 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / June 2007Fear Of "Bringing Back The Draft"?
During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, vide Jane Fonda] was led by Left-Wing Academics, College Students who feared being DRAFTED and their PARENTS and close relatives. Do we have the same phenomenon repeating today with the Cut & Run Democrats? Serious Question... DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of > the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, vide [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas and the pro war side included those who made gobs and gobs of money selling weapons to the military and whose children always found safe billets. Just like now. Republicans "cut and run" when asked to pay for this pointless fiasco. they just put it on Visa Bush's war Bush supporters should pay for it Vince Brannigan seems to have relatives he fears could be drafted -- and students. DSH > > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of > > the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, vide [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > selling weapons to the military and whose children always found safe > billets. Just like now. Uh? Hello....All volunteer force. Those fighting want to. > Republicans "cut and run" when asked to pay for this pointless fiasco. > they just put it on Visa Uh? Both parties are guilty of pork barrel spending. We have record tax revenues, yet spending is going thru the roof. Who's in control of Congress these days? > Bush's war Bush supporters should pay for it Why not, the top 25% pay 86% of all income taxes. But, one condition, those not paying have to shut up, and get outta our way. Mark  SignatureWars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace. --- Theodore Roosevelt -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Ponce wrote: > > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of > > the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, vide [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Vince if you read the WSJ, you'd have seen the article this week that documented how Federal tax receipts are running AHEAD of projections and are at an all time high. redc1c4, (now if the congressfucks would just quit spending it all.... %-) Signature"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide > Ponce wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > how Federal tax receipts are running AHEAD of projections and are at an all > time high. all that means is they made low projections and then claim they are doing better than "expected" the do the same with the deficit, they overpredict knowing full well it won't be reached and then claim the policies are working. >> Ponce wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the do the same with the deficit, they overpredict knowing full well it > won't be reached and then claim the policies are working. *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars belief that there are *still* a few retards that havin't figured it out yet. I'm all for the draft so long as they start with all those who support the attack and occuapation of Iraq. They should begin registering their claims for a chance to help 'stay the course' immediately. > >> Ponce wrote: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars belief that > there are *still* a few retards that havin't figured it out yet. I prefer the term mongoloid. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars belief > that >> there are *still* a few retards that havin't figured it out yet. > > I prefer the term mongoloid. Any reason or just general nastiness? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars belief > > that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Any reason or just general nastiness? I prefer original terms, not 'newspeak'. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars belief >>> that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > I prefer original terms, not 'newspeak'. Not all 'retards' are 'Mongoloids' (Downs Syndrome victims). Take yourself for instance. > >>>> *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars belief > >>> that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not all 'retards' are 'Mongoloids' (Downs Syndrome victims). Take > yourself for instance. But all retards are mongoloids.... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars > belief [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But all retards are mongoloids.... All mongoloids are retards but not all retards are mongoloid. Think of what John Stewart Mill said: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." >>>>>>> *All* governments have been doing that for decades - it beggars >> belief [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > what John Stewart Mill said: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, > but most stupid people are conservatives." Actually there are some really clever Downs Syndrome sufferers. I have found that, as a general rule, those who, "pit doon", people with any kind of handicap are mentally much more handicapped than those they, "Pit doon". Otherwise why would they be picking on someone, (they consider), worse off than themselves. I cannot recall ever meeting one such person who did not have dire psychological problems of their own. SignatureRobert Peffers, Kelty, Fife, Scotland, (UK). > Ponce wrote: >>> During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > how Federal tax receipts are running AHEAD of projections and are at an all > time high. OFCS That is how they are putting it on Visa As one example if you convert a Roth IRA you generate tax receipts now in return for giving up much larger tax recepts inthe future Revised April 26, 2006 JOINT TAX COMMITTEE ESTIMATE SHOWS THAT TAX GIMMICK BEING DESIGNED TO EVADE SENATE BUDGET RULES WOULD INCREASE LONG-TERM DEFICITS By Joel Friedman and Robert Greenstein Summary House and Senate conferees negotiating an agreement on the tax reconciliation bill are widely reported to have decided to use a change in Roth IRAs to help “offset” the cost of capital gains and dividend tax cuts in years after 2010. If the tax reconciliation bill increases the deficit after 2010, it would violate a Senate rule that a reconciliation bill may not increase long-term deficits, and the bill would be subject to a 60-vote point of order on the Senate floor. The Roth IRA provision, in conjunction with other provisions, is supposed to address this problem. New estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation show, however, that the Roth IRA proposal is a gimmick — while it would raise revenues in the first few years it was in effect, it would produce sizeable revenue losses in the years after that (see the Figure below and the Joint Tax Committee document below). The new Joint Tax Committee estimates confirm that the proposal represents a flagrant deception, under which conferees would seek to create an illusion they were not increasing long-term deficits when in fact that would be precisely what they were doing. http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-06tax.htm Vince > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side > of the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Serious Question... You pose a phoney question. The Democrats backed your Viet Nam evading little lamo of a President, until the incompetency and corruption of the Iraq occupation became undeniable. The weak Bush response to Katrina made even the blind aware of what Bush is allllll about behind the facade..... > DSH > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas Indeed. And you support the most secretive, lying, and Constitution violating President in history - what a ridiculous person you are. > > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side > > of the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Indeed. And you support the most secretive, lying, and Constitution > violating President in history - what a ridiculous person you are. But the real question is, how did the Bushies steer that storm??? Now that's POWER! > > > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side > > > of the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > But the real question is, how did the Bushies steer that storm??? Now > that's POWER! Shhhh! Cheney's weather machine is classified, Top Secret Cosmic..... SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side > > of the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > until the incompetency and corruption of the Iraq occupation became > undeniable. Hmmm? The oil for food corruption? That corruption...? > The weak Bush response to Katrina made even the blind aware of what Bush is > allllll about behind the facade..... *Yawn*, since when is it the governments' job to repair your house? A larger hurricane hit Galveston TX in the early 1900's, killed many more than Katrina did, and there was no FEMA. And ya know what? Galveston citizens took care of each other...unlike New Orleans' folks who chose to rape, steal, and murder (at least the media said so). I guess we've 'progressed' as a people since then. > Indeed. And you support the most secretive, lying, and Constitution > violating President in history - what a ridiculous person you are. Indeed, you have cites? Didn't think so....keep on getting your news from Air America.....(wait, they went belly up). Well, CNN will do. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our > side [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > Hmmm? The oil for food corruption? That corruption...? You mean this one? Condoleezza Rice Led Chevron’s Public Policy Committee During Oil For Food Scandal Well well well…remember the days when conservatives were crowing over how France and Russia were evil for participating in the oil-for-food scandal? Not to mention of course Kofi Annan’s son? Yeah, they had a field day with that one, reinforcing their beliefs that the UN was of da devil! Well, we learned last week that Chevron also participated in the oil-for-food scandal, yeah, the Chevron from America. And guess who was an important executive for Chevron in those days? Why none other than Condoleezza Rice. http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/condoleezza-rice-led-chevrons-pu blic-policy-committee-during-oil-for-food-scandal/ > >>> During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our > > side [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > an important executive for Chevron in those days? Why none other than > Condoleezza Rice. http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/condoleezza-rice-led-chevrons-pu blic-policy-committee-during-oil-for-food-scandal/ Let's see....she was on their board doing PR work from Aug 2000 to Jan 2001. 5 months....and you think they let her in on kick backs? It's possible....You think one would be able to check her tax returns for an easy answer to that question. I was more concerned about real corruption, ya know, to the tune of billions.... "It is estimated that as much as $10 billion to $21.3 billion went unaccounted for and/or was directed to Saddam Hussein and his government in the form of kickbacks and oil smuggling. Record keeping of illegal behaviour is hard to come by and rare at best. To date, only 1 of 54 internal UN audits of the Oil-for-Food Programme have been made public. The UN has refused all requests for its audits." Mark Signature"The only thing worse than a politician is a child molestor" --Sheriff Hank Pearson, Extreme Prejudice -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our > side [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > Hmmm? The oil for food corruption? That corruption...? Beyond inane. >> The weak Bush response to Katrina made even the blind aware of what Bush > is >> allllll about behind the facade..... >> > *Yawn*, since when is it the governments' job to repair your house? Unbelievable. The Bush response to Katrina isn't criticized for not "repairing houses". It's criticized for not responding competently to a public emergency, something that has always been a role of governemnt, and has been heavily financed by taxes for various departments, including FEMA. > A larger hurricane hit Galveston TX in the early 1900's, killed many > more than Katrina did, and there was no FEMA. And ya know what? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Indeed. And you support the most secretive, lying, and Constitution >> violating President in history - what a ridiculous person you are. > Indeed, you have cites? Didn't think so....keep on getting your > news from Air America.....(wait, they went belly up). Well, > CNN will do. Mark, you are embarassing. Heres a start from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies Category:George W. Bush administration controversies From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Alleged retaliatory acts against opponents a.. Plame affair b.. Al Jazeera bombing memo c.. Bunny Greenhouse Controversies surrounding pre-Iraq war intelligence a.. Iraq and weapons of mass destruction b.. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda c.. Office of Special Plans d.. Niger uranium forgeries e.. CIA leak grand jury investigation f.. Downing Street memo g.. Bush-Blair memo Controversies surrounding human rights a.. Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse b.. Extraordinary rendition c.. Unlawful combatant d.. John Negroponte Controversies surrounding spying a.. NSA call database b.. NSA warrantless surveillance controversy c.. Spying on the United Nations Controversies surrounding propaganda a.. Bush administration payment of columnists b.. Lincoln Group c.. White House Iraq Group Controversies surrounding obstruction a.. 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal Controversies surrounding response to national crisis a.. Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina b.. Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal Controversies involving business / economics a.. Halliburton b.. Dubai Ports World controversy c.. 2002 United States steel tariff Controversies involving influence / lobbying a.. Energy Task Force Controversies involving secrecy / censorship a.. Executive Order 13233 b.. State Secrets Privilege c.. Free speech zone d.. EPA 9/11 pollution controversy e.. Misrepresentation of cause of death of Pat Tillman f.. Bush White House e-mail controversy (Use of Republican National Committee servers and private mail systems for Government business) Controversies surrounding nepotism / cronyism a.. Michael D. Brown b.. Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination c.. Uncle "Bucky" d.. Sam Fox Controversies surrounding the growth of executive power a.. Unitary executive theory b.. Signing statement c.. Line-item veto d.. Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy Controversies surrounding criminal acts of Administration officials a.. Brian Doyle b.. Claude Allen c.. David Safavian d.. Larry Franklin e.. Roger Stillwell f.. Frank Figueroa g.. Darleen Druyun h.. Lewis Libby Controversies surrounding investigation of Administration officials or nominees a.. Carl Truscott b.. Joseph E. Schmitz c.. J. Steven Griles d.. Susan Ralston e.. Kyle Foggo f.. Janet Rehnquist g.. Kenneth Tomlinson h.. George Deutsch i.. Richard Perle j.. James G. Roche k.. Philip Cooney l.. Bernard Kerik m.. Timothy Flanigan n.. Linda Chavez o.. Eric Keroack p.. Lurita Doan Subcategories There are 6 subcategories in this category, which are shown below. More may be shown on subsequent pages. A a.. [+] Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse C a.. [+] Causes and prelude of the 2003 Iraq conflict D a.. [+] Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy E a.. [+] Extraordinary rendition program P a.. [+] Plame affair R a.. [+] Recess Appointments during the George W. Bush administration Pages in category "George W. Bush administration controversies" There are 149 pages in this section of this category. 1 a.. Executive Order 13233 2 a.. 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal b.. 2002 United States steel tariff c.. 2003 invasion of Iraq d.. 2005 levee failures in Greater New Orleans A a.. ACLU v. NSA b.. Jack Abramoff c.. Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse d.. Al Jazeera bombing memo e.. Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy f.. Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory g.. Joe Allbaugh h.. Claude Allen i.. Alternative theories regarding the CIA leak scandal j.. The Apprentice (book) B a.. Bagram torture and prisoner abuse b.. Michael A. Battle c.. Steven M. Biskupic d.. Black site e.. Daniel Bogden f.. Boxgate g.. Michael D. Brown h.. Bush White House e-mail controversy i.. Bush administration payment of columnists j.. William H.T. Bush k.. Bush-Blair memo C a.. CIA leak grand jury investigation b.. Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 c.. Paul K. Charlton (attorney) d.. Margaret Chiara e.. Chris Oprison f.. Combatant Status Review Tribunal g.. Conyers v. Bush h.. Criticism of the War on Terrorism i.. Bud Cummins D a.. Department of Defense Directive 2310 b.. George Deutsch c.. Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy d.. Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents e.. Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline f.. Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary g.. Downing Street memo h.. Brian Doyle i.. Tyler Drumheller j.. Dubai Ports World controversy E a.. EPA 9/11 pollution controversy b.. Michael Elston c.. Energy Task Force d.. Extraordinary rendition F a.. Flynt Leverett b.. Sam Fox c.. Larry Franklin d.. Free speech zone G a.. Maggie Gallagher b.. Jeff Gannon c.. George W. Bush and the Iraq War d.. George W. Bush insider trading allegations e.. George W. Bush military service controversy f.. George W. Bush substance abuse controversy g.. Monica Goodling h.. Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq i.. Bunny Greenhouse j.. Timothy Griffin H a.. Haditha killings b.. Halliburton c.. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld d.. Khidir Hamza e.. Hepting v. AT&T f.. Richard Hertling g.. Human rights in occupied Iraq h.. Dick Cheney hunting incident i.. Hurricane Katrina I a.. Iraq War b.. Iraq oil law (2007) J a.. J. Scott Jennings K a.. Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina L a.. Carol Lam b.. Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq c.. Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal d.. Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States e.. Lewis Libby f.. Lincoln Group g.. Luis Posada Carriles M a.. Carla Martin b.. McCain Detainee Amendment c.. John McKay (attorney) d.. Michael McManus (columnist) e.. Paul McNulty f.. Menorah Gardens g.. William W. Mercer h.. Harriet Miers i.. Military Commissions Act of 2006 j.. William Moschella k.. Movement to impeach George W. Bush N a.. NSA call database b.. NSA electronic surveillance program c.. NSA warrantless surveillance controversy d.. John Negroponte e.. Niger uranium forgeries N cont. a.. No-hearing hearings O a.. The One Percent Doctrine b.. Operation Sarindar P a.. Plame affair b.. Political effects of Hurricane Katrina c.. Preemptive war d.. Presidential Records Act e.. Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 f.. Preventive war g.. Protests against the Iraq War R a.. Susan Ralston b.. Karl Rove c.. Kevin V. Ryan (attorney) S a.. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda b.. Kyle Sampson c.. David C. Sanborn d.. Scientific Integrity in Policymaking e.. Signing statement f.. Paula D. Silsby g.. Sisters (Lynne Cheney novel) h.. Office of Special Plans i.. State Secrets Privilege j.. Stovepiping T a.. Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 54 b.. Anna Diggs Taylor c.. Jeffrey A. Taylor d.. Terrorist Finance Tracking Program e.. ThinThread f.. Randall L. Tobias g.. James Tobin (political operative) h.. Brett Tolman U a.. Spying on the United Nations b.. Unitary executive theory c.. United States immigration debate d.. United States v. Libby e.. Unlawful combatant W a.. Iraq and weapons of mass destruction b.. Post-Saddam WMD search c.. Walter Reed Army Medical Center d.. Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal e.. Walter Wojdakowski f.. War on Terrorism g.. War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation h.. Warrantless searches in the United States i.. Waterboarding j.. White House Iraq Group k.. White phosphorus use in Iraq l.. Armstrong Williams Y a.. Debra Wong Yang b.. John Yoo > Mark > >> > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our > > side [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Beyond inane. Lame.....concur....but relevant. > >> The weak Bush response to Katrina made even the blind aware of what Bush > > is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > something that has always been a role of governemnt, and has been heavily > financed by taxes for various departments, including FEMA. I still missed that part in the Constitution. There was no government response to the 1900 Galveston hurricane....so the gov dropped the ball then too? Citizens from Houston did come to their aid, which is my point, we have shifted from a nation of self-reliance to a nation of mongoloids that now need the government to wipe their a.ses. http://www.noaa.gov/galveston1900/ BTW, the state has to request the feds to come in....the state waited to aks for help, and ignored the federal order to evacuate New Orleans. > > A larger hurricane hit Galveston TX in the early 1900's, killed many > > more than Katrina did, and there was no FEMA. And ya know what? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mark, you are embarassing. Controversies.....but no convictions....hard to convict without evidence. I will admit this....the Dems have been very busy making up these charges. When do you think they'll start governing? > Heres a start from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies > Category:George W. Bush administration controversies > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Damn, they forgot global warming. <snipped> Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >> > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our >> > side [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > response to the 1900 Galveston hurricane....so the gov dropped the ball > then too? As usual, you don;t know what you're talking about. As far back as ancient Rome, cities in the Empire hit by disasters received aid from the central government (from the Emperor). After the San Francisco earthquake, some of the first aid to come in was from Army supply trains. Likewise, Galveston received aid from the county, state and Federal governments. >Citizens from Houston did come to their aid, which is my > point, we have shifted from a nation of self-reliance to a nation of > mongoloids that now need the government to wipe their a.ses. You talking about "mongoloids" is really humorous. > http://www.noaa.gov/galveston1900/ The link has nothing pertaining to post disaster aid. LOL - why am i not surprised? > BTW, the state has to request the feds to come in....the state waited > to aks for help, and ignored the federal order to evacuate New Orleans. That's why the Federal government, including the fool Bush, admitted the FEMA dropped the ball. >> > A larger hurricane hit Galveston TX in the early 1900's, killed many >> > more than Katrina did, and there was no FEMA. And ya know what? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Damn, they forgot global warming. > <snipped> DUUUUUUUUUHHHH Good show Beavis. > Mark > >> >> > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our > >> > side [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > As usual, you don;t know what you're talking about. Talking about the vision of a weak central government and strong state government....ya know that vision of the founding fathers? > As far back as ancient Rome, cities in the Empire hit by disasters received > aid from the central government (from the Emperor). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Likewise, Galveston received aid from the county, state and Federal > governments. They mostly received aid from Houston residents. > >Citizens from Houston did come to their aid, which is my > > point, we have shifted from a nation of self-reliance to a nation of > > mongoloids that now need the government to wipe their a.ses. > > You talking about "mongoloids" is really humorous. Thanks. > > http://www.noaa.gov/galveston1900/ > > The link has nothing pertaining to post disaster aid. > > LOL - why am i not surprised? Nope, but plenty about citizens helping. > > BTW, the state has to request the feds to come in....the state waited > > to aks for help, and ignored the federal order to evacuate New Orleans. > > That's why the Federal government, including the fool Bush, admitted the > FEMA dropped the ball. Concur, Bush is a fool for admitting that government is supposed to wipe our a.ses. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com <snip> >> That's why the Federal government, including the fool Bush, admitted the >> FEMA dropped the ball. >> > Concur, Bush is a fool for admitting that government is supposed to > wipe our a.ses. I don't know about the wiping bit but what part of "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" don't you understand? Take note of the "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" bit. > Mark Signature"For the stronger we our houses do build, The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > States of America" don't you understand? Take note of the "provide for > the common defence, promote the general Welfare" bit. Continue reading that document. It 'limits' government power, it's not their to empower government. Which is my point, people have forgotten that. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Continue reading that document. It 'limits' government power, it's not >their to empower government. Which is my point, people have forgotten that. So, I assume you're pro-choice? Ok with gay marriage? Against Texas force-feeding girls those medications? Jamie >> >> >> > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" > our [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> > response to the 1900 Galveston hurricane....so the gov dropped the ball >> > then too? >> As usual, you don;t know what you're talking about. >> > Talking about the vision of a weak central government and > strong state government....ya know that vision of the founding > fathers? The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment should have, but none of them would have thought that leaving a city hit by a natural disaster to fend for itself, was sensible or honorable. They had just fought an 8 year war using a "Federal" Army that fought all over place, irrespective of locale. Troops from Vermont, did not refuse to fight in New York. >> As far back as ancient Rome, cities in the Empire hit by disasters > received [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > They mostly received aid from Houston residents. How do you know? What do you base that on? Let's see some reliable data, and not some propaganda from local "historical" groups trying to pretend they're ancestors were self reliant heroes. A quick google gave: Red Cross Records, 05-0007 94 pages, typescript; Clara Barton's report to the President on the 1900 Storm. New York (City), Board of Education Records, 22-0046+ Correspondence related to donations from new York schools to aid Galveston in 1900 Storm damage. >> >Citizens from Houston did come to their aid, which is my >> > point, we have shifted from a nation of self-reliance to a nation of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > Nope, but plenty about citizens helping. What do you think FEMA is supposed to do? It's a dept. which gathers and organizes resources across the country to aid disater victims. Under Bush and his Brownie horse show organizer politcal appointee, it failed badly. >> > BTW, the state has to request the feds to come in....the state waited >> > to aks for help, and ignored the federal order to evacuate New Orleans. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Concur, Bush is a fool for admitting that government is supposed to > wipe our a.ses. Bizarre. This sort of disater aid from governements has been going on at least for 2000 years. > The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment should > have, but none of them would have thought that leaving a city hit by a > natural disaster to fend for itself, was sensible or honorable. There never would have been a need for the government of the 18th-19th century to assist disaster victims. The citizens took care of each other, because government couldn't be everywhere at once. It still can't, most of us understand this.....which could be why Americans still are the most charitable people on the planet. > They had just fought an 8 year war using a "Federal" Army that fought all > over place, irrespective of locale. > > Troops from Vermont, did not refuse to fight in New York. Of course, they were under "orders". > >> As far back as ancient Rome, cities in the Empire hit by disasters > > received [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What do you base that on? The information on the web site, and common sense. > Let's see some reliable data, and not some propaganda from local > "historical" groups trying to pretend they're ancestors were self reliant > heroes. Well, my ancestors were quite self-reliant. > A quick google gave: > > Red Cross Records, 05-0007 > 94 pages, typescript; Clara Barton's report to the President on the 1900 > Storm. Red Cross, made up of volunteer citizens. > New York (City), Board of Education Records, 22-0046+ > Correspondence related to donations from new York schools to aid Galveston > in 1900 Storm damage. Again, private folks giving aid. Which is my point, people and the private sector will always be more effective than government. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >> should >> have, but none of them would have thought that leaving a city hit by a >> natural disaster to fend for itself, was sensible or honorable. > There never would have been a need for the government of the 18th-19th > century to assist disaster victims. >The citizens took care of each > other, because government couldn't be everywhere at once. It still > can't, most of us understand this.....which could be why Americans still > are the most charitable people on the planet. This is what comes from propagandizing people with no knowledge of history. I've already stated, twice, that government disaster aid to communities dates back at least 2000 years, to Roman times. When American frontier settlements were attacked by Indians, they could expect troops to come in and retaliate and provide at least some protection. I would hate to serve in a military that felt no obligation to aid its citizens or brother units when they were hit. Below from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency#Pre-1930 The first major disaster in the history of the United States of America was a series of devastating fires in the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The 7th Congress passed a number of measures in the Congressional Act of 1803, which provided relief for the merchants of Portsmouth by waiving duties and tariffs on goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster and can be viewed as the beginnings of federal policies to provide relief after a disaster. Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples of these include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after a fire in the mid 1830s. After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theatre. >> They had just fought an 8 year war using a "Federal" Army that fought >> all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Of course, they were under "orders". And that's the only reason...? Appaling. >> >> As far back as ancient Rome, cities in the Empire hit by disasters >> > received [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > The information on the web site, and common sense. "the website? What website? What URL? Written by who? People always pretend to have done everything on their own, and pretend no aid from outisde sources. You are an idiot. It cost a lot to build the Galveston sea wall and to dredge the seabed and raise the island's level, and raise the island's infrastructure and remaining buildings. It's not credible that a devasted community with essentially no economic activity after the storm, did it all on its own. As for Houston rebuilding Galveston, Houston was in COMPETITION with Galveston for port and overall business activity. Houston sent aid early on, and so did many others after it was understood what had happened. Now, produce some reliable data that shows who paid for all that. not some local propaganda of "self reliance". >> Let's see some reliable data, and not some propaganda from local >> "historical" groups trying to pretend they're ancestors were self reliant >> heroes. >> > Well, my ancestors were quite self-reliant. What do you base that on? If you youself are so self reliant, why aren't you a small businessman or a farmer, instead of an enlisted man in a military organization with all sorts of social services and pension guarantees provided to you? You probably believe Ross Perot was some paragon of private self reliance. >> A quick google gave: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Red Cross, made up of volunteer citizens. From all over the country, Einstein. >> New York (City), Board of Education Records, 22-0046+ >> Correspondence related to donations from new York schools to aid >> Galveston >> in 1900 Storm damage. > Again, private folks giving aid. Which is my point, people and the private > sector will always be more effective than government. That was NOT your original point. You said: " Galveston citizens took care of each other... " in the absence of FEMA, or any other outside aid. That's what was so ridiculous. > Mark >>> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >>> should [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I've already stated, twice, that government disaster aid to communities >dates back at least 2000 years, to Roman times. Maybe he should read Kippling on famine relief in India. Peter Skelton >>>> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >>>> should [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Peter Skelton He: Do you like Kipling? She: I do not know. I've never kippled. >>>>> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >>>>> should [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > He: Do you like Kipling? > She: I do not know. I've never kippled. A bit like Mark Twain but better known and a better writer. SignatureRobert Peffers, Kelty, Fife, Scotland, (UK). >>>>>> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >>>>>> should [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >A bit like Mark Twain but better known and a better writer. Kipling is a good read, poetry and prose but he never wrote humour to match SC. Try to match CONVERSATION, AS IT WAS BY THE SOCIAL FIRESIDE, IN THE TIME OF THE TUDORS from Kipling. <http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/1601/ebook-page-09.asp> Peter Skelton > >> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment > >> should [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've already stated, twice, that government disaster aid to communities > dates back at least 2000 years, to Roman times. I could care less about the Romans. But yes, the founders knew of them and rejected the idea of a strong central government...then Lincoln came along. > When American frontier settlements were attacked by Indians, they could > expect troops to come in and retaliate and provide at least some protection. > I would hate to serve in a military that felt no obligation to aid its > citizens or brother units when they were hit. That scenario happened only after settlers established settlements...until that time they were on their own. > Below from: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency#Pre-1930 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1803, which provided relief for the merchants of Portsmouth by waiving > duties and tariffs on goods. This is widely considered the first piece of My God, they gave them a tax break! Not food, not clothes, not free education, not a free horse....just a tax break. What a concept! Again, it amazes me how we have degressed to a society that expects goods and services from their government, vice earning those items on their own. <snippage> In summation, I say American settlers were self-reliant, you say they were dependent on government. We agree to disagree. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >> >> should [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > I could care less about the Romans. Do you know where the term "senate" comes from? >But yes, the founders knew of them LOL > and rejected the idea of a strong central government...then Lincoln came > along. Really? Do you know what the War of 1812 revealed about Jefferson's policies? >> When American frontier settlements were attacked by Indians, they could >> expect troops to come in and retaliate and provide at least some > protection. >> I would hate to serve in a military that felt no obligation to aid its >> citizens or brother units when they were hit. > That scenario happened only after settlers established settlements...until > that > time they were on their own. Galveston wasn't an "established settlement" ? That's quite an argument, Mark.... >> Below from: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency#Pre-1930 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> 1803, which provided relief for the merchants of Portsmouth by waiving >> duties and tariffs on goods. This is widely considered the first piece of > My God, they gave them a tax break! Not food, not clothes, not free > education, > not a free horse....just a tax break. What a concept! Again, it amazes > me how we have degressed to a society that expects goods and services > from their government, vice earning those items on their own. No, we have progressed to a country that establishes, and whose taxpayers PAY for, governmental organizations capable of providing assistance to citizens during disasters. This, fool, is a counterpart to a standng military which defends the country from military attack. Your corrupt, stupid, Vietnam service evading President so mangled FEMA that it couldn't operate competently - and the whole world saw what a phoney he was, And, the world gained awareness that complaints of corruption and incompetence in the Iraq occupation were not poltical flak, but were true. > <snippage> I'll retore something you snipped: > Well, my ancestors were quite self-reliant. What do you base that on? If you youself are so self reliant, why aren't you a small businessman or a farmer, instead of an enlisted man in a military organization with all sorts of social services and pension guarantees provided to you? You probably believe Ross Perot was some paragon of private self reliance. < > In summation, I say American settlers were self-reliant, > you say they were dependent on government. No sale. You didn't say or show they were self reliant, and I didn't say they were dependent on government. People who receive no help during diasters either disappear from history, or limp along through it in reduced circumstances. > We agree to disagree. > > Mark > >> >> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment > >> >> should [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Do you know what the War of 1812 revealed about Jefferson's policies? Policies like what this guy Wills is selling? "Garry Wills's provocative new work, "Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power (Boston, 2003), views Jefferson as an ambitious politician determined to maintain Southern hegemony in the new government. Heartened by such measures as the "three-fifths clause" of the constitution, he thought that adding slave states to the Union would stymie the political progress of selfish Federalist "Northern merchants." I prefer to read what Jefferson himself wrote (from a letter to Admas Jan 1812)..... "It carries me back to the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right of self-government." > >> When American frontier settlements were attacked by Indians, they could > >> expect troops to come in and retaliate and provide at least some [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Galveston wasn't an "established settlement" ? Were they ever attacked by Indians? Besides the surplus Army tents....what other aid did they receive from the fed government? Since you say the government was always there (like State Farm) to help. I will give you this...the Galveston local government did a fantastic job.....hiring Henry Martyn Robert to design their sea wall and restoring water services the day after the storm. Look, it's not about who's better....it's simple logistics. Who do you think will perform better; a large bueracracy that has no vested interest, or a small efficient citizenerary that has a vested interest? > That's quite an argument, Mark.... Again, how much aid did the feds provide this settlement? > >> Below from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency#Pre-1930 > >> The first major disaster in the history of the United States of America > > was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > PAY for, governmental organizations capable of providing assistance to > citizens during disasters. You believe government is "capable"? I don't. Communities have lost the will to take care of themselves...that should concern you. > This, fool, is a counterpart to a standng military which defends the country > from military attack. > > Your corrupt, stupid, Vietnam service evading President so mangled FEMA that > it couldn't operate competently - and the whole world saw what a phoney he > was, First, he's not 'my' President, he's the nations'. Second, name one efficient government program. Then look at our spending and deficits. > And, the world gained awareness that complaints of corruption and > incompetence in the Iraq occupation were not poltical flak, but were true. Sure, while they ignore their own corruption....billions that europe paid Saddam for oil. > > <snippage> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you base that on? What they told me....and what I've read in history books. > If you youself are so self reliant, why aren't you a small businessman or a > farmer, instead of an enlisted man in a military organization with all sorts > of social services and pension guarantees provided to you? The military does teach one to be pretty damn self-reliant. FYI, nothing is guaranteed for those in the military. Congress can and does change our pension, our pay, and our benefits anually. I plan on not having the pension I was promised. I plan on paying more for my medical plan. So I am saving and investing while I serve...vice just whining about it. > You probably believe Ross Perot was some paragon of private self reliance. > < Naw, he has bigger ears than Obama. > > In summation, I say American settlers were self-reliant, > > you say they were dependent on government. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You didn't say or show they were self reliant, and I didn't say they were > dependent on government. Fair enuff.... > People who receive no help during diasters either disappear from history, or > limp along through it in reduced circumstances. So because of one event they are forever doomed to live in a 'reduced circumstance'? Unless of course they help from government, of course... Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >> >> The founders were divided on how much power the central goverenment >> >> >> should [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> Do you know what the War of 1812 revealed about Jefferson's policies? > Policies like what this guy Wills is selling? > "Garry Wills's provocative new work, "Negro President": Jefferson and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of > selfish Federalist "Northern merchants." Duh^2 That has nothing to do with the question posed. > I prefer to read what Jefferson himself wrote (from a letter to Admas Jan > 1812)..... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > most valuable to man, his right of self-government." Moron, Jefferson decreased the size of the US Federal army and naval forces down to a point that the US had problems dealing with the British in the War of 1812. The War showed that Jefferson's philosophy about a minimal central governement wasn't going to work in the real world. >> >> When American frontier settlements were attacked by Indians, they >> >> could [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > Were they ever attacked by Indians? LOL. Unbelievable. You cut and snipped and mangled the rest of the post to try to reshape and evade prior ridiculous statements. You have no idea whether Galveston Island rebuilt itself on its own or not after the 1900 hurricane, but you claim it did because "the website" said it did. You claim areas hit by disaster like New Orleans should fend for themselves without any Federal aid - self reliance to a bizarre extreme. Shouldn't they get state aid, or county aid either? Of course, you yourself are a Federal Government employee, with all sorts of guaranteed benefits and pensions. Then you claim you really have no guarantees since Congress can change all your benes. Res ipsa loquitur. > "Mark" <markt38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > after the 1900 hurricane, but you claim it did because "the website" said it > did. You're right. Since I wasn't there I can have no opinion. I'm sure FEMA took care of Galveston. > You claim areas hit by disaster like New Orleans should fend for themselves > without any Federal aid - self reliance to a bizarre extreme. Shouldn't they > get state aid, or county aid either? I never said with no federal aid. And yes, state and local government should deal with disasters....my concern is that you and many other Americans now demand that government take care of them from cradle to grave...which will result in a huge overbearing government. > Of course, you yourself are a Federal Government employee, with all sorts of > guaranteed benefits and pensions. Benefits that are not guaranteed.....BTW, I like the way that you have reduced my 22 years of Naval service to a DMV worker status. I'll try to remember how good I got it when I'm in the gulf. > Then you claim you really have no guarantees since Congress can change all > your benes. They can, and do. > Res ipsa loquitur. Later... Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> "Mark" <markt38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it >> did. > You're right. Since I wasn't there I can have no opinion. I'm sure > FEMA took care of Galveston. You started out saying that Galveston mostly took care of itself after the 1900 hurricane. Now you've retreated to being sure a then non-existent FEMA wasn't there. >> You claim areas hit by disaster like New Orleans should fend for > themselves >> without any Federal aid - self reliance to a bizarre extreme. Shouldn't > they >> get state aid, or county aid either? > I never said with no federal aid. And yes, state and local government > should deal with disasters....my concern is that you and many other > Americans now demand that government take care of them from > cradle to grave...which will result in a huge overbearing government. More retreating. NOW, you claim" "I never said with no federal aid. " Why don't you show us what you base this on: "you and many other Americans now demand that government take care of them from cradle to grave...which will result in a huge overbearing government." >> Of course, you yourself are a Federal Government employee, with all sorts > of >> guaranteed benefits and pensions. > Benefits that are not guaranteed.....BTW, I like the way that you have > reduced my > 22 years of Naval service to a DMV worker status. I'll try to remember > how good I got it when I'm in the gulf. Only in your mind. There's nothing in the world of finance more guaranteed than US Government debt instruments and pensions. >> Then you claim you really have no guarantees since Congress can change >> all >> your benes. > They can, and do. Yes, they keep raising them. The readers can form their own opinions about the big risks attached to USG obligations. Res ipsa loquitur. >> Res ipsa loquitur. >> > Later... > > Mark > >> "Mark" <markt38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You started out saying that Galveston mostly took care of itself after the > 1900 hurricane. I still do. > Now you've retreated to being sure a then non-existent FEMA wasn't there. Nope.....simple sarcasm. > >> You claim areas hit by disaster like New Orleans should fend for > > themselves [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > NOW, you claim" "I never said with no federal aid. " They received Army surplus tents. > Why don't you show us what you base this on: "you and many other Americans > now demand that government take care of them from cradle to grave...which > will result in a huge overbearing government." It's called an 'entitlement' mentality, which I oppose. > >> Of course, you yourself are a Federal Government employee, with all sorts > > of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There's nothing in the world of finance more guaranteed than US Government > debt instruments and pensions. True, but military benefits are not guaranteed....the benefit is, the amount is not. For example, about 10 years ago the military went from a pension system of 50% your base pay at 20 years...to a 'high 3' system...whereas we now get 50% of the 3 highest years of pay averaged. So, to receive E-8 pay you hae to earn E-8 pay for 3 years....I don't disagree, it saves money...and encourages re-enlistment. But, I digress... > >> Then you claim you really have no guarantees since Congress can change > >> all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, they keep raising them. See above. > The readers can form their own opinions about the big risks attached > to USG obligations. No doubt.....I have job security....not many folks can say that. > Res ipsa loquitur. Back at ya... Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >> "Mark" <markt38@peoplepc.com> wrote in message >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > I still do. Cities hit by disaster have commonly received outside aid through most of recorded history. You don't have the faintest goddamn idea of what your talking aobut, and you either don't know it, or don't care. >> Now you've retreated to being sure a then non-existent FEMA wasn't there. >> > Nope.....simple sarcasm. Sarcasm from somebody who can't even mount an intelligible argument? I don't think so. >> >> You claim areas hit by disaster like New Orleans should fend for >> > themselves [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > They received Army surplus tents. LOL. Go back and look at what the website I told you about, says. >> Why don't you show us what you base this on: "you and many other > Americans >> now demand that government take care of them from cradle to grave...which >> will result in a huge overbearing government." >> > It's called an 'entitlement' mentality, which I oppose. You think you're entitled to waste educated people's time with your ignorant prattle. Einstein, the taxpayers of the US had spent copious taxes for decades to have governmental organizations that could provide effective aid during disasters. And you call the complaints against the incompetent response from this idiot President's regime, an 'entitlement' mentality". >> >> Of course, you yourself are a Federal Government employee, with all > sorts [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Government >> debt instruments and pensions. > True, but military benefits are not guaranteed....the benefit is, the > amount [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But, I digress... More retreat. You had said " Benefits that are not guaranteed....." >> >> Then you claim you really have no guarantees since Congress can change >> >> all [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > Back at ya... Duh^3 > Mark During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, vide Jane Fonda] was led by Left-Wing Academics, College Students who feared being DRAFTED and their PARENTS and close relatives. Do we have the same phenomenon repeating today with the Cut & Run Democrats? Serious Question... Brannigan seems to have relatives he fears could be drafted -- and students. Several other folks here, obviously PFK's, seem to have similar fears about themselves -- just as was the case during the Vietnam War -- but there was actually a draft then -- not now. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side of > the war, but not that of the Vietnamese Communists and their allies, vide [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Serious Question... Being anti-war during the vietnam era made sense...since folks were being forced to fight. I don't see how it's relevant today, with an all volunteer force. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Being anti-war during the vietnam era made sense...since folks were > being forced to fight. I don't see how it's relevant today, with an > all volunteer force. Why are you dodging my question, Mark Test? Do you still think that Hillary Clinton sees the same intelligence as the president does? > > Being anti-war during the vietnam era made sense...since folks were > > being forced to fight. I don't see how it's relevant today, with an > > all volunteer force. > > Why are you dodging my question, Mark Test? No. I was answering Hines question, which you snipped. > Do you still think that Hillary Clinton sees the same intelligence as the > president does? The Senate intel committee sees much more than the President does. Hillary is not on that committee.....so you may have a point. I would have thought it impossible to fool the world's smartest woman though. Mark SignatureWe can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all. --- Theodore Roosevelt -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The Senate intel committee sees much more than the President does. > Hillary is not on that committee.....so you may have a point. Therefore you should retract your statement that the Congressmen that voted for the war saw the same intelligence the president saw. Will you? It is a central tenet of your justification for the war, and it is wrong, apparently by your own admission. Let us see if Mark Test amends his argument according to his admission that Congress at large doesn't see the same intelligence the president sees. -- Now Mark Test makes a new interesting assertion, that members of Congress in the intelligence committees see MUCH more intelligence information than the president. Is this a gratuitous assertion of you actually have some evidence to support your claim? Let us see it. In order for Mark Test's claim to be true, Congress intelligence committees should be the primary consumers of intelligence and they would in turn pass some to the president, with MUCH remaining that they see and the president does not. Mark Test doesn't seem to know that the intelligence committees in the houses of Congress have OVERSIGHT functions of the intelligence community, and they are not necessarily the consumers of the intelligence produced by our various intelligence agencies. Case in point: the stated mission of the CIA: "1. Producing timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decision makers charged with protecting and advancing America's interests." "2. Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives." It is obvious that the president is the first and foremost consumer of the intelligence concerning Iraq. How is it then possible for the Congress Intelligence Committees to see MUCH more intelligence than the president? Since we are talking about Iraq, "Intelligence" in this context doesn't refer to mundane budgetary and organizational details of the intelligence community and the like, but high grade information judged essential to guide action and policy, as in questions like "should be go to war." Here is an opportunity for Mark Test to convince the Fair Readers that he knows what he is talking about and that he has a valid and sound argument as it pertains to the Iraq War. Let us see, Mark. > > The Senate intel committee sees much more than the President does. > > Hillary is not on that committee.....so you may have a point. > > Therefore you should retract your statement that the Congressmen that voted > for the war saw the same intelligence the president saw. Will you? No. Why? Congress sees more intel. > It is a central tenet of your justification for the war, and it is wrong, > apparently by your own admission. WMDs, AQ ties, terror ties, UNSCR violations, human rights violations... These were all central to the war. > Let us see if Mark Test amends his argument according to his admission that > Congress at large doesn't see the same intelligence the president sees. That's simply incorrect. Congress sees more intel, they don't see the PDB. BUT Bush allowed that to happen... "'*The President's Daily Brief (PDB) has not been provided to Congress inthe past by the executive branch. Committee staff notes, however, that the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States (known as the 9-1 1 Commission) reached an agreement with the White House for access to the PDB and other intelligence items." > Now Mark Test makes a new interesting assertion, that members of Congress in > the intelligence committees see MUCH more intelligence information than the > president. And I'm awaiting your cite that says they receive less. > Is this a gratuitous assertion of you actually have some evidence to support > your claim? > > Let us see it. Read their report: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html > In order for Mark Test's claim to be true, Congress intelligence committees > should be the primary consumers of intelligence and they would in turn pass > some to the president, with MUCH remaining that they see and the president > does not. Honestly, I only know there are Senate and Congressional Intel committees. What they do is anyone's guess...I hope they make sound security, funding, and make and pass legislation based on the intel. > Mark Test doesn't seem to know that the intelligence committees in the > houses of Congress have OVERSIGHT functions of the intelligence community, > and they are not necessarily the consumers of the intelligence produced by > our various intelligence agencies. One fact remains. The executive and legislative both concluded that Saddam had WMDs based on what numerous intel agencies told them....including UK, French, German, and Russian agencies. > Here is an opportunity for Mark Test to convince the Fair Readers that he > knows what he is talking about and that he has a valid and sound argument as > it pertains to the Iraq War. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just telling you that Congress receives more intel than the executive. Recently a Democrat Congressman stated that Bush 'mis-represented' the intel...because the Congressman saw intel that stated the opposite. So, which is it? Why would Bush have to 'lie' about intel if he was keeping intel from Congress? Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > The Senate intel committee sees much more than the President does. >> > Hillary is not on that committee.....so you may have a point. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Read their report: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html That is NOT evidence that Congress sees MUCH MORE intelligence than the president. >> In order for Mark Test's claim to be true, Congress intelligence > committees [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Honestly, I only know there are Senate and Congressional Intel committees. > What they do is anyone's guess... Well, honesty at least. It's more Mr. Hines can say. Now tell me if you ONLY know that there Congress has intelligence committees, and you don't have a of what they do. How did you reach the conclusion that they see MUCH MORE intelligence than the president? > One fact remains. The executive and legislative both concluded that > Saddam had WMDs based on what numerous intel agencies told > them....including UK, French, German, and Russian agencies. That is not true. Warnings came from Germany cautioning about the SOLE source we had on the WMD. They were ignored. Congress saw what Bush and Cheney wanted them to see. You are forgetting the George Tenet has gone public about it, and that he was coerced to produce evidence to sell the war, that is, the White House in collusion with the CIA, cooked up old and insufficient evidence to make it conclusive, and THAT is what Congress saw. >> Here is an opportunity for Mark Test to convince the Fair Readers that he >> knows what he is talking about and that he has a valid and sound argument [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more > intel than the executive. How can you possibly know that, if by YOUR OWN ADMISSION what the Congressional intelligence committees do is "anyone's guess." Recently a Democrat Congressman stated that > Bush 'mis-represented' the intel...because the Congressman saw intel > that stated the opposite. So, which is it? Why would Bush have to > 'lie' about intel if he was keeping intel from Congress? That's a no brainer. The president restricts the intelligence Congress sees as he pleases. He was most happy to let Congress see the evidence he had selected and arranged to sell them the war. Now if the CIA later provided "raw" evidence to members of congress during investigations, which contradicts the evidence Bush/Tenet provided to Congress, it only buttresses the case for cooked evidence. > >> > The Senate intel committee sees much more than the President does. > >> > Hillary is not on that committee.....so you may have a point. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Congress saw what Bush and Cheney wanted them to see. I stand corrected. I found this document on-line: http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm The executive used to see more intel than Congress, but no more. Which may explain all the intel leaks. > You are forgetting the George Tenet has gone public about it, and that he > was coerced to produce evidence to sell the war, that is, the White House in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > contradicts the evidence Bush/Tenet provided to Congress, it only buttresses > the case for cooked evidence. The reason for the restrictions are to protect the intel gatherers. But that has changed, albeit after the invasion, but congress is getting access to much more intel than before....but it still goes thru the executive first, then congress. I was mistaken. Again the link: http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side > of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > being forced to fight. I don't see how it's relevant today, with an > all volunteer force. They volunteer to defend our country. Not lay down their lives for nothing, or for defending against imaginary threats. We are all paying for the ill-adventures of the few. That's another good reason to stop this joke. Why don't you volunteer to go to Iraq? > >> During the Vietnam War, a lot of the "Anti-War" Movement ["Anti" our side > > of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > They volunteer to defend our country. Not lay down their lives for > nothing, or for defending against imaginary threats. Concur, we volunteer to make the other bastard die for his country. > We are all paying for the ill-adventures of the few. That's another good > reason to stop this joke. The price for losing will be much higher than you can ever imagine. > Why don't you volunteer to go to Iraq? Going to theater in October. Ship outta Bahrain. Mark SignatureThe pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer. ---Theodore Roosevelt -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> We are all paying for the ill-adventures of the few. That's another >> good >> reason to stop this joke. >> > The price for losing will be much higher than you can ever imagine. You are just parroting what the president say. He doesn't seem able to explain why. The most important part of the explanation is why are his forecasts right after having been so wrong? Can you give a detailed rationale |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message