my support for your opponent, regardless of his or her party affiliation, in 2010."
'Dear Mr. Sakowski:
Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the United States Senate must 'advise and consent' to each of the president’s judicial nominations. In this role, we have a great constitutional responsibility to ensure a strong and qualified judiciary.'
The responsibility does not require the Senate of the United States to be a 'rubber stamp' organization as republicans so ably demonstrated during most of the Clinton administration, when they obstructed his judicial nominees by every method avaiable to them, including the fillibuster and the undemocratic 'Blue Slip' tactic. It is interesting to note that Senator Hatch decided that the 'Blue Slip' tactic was no longer a good idea once he was returned as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Did he have an epiphany or was he merely being hypocritical when he denied the Democrats the use of the dubious 'Blue Slip' tactic used so effectively by republicans during the Clinton Administration, in keeping 'qualified judicial nominees' from having 'the opportunity for an up or down vote on the Senate floor?'
Senator Martinez continued:'I am unable to fulfill this duty when qualified judicial nominees are denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.'
Nonsense Senator, can you possible be as stupid as that sentence makes you sound? Your 'duty' under the constitution is to consider each appointment, perhaps you can tell me where, in the constitution, the requirement of '...an up or down vote on the Senate floor' is required. Exact wording please, especially in light of the fact that your party is so fond of 'strict constructionism' regarding our governing document. Were you as incensed over this occurring during the Clinton administration? Regardless of any caveats you may offer as to why this time it is different, I would offer that it is not and such protestations are simply an attempt at rationalization on your part for what is plainly a hypocritical position.
Senator Martinez: 'On May 23, 2005, a compromise was reached allowing a vote on several of the president's judicial nominees who previously had been filibustered. I still strongly believe that all nominees who enjoy majority support deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.'
'...all nominees who enjoy majority support...' This, Senator, is the rationalization to which I was referring. You can slice it and dice it any way you wish but the fact remains that the conservative position is one of hypocrisy.
You may not count on my vote when you stand for re-election, but you may assuredly count on my support for your opponent, regardless of his or her party affiliation, in 2010."
Monday, May 23, 2005
Latter day Chamberlains.
GratisNet: "From AP: ...Senate centrists agreed Monday night on a compromise that clears the way for confirmation of many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, leaves others in limbo and preserves venerable filibuster rules.
When will these 'centrists' learn? There is no compromising with the extremist on the right. This damnable compromise sounds suspicially like 'peace in our time.' Dear God, are there not any senators with a sense of duty, honor or both and the courage to show it?
I am tired of these weak kneed popinjays who place their trust in those who are undeserving of any trust."
When will these 'centrists' learn? There is no compromising with the extremist on the right. This damnable compromise sounds suspicially like 'peace in our time.' Dear God, are there not any senators with a sense of duty, honor or both and the courage to show it?
I am tired of these weak kneed popinjays who place their trust in those who are undeserving of any trust."
Friday, May 20, 2005
Comments to Santorum
GratisNet: "The following is the text of comments left for Senator Santorum this date:
The recanting of your NAZI comments:
'My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle, nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense.'
With all due respect Senator, and admittedly it is not much, you meant every word of your despicable comments on the floor of the Senate. Your past words and deeds give you away.
You are a man unpossessed of even the smallest shred of decency, honor or ethics and as such, a profound disgrace to your state and your country. Had you any sense of honor, you would resign from the senate.
This is one American veteran who will support whomever opposes you in the next election. I only regret that, being a resident of Florida, I will not be able vote for your opponent but rest assured that I and my like minded friends, Republican and Democrat alike, shall contribute time and money to see you go down to the reelection defeat you so richly deserve.
You sully everything America stands for."
The recanting of your NAZI comments:
'My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle, nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense.'
With all due respect Senator, and admittedly it is not much, you meant every word of your despicable comments on the floor of the Senate. Your past words and deeds give you away.
You are a man unpossessed of even the smallest shred of decency, honor or ethics and as such, a profound disgrace to your state and your country. Had you any sense of honor, you would resign from the senate.
This is one American veteran who will support whomever opposes you in the next election. I only regret that, being a resident of Florida, I will not be able vote for your opponent but rest assured that I and my like minded friends, Republican and Democrat alike, shall contribute time and money to see you go down to the reelection defeat you so richly deserve.
You sully everything America stands for."
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Galloway buries Coleman
GratisNet: "Enjoy!
Video (Real Player)
Audio only (.mp3 file)
Galloway demonstrates a little truth to power on poor Norm Coleman. Would that Democrats kicked wingnut ass this way. Will they ever learn that the combination of the facts and the balls to use them make the fascist bastards squirm every time?"
Video (Real Player)
Audio only (.mp3 file)
Galloway demonstrates a little truth to power on poor Norm Coleman. Would that Democrats kicked wingnut ass this way. Will they ever learn that the combination of the facts and the balls to use them make the fascist bastards squirm every time?"
The Secret Downing Street Memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL
—UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons. (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition. (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: selfdefence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMDwere linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You [i.e., David Manning] said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
That's it. Can it be any clearer that the gang of fascist thugs occupying the White House lied repeatedly to get their war? (IE: "...facts were being fixed around the policy..." Imagine, if you will, what would be happening in Washington if a President Clinton did this.
—UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait). (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons. (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition. (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: selfdefence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMDwere linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You [i.e., David Manning] said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
That's it. Can it be any clearer that the gang of fascist thugs occupying the White House lied repeatedly to get their war? (IE: "...facts were being fixed around the policy..." Imagine, if you will, what would be happening in Washington if a President Clinton did this.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Thoughts on voting.
GratisNet: "Regarding touch screen voting, optical scan reader voting and the ease with which the tabulations could be/have been gamed. Why not enact the National Voting Act which would stipulate that on National Election Day the only items on the ballot shall be those candidates running for federal office? Such an act would also mandate that paper ballots be used and that only manual tabulations shall be legal and binding.
Think of it, the ballot would have, at most, three choices, that of President/Vice-President, Representative and, for 1/3 of the states, Senator. So much for complicated ballots. The tabulation could be completed, even with some 100 million ballots, in less than a day so there would be no assignments of victory before polls close in every state. Would it really hurt the nation to have to wait 24 hours to learn who won the election, especially knowing that paper ballots and manual tabulations would ensure that all the votes were counted?
The only people who would oppose such a National Voting Act would be those who would, and have in my opinion, subverted the vote counting in order to lead America down the path of tyranny and despotism."
Think of it, the ballot would have, at most, three choices, that of President/Vice-President, Representative and, for 1/3 of the states, Senator. So much for complicated ballots. The tabulation could be completed, even with some 100 million ballots, in less than a day so there would be no assignments of victory before polls close in every state. Would it really hurt the nation to have to wait 24 hours to learn who won the election, especially knowing that paper ballots and manual tabulations would ensure that all the votes were counted?
The only people who would oppose such a National Voting Act would be those who would, and have in my opinion, subverted the vote counting in order to lead America down the path of tyranny and despotism."
The Fillibuster
GratisNet: "What more can be said regarding the attempt by republican right wing fanatics to change the rules of the Senate regarding cloture, rules that republicans have used over the years to block judicial, and other, nominations? They argue that the constitution demands that a president's judicial nominations get an 'up or down' vote on the senate floor, yet conveniently forget how many of President Clinton's nominees they never afforded that 'constitutional demand?' It would seem that those who would subvert the desires of the Founders are hypocrites of the first order, yet how could they be anything else, given their goal of destroying the American republic those wise, forward thinking men created in 1789?
Make no mistake about their ultimate end, for it is not about judicial nominees getting a vote, or restoring the so-called constitutional option to the senate. No, the path that they try to force America down is a path with no protections for the minority, any minority, it is the path that the Founders in their infinite wisdom sought to avoid, the tyranny of the majority. It is the path that despots and dictators have repeatedly taken nations down throughout history. It is a path that leads ultimately to ruin and destruction of those peoples foolish enough to follow. I would urge everyone to call their senator [Link: US Senate] and let them know that the future of America as we have known it is at stake."
Make no mistake about their ultimate end, for it is not about judicial nominees getting a vote, or restoring the so-called constitutional option to the senate. No, the path that they try to force America down is a path with no protections for the minority, any minority, it is the path that the Founders in their infinite wisdom sought to avoid, the tyranny of the majority. It is the path that despots and dictators have repeatedly taken nations down throughout history. It is a path that leads ultimately to ruin and destruction of those peoples foolish enough to follow. I would urge everyone to call their senator [Link: US Senate] and let them know that the future of America as we have known it is at stake."
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Bankruptcy judge allows UAL to blow off pension plans.
GratisNet: "The judge in the United Airlines bankruptcy proceedings has ruled that the airline did not have to honor the pension plans it set up for its employees. Pension plans that were iniated by, among other things, concessions by the workforce in wage negotiations over the years. This turn of events is very troubling for wasn't it very recently that the republicans rammed through the congress a new bankrupcy law designed to make it more difficult for filers to blow off their obligations to pay their debts? Wait, that so-called deadbeat protection was for personal bankruptcies, it seems that republicans do not have a problem with deadbeat corporations. Absolutely disgusting."
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Quotes from Tom DeLay Thanks to USN Dem Vet
GratisNet: "'Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.' - From a speech made to bankers [3/12/03]
* 'I am the federal government.' - DeLay was responding to a government employee who tried to prevent him from smoking on government property. As reported in the New York Times [2003 June 13]
'...I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is the Constitution of the United States, I am not a government employee. I am in the Constitution.' - From 'Talk Back Live' on CNN [1995 December 19]
'The judges need to be intimidated. They need to uphold the Constitution. (If they don't behave) we're going to go after them in a big way.' - From the Washington Post [9/14/97]
On Clinton's military intervention in Bosnia:
'The President now needs to show leadership, consistently and with great clarity, from devising an exit strategy to developing favorable rules of engagement, from defining the criteria of success to detailing the timetables of operations. We have learned the hard way in this country that muddled military missions lacking clear leadership hurt our national credibility while putting our troops in harm's way.'
“This is [President Clinton’s] war.” Washington Post, 4/14/99
“The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99
“Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99
But when Bunnypants started wasting people in Iraq (American and Iraqi):
“I think it's hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives is wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now.'- Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/20/03
“Well, I think it's not the time to be questioning this president on how he is carrying out the war. George W. Bush, thank God we have him as president right now and thank God that we've got all of the people that he has, really strong individuals that around him, fighting this war…The President’s doing it under great criticism, unfortunately, but hopefully, that criticism will now come to an end, and we we'll all unify and support our troops and support the effort and win the war.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, CNN InsidePolitics 3/19/03
“This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our commander in chief.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, Press Release, 3/20/03
Can we give USN Dem Vet an attaboy?"
* 'I am the federal government.' - DeLay was responding to a government employee who tried to prevent him from smoking on government property. As reported in the New York Times [2003 June 13]
'...I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is the Constitution of the United States, I am not a government employee. I am in the Constitution.' - From 'Talk Back Live' on CNN [1995 December 19]
'The judges need to be intimidated. They need to uphold the Constitution. (If they don't behave) we're going to go after them in a big way.' - From the Washington Post [9/14/97]
On Clinton's military intervention in Bosnia:
'The President now needs to show leadership, consistently and with great clarity, from devising an exit strategy to developing favorable rules of engagement, from defining the criteria of success to detailing the timetables of operations. We have learned the hard way in this country that muddled military missions lacking clear leadership hurt our national credibility while putting our troops in harm's way.'
“This is [President Clinton’s] war.” Washington Post, 4/14/99
“The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99
“Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99
But when Bunnypants started wasting people in Iraq (American and Iraqi):
“I think it's hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives is wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now.'- Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/20/03
“Well, I think it's not the time to be questioning this president on how he is carrying out the war. George W. Bush, thank God we have him as president right now and thank God that we've got all of the people that he has, really strong individuals that around him, fighting this war…The President’s doing it under great criticism, unfortunately, but hopefully, that criticism will now come to an end, and we we'll all unify and support our troops and support the effort and win the war.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, CNN InsidePolitics 3/19/03
“This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our commander in chief.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, Press Release, 3/20/03
Can we give USN Dem Vet an attaboy?"
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Sex, Lies & Social Security.
GratisNet: "Now comes the news the Gannon/Guckert seemingly spent overnights at the White House. This could easily be a case of sloppy record keeping or it could be that someone in the White House may be hiding his own 'blue dress.' If the latter is the case then Gannon'Guckert would do well to try and keep in the limelight and frequent very public places lest he wind up yet another 'suicide' in the service of those who would destroy America.
This day also brings news that Bush made his decision to invade Iraq some eight months before the event, while he was still lying about giving time for the UN sanctions and inspections to work. Poodle Blair will likely pay the price for his lies but when, when will the American media report the truth regarding Iraq? Liberal media, indeed.
Speaking of lies, am I the only one who is tired of the 'Social Security will be insolvent in 2041' canard repeated over and over again by the sorry excuse for a president? Why hasn't the media reported the truth? Why wasn't the Moron-in-Chief called on his crapola during his 'press conference' by someone asking if it wasn't true that 'insolvent' can hardly be applied to a plan that in 2041 will still be paying benefits but at a rate some 28% less than is currently promised?"
This day also brings news that Bush made his decision to invade Iraq some eight months before the event, while he was still lying about giving time for the UN sanctions and inspections to work. Poodle Blair will likely pay the price for his lies but when, when will the American media report the truth regarding Iraq? Liberal media, indeed.
Speaking of lies, am I the only one who is tired of the 'Social Security will be insolvent in 2041' canard repeated over and over again by the sorry excuse for a president? Why hasn't the media reported the truth? Why wasn't the Moron-in-Chief called on his crapola during his 'press conference' by someone asking if it wasn't true that 'insolvent' can hardly be applied to a plan that in 2041 will still be paying benefits but at a rate some 28% less than is currently promised?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
