Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditA doddering old former US secretary of state wants President-elect Obama to do more than keep Robert Gates on a secretary of defense. He suggests that Obama ought to retain W.'s policy of preventive, unilateral military assaults on, well, anyone we don't like.
No, it's not Henry Kissinger. George Shultz, who served under President Reagan, in an interview with the Washington Times, said that Bush's "doctrine of pre-emptive defense against terrorism" was "a controversial but important idea," adding:
"That is, that in this age where there are people who want to do damage to us through terrorist tactics, you want to be aggressive in trying to find out what might happen before it happens, and then stop it from happening; that is, take preventive action."And that's an uncomfortable idea for people, particularly when the act of prevention takes place in some other country. Even if it takes place in this country, it has its problems."
In this country? Does the senile old Shultz expect the Special Operations Command to, say, go after Bill Ayers? Anyway, he continued:
"I think that's an important idea, that if ignored will cause us harm. It's something we have to stick with."
The Washington Times helpfully reminds us that among Bush's preventive actions was the war in Iraq, though the newspaper strangely links it to eavesdropping and domestic surveillance:
"Mr. Bush's pre-emptive actions, including going to war to topple terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, were also based in large part on electronic eavesdropping here and abroad on telephone and other electronic communications, sometimes without a federal court order, which drew strong opposition from civil liberties groups and his critics on Capitol Hill and elsewhere."
Is there no end to the chutzpah of the defeated neoconservatives and their running dogs, like Shultz? I guess not. In the Wall Street Journal today, William McGurn suggests that Barack Obama ought to be magnanimous and give the Medal of Freedom to -- get this! -- Stephen Hadley! That would be the Hadley who served as President Bush's national security adviser, who secretly worked with neocons in the Pentagon, like Bill Luti, and hard-liners at the American Enterprise Institute to spring the 2007 surge on us, just at the moment when the US establishment was coalescing around the idea of getting out of Iraq, not further in.
Says McGurn:
"Awarding Steve Hadley the Medal of Freedom would cost Mr. Obama nothing, save possibly a few howls from the Daily Kos. Surely it is not beyond a candidate who has already conceded that the surge has 'succeeded beyond our wildest dreams' to bestow the Medal of Freedom on the public servant who made that success possible."Were President Obama to do so, a good man would receive an honor he richly deserves."
What Hadley so richly deserves is to be hauled before congressional committee after committee and raked over the coals. What he deserves is for the Justice Department to include an investigation of Hadley in a sprawling war crimes docket. What Hadley so richly deserves is to be hounded for the rest of his life for his part in destroying an entire nation, for no reason other than the imperial fantasies of neoconservative empire-builders. How's that for a howl, Mr. McGurn?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
It sounds as if this guy needs to retire and get a life....haven't we had enough of "war" for God's sake. Why do we as a nation have to continue this constant saber rattling and military intervention at the drop of a hat. I do hope Obama will stick to his promise of NOT sending any troops to a "war" unless absolutely necessary...we can't have another "shoot first and ask questions later" policy!!!
Posted by Caj at 11/18/2008 @ 09:38am
Schultz is loyal to his longtime clients in the MIC. He's just a performing poodle, his bark far worse than his bite at this stage.
But the preemptive bullying of Obama will continue from many quarters.
The big bucks from war boys will never give up, unless they're forced to.
And it's unlikely that Pelosi Reid & Co will be holding hearings exposing their corruption & deceit, their assaults on the Constitution, their betrayal of democracy & their crimes against the American people.
Posted by sloper at 11/18/2008 @ 09:58am
I do hope Obama will stick to his promise of NOT sending any troops to a "war" unless absolutely necessary...we can't have another "shoot first and ask questions later" policy!!!
Posted by Caj at 11/18/2008 @ 09:38am
Don't worry Caj, Obama will do exactly what Clinton did after the terrorists successfully bombed our interest here and abroad -- NOTHING.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:40am
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:40am.
I think you aren't giving Obama any credit or even a chance...I don't profess to know what will happen if God forbid that happens..at least don't condemn the man before he is even sworn in!!! Why are people so quick to judge this man before he even has a chance to show what can do???? You, and many like you may not have liked Clinton...but Obama is new on the scene and he deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt surely!!!!!
Posted by Caj at 11/18/2008 @ 10:52am
Clinton did what the conditions at the time, and the republican congress, allowed. He abided by international treaties and did not commit the US to a no-end in sight failed war in Iraq. And ACOOK wants to blame him?
The cons did not see the difference between AQ and Saddam, now they have blinders on regarding the difference between Obama, Carter and Clinton. They are so convinced that a guy that has never failed in his life will fail worse than their man, who has never been a succes at ANYTHING. Obama isn't even in office yet, he is probably going to appoint moderates across the board, but the cons are still clinging to "Obama is a Marxist failure" mantra set for them by the neo-con controlled media.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 11:00am
Hadley, Addington, Yoo, Gonzales and their ilk should be brought before congress and forced to testify under oath about their actions and the results of their actions. If they can make a solid case for themselves they should have a public opportunity. If the congress can show in public how screwed up these "planners" were, and if criminal actions can be shown to have taken place (Mr. Yoo!), then they should procede with criminal indictments.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 11:03am
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:40am
So, ACOOK, I suppose you consider...actually arresting and putting on trial the terrorists who attacked us..."NOTHING", right?
Let's see-
Omar Abdel-Rahman "Blind Sheik" serving a life sentence due to a Clinton prosecution.
Osama bin-Laden "Mastermind of 9/11" still at large and free due to Bush ...
hey...doing NOTHING!
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 11:05am
ACook-Happy-Under Clinton the WTC and Oklahoma City bombers were all caught,put on trial,and punished.Under Bush we attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and put most of our resources into fighting against that country and do next to nothing about 9/11.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 11:12am
Good work boys.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 11:19am
Happy-Bush tried to explain why they hate us and you guys did not put him down for that,but try to put Obama down if he asks that question or tries to answer that question.Why is it okay for Bush to do that,but not Obama?Aren't you supposed to try to understand what motivates your enemies?
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 11:21am
Old people suck. I hope Obama will have a policy that everybody who works for him must be under 50 years of age. Likewise, all the resource hog Baby Boomers need to be retired right now. Mandatory. They all had great prosperity and should've paid off their mortgages a long time ago. But their squandered the prosperity and are now deeper in debt than any generation before. And they refuse to retire because they can't afford to. Now their kids are stuck working at McDonalds because they were pro-NAFTA and moving business and factories overseas so that they could make more greedy money on their stocks. Thanks for the set up Mom and Dad! Please, no more of your ideas. I say we should have voluntary early retirement home entry for all Baby Boomers. That's one thing I'm actually willing to use my tax dollars for. I mean, why bail out Wall Street and the auto manufacturers. We need to build a new "retirement" economy to bring us back from the brink of depression!
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:34am
Obama has already scored a huge international coup with the closure of Gitmo alone. His standing in the world will continue to rise despite the ridicule of the repug "screw em all" crowd. Ladies & gentlemen, we now have a true statesman leading our country.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/18/2008 @ 11:36am
Don't worry Caj, Obama will do exactly what Clinton did after the terrorists successfully bombed our interest here and abroad -- NOTHING.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:40am
ACOOK, Who's interests is the question AC. Your average American has no interest in thing being bombed abroad. International corporations, on the other hand, do.
Do confuse international conglomerates with U.S. citizens. They are not one and the same. Actually far from it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:51am
Do confuse international conglomerates with U.S. citizens. They are not one and the same. Actually far from it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:51am
Sorry about the mistakes. Eating lunch and typing don't agree with each other. Is should say, Don't confuse international conglomerates with U.S. citizens.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:54am
johnfournier-I'm a baby boomer as is my wife.The house and car are paid for and we will have a nice retirement and both of us will be taking an early retirement.None of our kids work at McDonalds.In fact,her oldest has a PHD and a good job and my oldest just passed his bar exam and has a good job and is married to a doctor.The other kids,also, have good jobs.Maybe you kids should stop blaming your parents for your failures and look at yourselves.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 11:55am
On Keith Olbermann, I heard that Bush was considering some sort of blanket pardon for anyone involved in the torturing of enemy combatants. The blanket being anyone including the commander-in-chief and his staff. I didn't know the president had the authority to pardon himself and those directly involved in his administration...but we have Scooter Libby as evidence to the contrary.
Haven't any of these assholes ever heard of the term "conflict of interest"? How or why should the president be given the authority to pardon people he himself told to break the law? It's a case of protecting himself in the final analysis. If he doesn't pardon them, they roll over on him.
Maybe the DOJ and FBI should do their damned jobs and investigate things like this instead of whether or not Congressman Joe Blow is soliciting male prostitutes in the men's bathroom at airports. Congress certainly should start the process with or without Obama's consent.
If they really want change, start by hammering the crooks using the system to their advantage as well as using the system to cover up their crimes. The Bush administration is guilty of fraud, waste and abuse on mulitple levels.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:34am
Well, it appears we still have a "Wild In The Streets" contingent....heheh
(Wild in the Streets (1968) Directed by Barry Shear. With Shelley Winters, Christopher Jones, Diane Varsi.)
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 12:11pm
WOLf, the pardons will need to be forthcoming, else the next repub admin will not have it's full complement of hirees. (see Poindexter, Abrams etc)
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 12:17pm
Well, i'm nobody Baby Boomer,
I'm a doctor myself. And my sister is a lawyer and she's married to a banker. My brother is an astronaut and my other brother is a general. My other brother is in the importing business but he's actually a banker or a doctor or a tax lawyer or some other respectable thing. We're all very privileged.
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 1:02pm
Well, i'm nobody Baby Boomer,
I'm a doctor myself. And my sister is a lawyer and she's married to a banker. My brother is an astronaut and my other brother is a general. My other brother is in the importing business but he's actually a banker or a doctor or a tax lawyer or some other respectable thing. We're all very privileged.
I volunteer you for retirement. Go play golf.
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 1:04pm
johnfournier-Your juvenile response explains why you are a failure who needs to blame others for your being a failure.Grow up and you might succeed at something.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 1:16pm
johnfounier-My wife and I had to pay our own way through college, as do our kids.No life of privilege.It's called putting forth effort rather than expect your parents to do that for you.My daughter in law had to join the army in order to become a doctor.Again,it's called putting forth effort.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 1:44pm
Osama bin-Laden "Mastermind of 9/11" still at large and free due to Bush ...
hey...doing NOTHING!
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 11:05am
Well, if your beloved President Clinton had taken Bin Laden off of Sudan's hand when they offered him up (for a small fee, of course), we would have altered our course.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 4:56pm
ACook-Happy-Under Clinton the WTC and Oklahoma City bombers were all caught,put on trial,and punished.Under Bush we attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and put most of our resources into fighting against that country and do next to nothing about 9/11.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2008 @ 11:12am
But the terrorists who bombed our interests overseas weren't.
The only reason those clowns from the first WTC got caught was due to the fact that a very sharp Canadian border patrol guard suspected something was wrong and made the mad bomber pull over. This was the same bomber who crossed back and forth through our Northern border and our own guards didn't suspect a thing.
And another thing, look how long it took to capture and convict them.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 5:06pm
Speaking of the criminal justice system, Obama has selected Eric Holder to be the new attorney general and Holder has accepted the offer.
It looks like Holder has experience and hasn't rocked the boat too much one way or the other, but no doubt there will be more to come on this.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 5:09pm
ACOOK, Who's interests is the question AC. Your average American has no interest in thing being bombed abroad. International corporations, on the other hand, do.
Do confuse international conglomerates with U.S. citizens. They are not one and the same. Actually far from it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:51am
So the USS Cole, the Kohbar Towers and the Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya are of no interest to the American people?
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 5:09pm
One thing will be interesting. If we get an attorney general who properly interprets the law versus AG's that twist the law to suit the president's wants, a lot of the crap that has been going down will come to a grinding halt.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 5:12pm
The bilious Dreyfuss who is so with it, the snappy locution, "running dogs", from the days of Mao's Cultural Revolution, yet springs to his lips, wants people put against the wall.
Shultz, has more brains in his 80s than Dreyfuss and the entire Nation staff, put together.
Shultz knows that this war in Iraq is saintly compared, for instance to WWII. Then not just the media but Tin Pan Alley, Hollywood, the comic strips in daily papers were harnessed to the war effort. Nothing that undermined the war saw the light of day.
The govt imprisoned thousands of innocent civilians, and not just Nisei. It lied about that war from the outset. The dimensions of the disaster of Pearl Harbor in North Africa, Italy etc., were kept from the public. The three thousand dead on the first day on Normandy, or the 19,000 dead in three weeks of the Battle of the Bulge were censored out. Roosevelt illegally used billions of dollars to fund the Manhattan project without telling anyone in Congress. GIs hacked to death with entrenching tools Germans soldiers who had stacked their weapons and raised their arms in surrender. We bombed German and Japanese cities until the asphalt in the streets burst into flame. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the rubble.
Did we complain about the crimes of that Good War? The Left complained loudly even about the draft and Lend Lease, but only up to the day the USSR was attacked.
We are supposed to have war crimes now, for defending the Arab world's first and only democracy against fascist insurgents who openly declared democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration, evil?
Let the twisted jerks of The Nation have conniptions.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 5:13pm
So the USS Cole, the Kohbar Towers and the Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya are of no interest to the American people?
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 5:09pm |
Bombing of embassies in other countries is unfortunately something that will continue to happen. As far as your average American's interest in any of those places, that is another matter. Perhaps we should remove our embassies from Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Kenya? Those countries are supposed to provide security for the embassies and didn't.
Whether you like it or not, there are people in other countries that don't like our medaling in their affairs. They lash out at embassies or unprotected targets because that is all they can get at.
As for the USS Cole, that was no different than bombings that took place on our bases while Ronald Reagan was president, and no one blamed Reagan for the bombings, or lack of catching the culprits. We had to deal with people wanting to blow our bases up even when Ronnie was president, so you can't blame all this on Clinton....nice try, but a little lame. You also can't blame Clinton on lax border security and turn around and applaud W who also provided lax border security....a marching band could cross the U.S./ Mexico border without being caught and the same goes for our northern border.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 5:26pm
We are supposed to have war crimes now, for defending the Arab world's first and only democracy against fascist insurgents who openly declared democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration, evil?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 5:13pm
Can you say Iran? 1952?
Google it. Then shut up until you've actually read a history book.
You sound almost as dumb as SJbonk. Almost all of your posts contain many factual errors.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 6:51pm
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 11:05am
In the complex mind of the right wing asshole*...any response to terrorism that doesn't include unilateral force with guns, fire, death, bombs, torture, and "axis of evil," is apparantly equivalent to doing nothing... Even if the desired results aren't achieved.
*anyone who disagrees with my all encompassing opinion
Posted by ADHD at 11/18/2008 @ 7:32pm
"Congress certainly should start the process with or without Obama's consent" (Wolfgng)
Reid and Pelosi will never hold investigations that incriminate themselves. Pelosi sat in on meetings which approved of torture. She should be strung up by her fingernails. She herself admitted she would never impeach Bush because Israel asked her not to do so. So now we have precedents whereby anyone can do anything they like since they'll be pardoned anyway. Sounds like a lawless rogue state to me. You know, like an Evil Empire or something.
Posted by mystic at 11/18/2008 @ 8:26pm
Also... The internet is a series of tubes!!!
Posted by ADHD at 11/18/2008 @ 8:33pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/18/2008 @ 5:26pm
I didn't applauded Bush for securing our very lax borders.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 11:13pm
Schultz was well liked by the old boys in Foggy Bottom, but in practice was just a Reaganista bully. Clearly age has not brought him wisdom.
Posted by takemyveepplease at 11/19/2008 @ 04:16am
I didn't applauded Bush for securing our very lax borders.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 11:13pm
No, but your were implying that Bush is doing something more than Clinton did and you are further implying that the republican administrations better protect that American people than the democrats. I was merely calling bullshit on your implications. We've had bombings at bases all over the world prior to Bill Clinton being president, you just have a selective memory.
"Terrorism" has been around a long long time. It takes many forms....there are those who would call applying shocks to economies a form of terror. Sending peoples' economies to the brink of collapse to get what you want is a form of terrorism.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 04:30am
News flash folks. Texas grand jury indicts Cheney, Gonzales of crime.
HOUSTON (Reuters) - A grand jury in South Texas indicted U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and former attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday for "organized criminal activity" related to alleged abuse of inmates in private prisons.
"The indictment cites a "money trail" of Cheney's ownership in prison-related enterprises including the Vanguard Group, which owns an interest in private prisons in south Texas."
Here's the article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/id USTRE4AI11B20081119
Amazing how this isn't splashed all over the news outlets. Our vice-president and an ex-AG have been indicted by a grand jury in Texas and not a peep on the national radar. Go figure.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 07:06am
ACOOK, you attacked Clinton for doing "NOTHING"....yet he did.
Then you attack him for not doing it fasts enough.
All to avoid the fact that by your FIRST standard, Bush has done MORE "NOTHING" than Clinton did. The Blind Sheik was caught and tried....bin Laden remains free despite having an army over in Afghanistan.
Then you mention the Cole, Khobar Towers, the African embassies as part of your indictment against Clinton....yet "forget" the London and Madrid bombings again under Bush.
Ya think maybe if your amnesia wasn't so selective, you might have more credibility on this matter?
BTW- read this-
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 09:18am
Don't worry Caj, Obama will do exactly what Clinton did after the terrorists successfully bombed our interest here and abroad -- NOTHING.
Posted by ACook
Get your facts straight! Clinton sent the FBI to find the people who bombed the WTC the first time and threw their a....in jail! They are still there. He also caught Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and he was executed. My isn't that a novel idea of actually going after the bad guys who committed the actual crime???? Instead Osama bin Laden is still roaming around doing his dirty work. So I would not say Clinton did nothing!!! He did it in a intelligent manner. Instead of going off half cocked and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11!!!
Posted by ganddw42 at 11/19/2008 @ 10:01am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 04:30am
Look who's talking! Yes, it is true we've had terror attacks before the Clinton administration, but not to the extend that much of it happend under his administration. You call my posts BS because you know I'm right. You can't defend Clinton's lax responses.
Secondly, I don't "imply" anything. Like you, I say directly what I think. You may not agree with it but that's how it is. Not once did my posts ever say that President Bush did a better job than Clinton when it came to dealing with terrorists, NOW DID I?!!!
And for the record -- No, I don't think you liberals can defend America any better than we conservatives can. But, IMHO, I think you libs couldn't fight your way out of a potato sack either, let alone stand up and defend yourselves against any aggressors.
Posted by ACook at 11/19/2008 @ 12:25pm
We are supposed to have war crimes now, for defending the Arab world's first and only democracy against fascist insurgents who openly declared democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration, evil?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 5:13pm
Can you say Iran? 1952?
Google it. Then shut up until you've actually read a history book.
You sound almost as dumb as SJbonk. Almost all of your posts contain many factual errors.
Malcontent at 6:51pm said:
<<< Can you say Iran? 1952? Google it. Then shut up until you've actually read a history book. You sound almost as dumb as SJbonk. Almost all of your posts contain many factual errors. >>>
That is this genius' reply to my reference to an "Arab democracy."
Incidentally, Mosaddeq was a demagogue who rode to power on a wave of riots, strikes and assassinations. He used them he intimidated the Majlis and the Shah and inflamed the masses with the pledge to nationalize Iran's oil companies. That appeal to nationalists and communists made him as popular in Iran as it had made that other democrat, Hitler, in Germany.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/19/2008 @ 12:42pm
George Schultz - the AG McCain forgot.
Giving the Medal of Freedom to Hadley after Tennant received it would further erode the status of the award. It would become a parting gift for ideologues.
Posted by redxblack at 11/19/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by ganddw42 at 11/19/2008 @ 10:01am
No, you need to get your facts straight! It was the Canadians who caught the main bomber responsible for the first WTC bombings and was handed over to the FBI which lead to the subsequent arrest of the blind shiek. The FBI didn't have a clue.
And how can you say Clinton handled things in an intelligent manner when it was an Oaklahoma patrol officer who caught Timothy McVeigh and not the FBI? Hell, the FBI had to go to the media and beg for help.
In either case the FBI did not capture either prepetrator, someone else did. So my argument remains the same, Clinton was lax in his responses - which, IMO, means he did nothing.
Now, if he had only caught the folks responsible for the USS Cole, the Kohbar Towers, and the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, then I'd have cause to celebrate.
Posted by ACook at 11/19/2008 @ 1:01pm
yet "forget" the London and Madrid bombings again under Bush.
Ya think maybe if your amnesia wasn't so selective, you might have more credibility on this matter?
BTW- read this-
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 09:18am
I don't have selective amnesia. The London and Madrid bombings were reprisals against them for aiding the US in going to war with Iraq. The embassy bombings were direct attacks because (I believe) we had a base in Saudi Arabia. But, at the time we we're at war with anyone.
I don't read snoops, but I did review the state departments official record
Posted by ACook at 11/19/2008 @ 1:27pm
Also noteworthy is that the grand jury was in a little border town near the Mexican border and not from a major city in Texas.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/19/2008 @ 12:28pm
Liverwurst (Liverworst), A guess a grand jury of American citizens from a small hispanic town don't count, but if they were from a small conservative white town, they would right? So, like Ted Stevens, you decide which courts verdicts count and which ones don't?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 1:32pm
You said....Look who's talking! Yes, it is true we've had terror attacks before the Clinton administration, but not to the extend that much of it happend under his administration. You call my posts BS because you know I'm right.
I say.....I know you are full of crap. W has done nothing to stop AQ and in fact turned a blind eye to AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and of course Saudi Arabia while going into Iraq where AQ didn't exist at all.
You said... You can't defend Clinton's lax responses.
AC, Clinton's lax responses were more successful than W's war on terror. Killing a bunch of innocent people in Iraq for something that a bunch of Saudi's did is far from catching Bin Laden "alive or dead" and W never "smoked him out".
You said....Secondly, I don't "imply" anything. Like you, I say directly what I think. You may not agree with it but that's how it is. Not once did my posts ever say that President Bush did a better job than Clinton when it came to dealing with terrorists, NOW DID I?!!!
I say...YES, YOU DID. Read your posts above.
You said.....I think you libs couldn't fight your way out of a potato sack either, let alone stand up and defend yourselves against any aggressors.
I say...What do you know about fighting AC? Secondly, you don't know what kind of fighter I am or am not. Just because I don't support blow hards posing as tough guys to get idiot's votes like yourself doesn't mean I can't fight. I just choose not to blindly follow morons dragging us into wars only for profit. Life means a little more to me than a bunch of tough talking, gun toting jargin put on by fat slobs who would wet themsevles if put into actual combat....like Rush Limbaugh, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Hadley, Rove and the other chair bourne rangers.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 1:53pm
Nice strawman approach. Ignoring the main point in my response which shows the indictment will be dismissed to target instead the "oh BTW" add on comment, which while relevant is not the central point.
Liverwurst, I didn't ignore your response. I just didn't respond to it because you are not in a position any more than I am to know what is going to happen.
Here's what the BBC article had to say on it...."The indictment says Mr Cheney - who has invested $85m (£56m) in a company that holds shares in for-profit prisons - conspired to block an investigation."
And further the article goes on to say...
"It said there was a "direct conflict of interest" because Mr Cheney had influence over federal contracts awarded to prison companies.
US grand juries weigh evidence to decide whether a case is worthy of being sent for a full trial, before issuing formal charges known as indictments."
Now, you may be correct in saying that a judge may weigh the evidence and throw it out, but with everyone watching on this, that judge better have a damn good reason for doing so.
Grand juries are peers weighing evidence. For a judge to just throw it out, he'd have to provide reason for doing so.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 2:12pm
http://tinyurl.com/6gquaj
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/19/2008 @ 3:07pm
Off the subject a bit here, but what about the no-bid contracts awarded to Cheney's old company Halliburton? No conflict of interest there either I suppose.
If what you say is true, the judge will throw the case out. But, if there is evidence to the contrary, which is probably why the jurists moved forward with the indictment, then the judge will allow the trial to move on.
What about Gonzo's obstruction of justice indictment? Was that blind too?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:16pm
I say...YES, YOU DID. Read your posts above
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 1:53pm
And, I said NO, I DID NOT!!! None of my posts on this thread ever gave credit to President Bush. What I typed was "IF CLINTON HAD TAKEN BIN LADEN OFF OF SUDAN'S HANDS WHEN THEY OFFERED HIM UP (for a small fee, of course), WE WOULD HAVE ALTERED OUR COURSE. Now tell me where did I say Bush was doing a better job?
Posted by ACook at 11/19/2008 @ 5:21pm
"The embassy bombings were direct attacks because (I believe) we had a base in Saudi Arabia."----Posted by ACook at 11/19/2008 @ 1:27pm
And what did BUSH do about the bin-Sultan base, ACOOK?
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 10:27pm
"A blind trust is a trust in which the fiduciaries, namely the executors or those who have been given power of attorney, have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust and no right to intervene in their handling. Blind trusts are generally used when a settlor (sometimes called a trustor or donor) wishes to keep the beneficiary unaware of the specific assets in the trust, such as to avoid conflict of interest between the beneficiary and the investments. Politicians or others in sensitive positions often place their personal assets (including investment income) into blind trusts, to avoid public scrutiny and accusations of conflicts of interest when they direct government funds to the private"
http://tinyurl.com/6gquaj
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/19/2008 @ 3:07pm
Liver, I was pretty busy yesterday and didn't have much time to give you a better reply. But, here's a little more to think about on the subject.
First of all, the BBC article said Cheney had 80 million dollars invested in Vangaurd, and nobody would "blindly" invest that much money.
Secondly, even when you allow someone to invest on your behalf like Vanguard, Merril Lynch etc. you still get updates on how your investments are doing. Those updates include how much and where you investments are. You can, at any time, move your money to or from these investments. I've had 401k's and IRA's for years. They have to send this information to their investors.
So, it's back to the fact that Cheney did in fact know where his money was invested....or Cheney is the biggest idiot on the planet. It appears that Cheney had a serious conflict of interest in this situation to say the least.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 06:41am
I do hope Obama will stick to his promise of NOT sending any troops to a "war" unless absolutely necessary...we can't have another "shoot first and ask questions later" policy!!!
Posted by Caj at 11/18/2008 @ 09:38am
Don't worry Caj, Obama will do exactly what Clinton did after the terrorists successfully bombed our interest here and abroad -- NOTHING.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:40am
AC, Your post (see above) was obviously being sarcastic. Following that logic, you are implying that neither Obama nor Clinton did anything about terrorism here or abroad but Bush did. Otherwise, you would have also included Bush's name in the statement. BUT YOU DIDN'T.
So, you did imply that Bush has done a better job than Clinton ie, Clinton has done nothing...(which is an outright lie), and that Obama won't do anything. You have nothing to support as this since Obama hasn't even been president for a day so what he'll do or not do are unknown.
Presently, We are still in the middle W's personnaly made quagmire while Aghanistan is in trouble due to W's lack of vision or oversight after throwing the Taliban out of power. They are back now thanks to our little excursion into Iraq.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2008 @ 06:53am
Shultz knows that this war in Iraq is saintly compared, for instance to WWII.
this guy is a out and out nutcase. that's all you need to know. he's been around under different monikers.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/20/2008 @ 5:42pm
BTW, I watched Guerra on Democracy Now this morning and even Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez seemed dismissive of Mr. Guerra after they listened to him. He seems like a nutcase and the voters evidently agreed as he has been voted out of office.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:14pm
Liv, It doesn't matter what you or I think, nor does it matter what Amy Goodman or Juan Gonzalez think about Guerra or even his motives. The question is quite simply put, did he present enough valid evidence to support an indictment?
Who gives a crap what his motives are or were? Remmeber Ken Starr? What were his motives besides being completely politically driven by the conservative congress? The difference here is that Guerra didn't have the budget Starr had nor the staff. So, if he was able to convice a grand jury, he must have had evidence to support the indictment.
For example, Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson successfully. I would highly doubt that there was or is any love lost between Manson and Bugliosi.
If that is all you have on the guy, you are the one with the straw argument, not me.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/21/2008 @ 07:18am
Liver, I pulled this from the article you posted. You wouldn't suppose for a millisecond that he's being railroaded would you?!
"Guerra has been in office nearly 20 years, but was defeated for re-election in the March Democratic primary".
The GOP is good at one thing and one thing only, and that is it's smear machine and distorting the hell out of reality.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that GOP operatives offed this guy, or paid him off to shut him up.
Basically, the arguement put forth by Cheney's lawyers is that Cheney is federal and in his capacity of vice president is above the law. Complete horseshit.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/21/2008 @ 12:28pm