Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline

[Irn-Bru]

The UN resolutions said he had to disarm AND cooperate to prove he did. Those were the terms of the cease fire to Gulf War I.

You mean that other military operation that wasn't a declared war?


Hmm. . .I'm seeing a pattern here. . .

[Deadskins]

The UN resolutions said he had to disarm AND cooperate to prove he did. Those were the terms of the cease fire to Gulf War I.

You mean that other military operation that wasn't a declared war?


Hmm. . .I'm seeing a pattern here. . .

Ahh, but Gulf Police Action I doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

[BeeGee]

This really isn't that hard.

"..of, for, and by the people..."

Has there ever been an adminstration that's disregarded this as much as the George W. Bush Administration?

Has there ever been administration that's drawn more ire from the American people than this one? More confusion? More a feeling of complete betrayal, deceit, and disrespect? More of a feeling of uncertainty and hopelessness as to this nation's future? More a feeling of being totally disregarded?

Anyone?

I'm not saying he's the worst because my knowledge simply doesn't reach that far into our nation's past, but I don't think a political science degree is necessary to realize that George W. Bush is without a doubt one of the worst presidents our nation has ever "voted" into office. And I used "voted" with the utmost sarcasm.

I've never had the feeling "man, this country is REALLY screwed up!" until this guy took the helm.

I don't have an affinity to any political party because I believe them all to be part snake (it's a pre-requisite of being a politician) but George W's bite has poisioned this country much more than most and because there's not many snakes of his kind, as well as the fact that we've taken such a large dose of venom, it's gonna take a while to get that antivenin developed to the point that we can administer it and make a full recovery.

[Deadskins]

I could go on debating you about the ins and outs of Bush's lies involving the Gulf war, but I see no use. We seem to agree that we should not be there. My question to you is: do you want to discuss the thread's topic or not?

I guess not.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The UN resolutions said he had to disarm AND cooperate to prove he did. Those were the terms of the cease fire to Gulf War I.

You mean that other military operation that wasn't a declared war?


Hmm. . .I'm seeing a pattern here. . .

Agreed. We shouldn't have been in Gulf war I either. As we know undeclared wars have been going on pretty much under every president since....WWII. I can't think of any Ford was in.

Also I don't care what the UN resolutions said. We never gave the UN authority to declare war on our behalf. That doesn't mean I don't remember what the resolutions said though. You said nothing counter to any of this.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I could go on debating you about the ins and outs of Bush's lies involving the Gulf war, but I see no use. We seem to agree that we should not be there. My question to you is: do you want to discuss the thread's topic or not?

I guess not.

Dude, I was working yesterday afternoon and online. I took Saturday night off to do things with the family, sorry I wasn't online between that and early Sunday morning to debate you.

Not that we're debating, you have yet to deviate from informing me of Democratic talking points I already know. But here are my high level views. Feel free to keep informing me of what Howard Dean thinks.

- I think the war in Iraq is actually on topic for the subject since that is the source of many of the issues. So I don't know why you say it's off topic. Ironically Trey and I were just saying while we didn't think we should have been there we should stay and you chose to go back to the WMD argument when all of us agreed we think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

- If the left were really that concerned about personal privacy they would be far more afraid of the IRS, which in the name of collecting taxes assigns a number to us and tracks our earnings for life, records every detail of our wages, investments, charitable donations, uses the guise of taxes to invade any facet of our lives they choose, uses the power of govenrment to intimidate detractors of their methods. In what possible way is the IRS less scary then George Bush? Only an ostrich could believe the threat of Bush is even a small portion of that.

- If the left were really that concerned about personal privacy they would oppose the war on drugs where again the power of government is used to intimidate and coerce the populace and delve again into any facet of our lives the government chooses to be sure we're not putting substances the government decides we can't into our bodies.

So no, I don't agree with Bush on a lot of rights issues, but again I'm interested in actually taking a factual and balanced look at the issue instead of ignoring far greater issues while just looking how to use this to elect Democrats. So, and I've said this, my biggest issues with Bush are:

- 1st amendment - Restricting the right to freely criticize candidates leading into an election under so called "Campaign Reform."
- 2nd amendment - "Right Wing" Bush has continued to erode gun ownership rights
- 9th and 10th amendment - Bush has continued to enact massive new programs with no constitutional authority (making them Unconstitutional) like the prescription drug program
- Sending our troops into undeclared wars
- Detaining Americans in America without charges

What I do not criticize him for, given that we are in Iraq
- The Geneva Convention clearly does not apply to Iraq. Among the many reasons is it explicitly covers soldiers on battlefields carrying arms in the open.
- Things like waterboarding are fine with me if it's used in the persuit of information. Abu Grabe is not OK with me, but they prosecuted the guilty so I don't see what it has to do with Bush.
- While the Democrats and their lapdog press keep referring to international monitoring as domestic monitoring, only a fool believes when they call Yemen there is a presumption of privacy and I oppose the Yemen can have more access to calls then we do. I do oppose warrantless domestic calls though, meaning from and to points in the US.

Just a few. OK, go, what does Howard Dean think of this, as if I don't already know?

[GSPODS]

So, about those WMD's ...
We just can't let everyone run around with "nuke-u-ler" weapons.
Bush's "Intelligence" - It came to him in a "subliminibal" message from "The Grecians".

Or maybe he saw the Yosemite Sam cartoon where Sam shouts, "There's oil in them there hills."

[KazooSkinsFan]

So, about those WMD's ...
We just can't let everyone run around with "nuke-u-ler" weapons.
Bush's "Intelligence" - It came to him in a "subliminibal" message from "The Grecians".

Or maybe he saw the Yosemite Sam cartoon where Sam shouts, "There's oil in them there hills."

George Bush said there were WMDs. You said you were leaving. It's hard to trust things a lot of people say.

[Deadskins]

Well let's see. I don't think the IRS has instituted any directives that gives one person authority over all three branches of government, in the event of a disaster, which that same person can designate. You love to paint me as a Democrat, claiming I'm echoing talking points, but that is simply not true, and anyone who actually reads what I post knows that.

[Deadskins]

- Things like waterboarding are fine with me if it's used in the persuit of information.

So it's not OK by you if torture is used for torture's sake alone?

I assume the secret prisons in eastern Europe are OK by you as well.

While the Democrats and their lapdog press keep referring to international monitoring as domestic monitoring, only a fool believes when they call Yemen there is a presumption of privacy and I oppose the Yemen can have more access to calls then we do. I do oppose warrantless domestic calls though, meaning from and to points in the US.

And only a fool believes that the corporate-owned press is a lapdog to the Democratic party, and not a tool of government disinformation, hence your belief in the "liberal media" myth.

Did you even look at the link provided by Irn-bru? There are at least eight examples of domestic spying in 2001 and 2002 alone:

2001

February

The National Security Agency (NSA) sets up Project Groundbreaker, a domestic call monitoring program infrastructure.
http://tumerica.blogspot.com/2007/10/we ... phone.html

Spring

Bush administration order authorizes NSA monitoring of domestic phone and internet traffic.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/ ... i/48/17009

September-October

NSA launches massive new database of information on US phone calls.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... htm?csp=34

October

The USA Patriot Act becomes law. Among other things the law: makes it a crime for anyone to contribute money or material support for any group on the State Department’s Terror Watch List, allows the FBI to monitor and tape conversations between attorneys and clients, allows the FBI to order librarians to turn over information about patron’s reading habits, allows the government to conduct surveillance on internet and email use of US citizens without notice. The act also calls for expanded use of National Security Letters (NSLs), which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records of US citizens without a court order, exempts the government from needing to reveal how evidence against suspected terrorists was obtained and authorizes indefinite detention of immigrants at the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities.

NJ Superior court judge and civil liberties scholar Anthony Napolitano, author of A Nation of Sheep, has described the law’s assault on first and fourth amendment principles as follows, “The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name “national security letters”] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime… Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors' offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
http://reason.com/news/show/123496.html

2002

Winter

FBI and Department of Defense (DOD), forbidden by law from compiling databases on US citizens, begin contracting with private database firm ChoicePoint to collect, store, search and maintain data.
http://govexec.com/story_page.cfm?artic ... ndlyVers=1

Spring

Secret executive order issued authorizing NSA to wiretap the phones and read emails of US citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/polit ... ogram.html

May

Department of Justice authorizes the FBI to monitor political and religious groups. The new rules permit the FBI to broadly search or monitor the internet for evidence of criminal activity without having any tips or leads that a specific criminal act has been committed.
http://seclists.org/politech/2002/May/0124.html

November

Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes separate Department of Homeland Security. Among other things the department will federally coordinate for the first time all local and state law enforcement nationwide and run a Directorate of Information and Analysis with authority to compile comprehensive data on US citizens using public and commercial records including credit card, phone, bank, and travel. The department also will be exempt form Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements. The Homeland Security department’s jurisdiction has been widely criticized for being nebulously defined and has extended beyond terrorism into areas including immigration, pornography and drug enforcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Act
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/ ... 0805dk.asp

[Countertrey]

what makes THIS President so despicable and pathetic is a)his blatant disregard for the will of the American people and b)the way he goes about carrying out the duties of the Office of President.

Asked and answered. If you think Habeas Corpus, as it pertains to AMERICAN citizens, is important, then you shouldn't care much for Lincoln.

If you believe the 10th Amendment is important, I don't know why you'd care for F Roosevelt. If you have any Nisei ancestry, you wouldn't like him much, either.

[crazyhorse1]

The worst was Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus, and who jailed dissenting judges.

Second was FDR, who thoroughly trampled the Constitution in a wholesale manner.

Bush is bush league in comparison.

Is it curious that the 4 post thus far are from individuals whom have claimed libertarian beliefs?

To Trey: I know what you're saying on Lincoln and for me at least you don't need to go into more detail, but he did face extraordinary circumstances. Obviously he didn't do it to end slavery. But I think to make him the worst you have to believe the South should have been allowed to go. Otherwise while he trampled the Constitution the effects were not nearly as lasting as an FDR, Wilson or LBJ.

To Bush haters: I find it interesting that anyone could hate Bush more then Wilson who started the course that lead to situations like Iraq only all over the world. If you hate Bush so much for toppling a foreign government, how can you not hate the guy who negotiated the treaty that predictably left us as policeman to THE WORLD, not just Iraq?

Dear Kazoo,

Liberals do hate Wilson, primarily because he was a rascist and supported the KKK. Also, Wilson didn't torture, bankrupt the govern enriching his friends, fail to arm or care for out soldiers, deliberate disenfranchise blacks, start a war based on lies, try to start a second war based on lies, try to give himself dictatorial powers, spy on Americans, etc., etc. Get serious.

Wilson was a hateful creep. He was not a George W. Bush. No one ever has been-- not Nixon, not Lincoln, no one. Bush has attacked every traditional American valve-- primarily to create economic, social, and political inequality. He is anti-demoncratic and authoritarian. That's what appeals to our friend Trey, who's most comfortable in a world run like a military camp.

Bush is a throwback to robber baron days. He supports the widening gap between the rich and the poor and is doing his level best to destroy institutions like Society Security, Medicare, Unions, the Justice Department, Congress, etc.

Liberals are today's conservative, as they as attempting to preserve the Bill of Rights, Public Schools, the rule of law, civil liberties, free elections, etc. Bush is an extreme radical, attempting to concentrate power in the hands of the few. His allies are the rich, who will profit; white people, who wish to turn back the clock in re. to racial equality; and evangelicals, who have been fooled into believing that right wing Republicans either believe in or honor the word of Jesus Christ.

Who would Christ disenfranchise, send into combat without armor, torture, attempt to force into economic slavery, wage aggressive war against based on lies. Bush is one of the worse scumbags alive today on the planet.

[crazyhorse1]

My point was that Bush's actions are magnified because of the government growth that had already happened before he set foot in office.

So, even though under Bush the government has increased by about the same percentage as it did under LBJ, 50% of $2 trillion is far worse than 50% of (say) 200 million (or whatever it was). Same goes with the kinds of rights-violations the government is capable of. As bad as someone like FDR was, he simply didn't have the capacity to listen in on phone calls or do the kinds of things that our government has been able to in the last 10 years.

It's what makes these discussions so interesting, there are always different ways to look at it. The list of Bush's transgressions go on:

- Assault on the 1st Amendment signing the "Campaign Finance" reform preventing opponents of incumbents from freely criticizing them leading into an election to make it harder for incumbents to stay in office for life.

- To me the biggest sin of Iraq isn't the toppling of a criminal government, it was deepening our government's manipulation of our economy through control of oil prices.

- And in Iraq continuing our policy of being policeman to the world.

- Extending socialism with the "prescription drug" program.

- While cutting taxes was good he has deepened the complexity...

- ...and extended turning our tax code into ANOTHER socialist entitlement program with more refundable credits.

- While increasing the desire of Islamic Terrorists to attack us he has helped shield securing our borders with pseudo border patrol programs

- One of the lest heralded but to me deeply disturbing acts was attacking Oregon's assisted suicide laws in flagrant violation of the 10th Amendment. Ashcroft was a true right wing lunatic.

- The "No Child Gets Ahead" program again tramples the 10th Amendment while ensuring mediocre to poor education for all.

The only actually good things he has done are the tax cuts and nominating Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Though with the Myers nomination you have to wonder if it was shear luck. And again the tax cuts came with the price of additional complexity so those come with qualifications as well.

His tax cuts were of no value to anyone than the more wealthy people in the country. You can figure it out yourself. Just look at the stats in re. to the widening cap between the very wealthy and the rest of us. That's no accident. The upswing in the market was not a tide that lifted all boats, nor was it designed to.

[crazyhorse1]

That's because the President had implemented a campaign of misinformation and outright lying to the American people to conjure up the image of Iraq being a, and as Colin Powell mentioned to the U.N., "grave and immediate" threat to the United States. Had Bush not doctored the intelligence, lied to the American people, and actually spoken up about the lack of WMD in Iraq, the American people would not have been "right on" with the invasion of a Country who was NOT a "grave and immediate" threat to the United States.

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions. All believed that Saddam was continuing to collect and develop WMD's, and that this constituted a threat. We all believed it, because that's what the government AND the UN had been saying for over a decade. These nations, however, disagreed only about it's immediacy as a threat. ALL were wrong about the presence of WMD. Bush, Blair, France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, all of them. Did they ALL lie, or was that only Bush?

Additonally, it does not change the FACT that there was a clear majority that supported... no... that RELISHED this action, and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon. Whether right or wrong, their support threw this into high gear. If the current numbers were the norm then, Bush would have backed down. No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

Sure there was....the International Community had expressed their reservations about Bush's de-facto order for Hussein to get out of Iraq

It's also clear that you are deliberately coloring your interpretation of what I have said in order to convince yourself that I am a supporter of Bush's actions. Read again. My statement regarded a lack of international consensus IN SUPPORT of his action, which was petty clearly implied, which has the same effect as what you say. I suspect you knew this, but needed to box me in as a Bush supporter on starting the war... Congrats!

Nothing said relieves us of our moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. To suggest that "if we leave, all will be good... it our presence which is causing the problem" is naive and dangerous. If you think it's bloody now, just let us leave before it's time. It is OUR fault they are in this particular mess.

Our own inspection teams, the CIA, and the entire American intelligence community knew it wasn't true. So did Bush and Chaney, just as they now know and have known for some time that Iran is no nuclear threat either.

There have been numerous books and other media coverage that have revealed the above. Every day now there's some enraging and stunning discovery. Other countries, the few that did believe Saddam to be a threat, did so because we were feeding them the info. Even so, most of them didn't buy it. You should have a talk with Powell or Tenet or any number of others who've pointed the finger at Bush and Chaney as a couple of lying dogs.
i

[crazyhorse1]

That's because the President had implemented a campaign of misinformation and outright lying to the American people to conjure up the image of Iraq being a, and as Colin Powell mentioned to the U.N., "grave and immediate" threat to the United States. Had Bush not doctored the intelligence, lied to the American people, and actually spoken up about the lack of WMD in Iraq, the American people would not have been "right on" with the invasion of a Country who was NOT a "grave and immediate" threat to the United States.

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions. All believed that Saddam was continuing to collect and develop WMD's, and that this constituted a threat. We all believed it, because that's what the government AND the UN had been saying for over a decade. These nations, however, disagreed only about it's immediacy as a threat. ALL were wrong about the presence of WMD. Bush, Blair, France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, all of them. Did they ALL lie, or was that only Bush?

Additonally, it does not change the FACT that there was a clear majority that supported... no... that RELISHED this action, and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon. Whether right or wrong, their support threw this into high gear. If the current numbers were the norm then, Bush would have backed down. No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

Sure there was....the International Community had expressed their reservations about Bush's de-facto order for Hussein to get out of Iraq

It's also clear that you are deliberately coloring your interpretation of what I have said in order to convince yourself that I am a supporter of Bush's actions. Read again. My statement regarded a lack of international consensus IN SUPPORT of his action, which was petty clearly implied, which has the same effect as what you say. I suspect you knew this, but needed to box me in as a Bush supporter on starting the war... Congrats!

Nothing said relieves us of our moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. To suggest that "if we leave, all will be good... it our presence which is causing the problem" is naive and dangerous. If you think it's bloody now, just let us leave before it's time. It is OUR fault they are in this particular mess.

Our own inspection teams, the CIA, and the entire American intelligence community knew it wasn't true. So did Bush and Chaney, just as they now know and have known for some time that Iran is no nuclear threat either.

There have been numerous books and other media coverage that have revealed the above. Every day now there's some enraging and stunning discovery. Other countries, the few that did believe Saddam to be a threat, did so because we were feeding them the info. Even so, most of them didn't buy it. You should have a talk with Powell or Tenet or any number of others who've pointed the finger at Bush and Chaney as a couple of lying dogs.
i

[crazyhorse1]

he fact remains, that no governments, ours or foreign ones either, knew of active WMD programs in Iraq. The UN resolutions were not that he had to disarm, they were to force him to allow the inspectors back in to prove one way or the other about their WMD capabilities. Saddam actually complied, and it was Bush who ordered the inspectors out so that we could invade. The Niger yellow-cake story was totally fabricated, and the whole Treason-gate/Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame scandal came about as a result.

The UN resolutions said he had to disarm AND cooperate to prove he did. Those were the terms of the cease fire to Gulf War I.

Joe Wilson did not disprove the yellow cake, he said he could not prove it. Those are different things.

Cut out that nonsense. He said the papers were an obvious fraud.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Well let's see. I don't think the IRS has instituted any directives that gives one person authority over all three branches of government, in the event of a disaster, which that same person can designate. You love to paint me as a Democrat, claiming I'm echoing talking points, but that is simply not true, and anyone who actually reads what I post knows that.

EVERY word you have uttered has come from the desk of Howard Dean. Either you're posts are parroting him or you've just independently through great research and insight come to all the same conclusions as one of the top two political hacks in the country. At least in terms of what you're choosing to post. The other being the RNC National Chairman.

It's fine, you are totally free to post Democratic talking points. It's just DULL. It's what I read in the liberal media EVERY DAY. It's what every politician in the collectivist agree on every issue Democratic party says. It's DULL. Where do you disagree with the win at any cost to truth murder any number of American Soldiers Democratic party who supports the troops by assuming their guilt in all accusations and tries to protect the people trying to murder them? That's a lot more interesting then reading posts telling me what the liberal media told me on the front page this morning.

George Bush is the Devil! Everything he says is a lie even when it's what Bill Clinton who told the truth said! Saddam did real torture of dismemberment, murder, tearing people apart with Dobermans. If you use the same word for water boarding that makes it the same thing! Joe Wilson failing to prove the British right on yellow cake without any idea of what evidence they used proves Bush lied! A low level state department staffer "leaking" desk jockey, soccer mom's name which was already widely known is proof Chaney should be impeached!

Got it. I got it when I read the liberal media this morning too. Got it when I heard the last Democratic party political speech. Got it when the Democratic minions who won't disagree on anything kept telling me that.

I GOT IT! THANK YOU! Do you have anything DIFFERENT then Howard Dean to say on the subject?

[Countertrey]

Our own inspection teams, the CIA, and the entire American intelligence community knew it wasn't true.

Of course, you'll be posting your evidence (taken directly from DU) post haste... correct?

Hello?

[KazooSkinsFan]

- Things like waterboarding are fine with me if it's used in the persuit of information.

So it's not OK by you if torture is used for torture's sake alone?

Torture to everyone before it became an opportunity for the Democratic party to win elections meant maiming and dismembering people leading to permanent disfigurement or death.

Then Howard Dean came up on the idea, hey, how 'bout if we CALL doing ANYTHING to make terrorists talk like sleep deprivation, forced standing and talking TORTURE. Then we make like since we're using the same word it's the same THING.

Waterboarding to my knowledge was approve 3 times. It is not normal interrogation practice. Am I willing to let the military use it to force sub-humans to talk to protect our troops? Every day and twice on Sunday.

And just becuase you use the same word as what people like Hussein and Hitler did doesn't make it the same.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I assume the secret prisons in eastern Europe are OK by you as well.

Again STANDARD liberal debating tactic, don't ask what I think, TELL ME! Sorry, if you want to know what I think you have to ask. I'm not going to run around saying I didn't say this I didn't say that. It's a lot easier for you to post what I know and liberals are all about posting easy. That's why they LOVE their talking points you're endlessly posting too. Howard would be very proud of your posts, you got the message nailed.

[KazooSkinsFan]

(Bush) is doing his level best to destroy institutions like Society Security, Medicare, Unions, the Justice Department, Congress, etc.

Not sure what you mean on the rest, but if what is bolded were true I would support him a lot more. The PEOPLE should have freedom and choice, not government dependency and reliance on corrupt, unaccountable, politically motivated politicians and these 3 are near the top of my list in terms of things that need to be ended in terms of the government to put us back on the path to liberty.

I would not support liberals because he's against them, I do not support him because he isn't. The guy has continued to jack up Social Security taxes further eroding and disincenting achievement and personal accountability and he has added the MASSIVE prescription drug benefit. And you say he's trying to "destroy" them? That's just tripping.

He supports the widening gap between the rich and the poor

...

Liberals are today's conservative

Perfect example of just the basic nonsense you are posting. A conservative believes in limited government from a fiscal side. They have different views on the social agenda but your point is on the fiscal side.

Liberals are Conservative because it's Conservative to want GOVERNMENT to address the gap between rich and poor instead of staying out of it? That's just nonsense. LIBERALS want that, not Conservatives. Not Conservatives EVER.

Hey crazyhorse, liberals aren't liberal because they aren't supporting banning abortion. Hey crazyhorse, liberals aren't liberal because they aren't proposing we increase defense spending. Those are equivalent to your statement Conservatives aren't Conservative because they don't want GOVERNMENT to address wealth distribution in this country.

as they as attempting to preserve the Bill of Rights, Public Schools, the rule of law, civil liberties, free elections, etc.

Are you aware that the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments are part of the Bill of Rights too? Liberals are only interested in the amendments they support while they fight for applying the bill of rights to people who don't qualify for them under our Constitution. And even the ones they support are negotiable when it suits their needs, like supporting limiting free political speech leading into elections under so called Campaign reform.

Does Bush blow defending the Bill of Rights? Yeah, I've already posted an off the top of my list for that. Are the Democrats BETTER?

[KazooSkinsFan]

he fact remains, that no governments, ours or foreign ones either, knew of active WMD programs in Iraq. The UN resolutions were not that he had to disarm, they were to force him to allow the inspectors back in to prove one way or the other about their WMD capabilities. Saddam actually complied, and it was Bush who ordered the inspectors out so that we could invade. The Niger yellow-cake story was totally fabricated, and the whole Treason-gate/Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame scandal came about as a result.

The UN resolutions said he had to disarm AND cooperate to prove he did. Those were the terms of the cease fire to Gulf War I.

Joe Wilson did not disprove the yellow cake, he said he could not prove it. Those are different things.

Cut out that nonsense. He said the papers were an obvious fraud.

And since the British said they were not basing their assertion on those papers and didn't tell Joe Wilson what they were basing their assertion on and that they were standing behind their assertion....so what?

I'd also like to see you to have such total trust in the statements of a Republican political hack who claims to have disproven a Democratic statement. And btw, the one person we DO know in all this is a liar is Joe Wilson who lied that Chaney sent him.

See, this is the thing. I hate George Bush as president. So I can't agree with the Republicans who are accepting anything he says. I oppose the war. But rather then focusing their case on a better long term interest, the left is just going out and twisting and contorting and lying to make every "fact" fit their story.

It doesn't, and it's not necessary. The war is wrong because it's part of our endlessly trying to police the world, take on their problems as our own and manipulate our own economy by maintaining oil prices artificially low.

But even with someone like me who is OPPOSED to the war the left is so married to their strategy of lies and distortions it doesn't end. Just because I oppose the war doesn't mean I recreate every "fact" to fit my story. I support the troops by supporting them, not by saying I support them while knee jerk just believing every accusation and supporting the people trying to kill them.

The Right is Wrong and the Left is Nuts, as a friend of mine so accurately put it.

[Irn-Bru]

By the way, here's another argument that I think is very persuasive that connects my original post with the war in Iraq. (I think I meant to post this earlier, but I'm not seeing it).

I think a very good reason to support the immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq stems from a concern over our liberties at home. Consider that:

* Invasions of our privacy (as permitted by the Patriot Act)
* Deepening of government involvement in domestic affairs such as farming (Mike Huckabee calls farm subsidies an issue of "national security", for example)
* Tightening of government control in areas such as flying, financial transactions, and how a business can be run

Are ALL phrased in political language as necessary war measures and are direct byproducts of being at war. It's the blanket excuse for any program, regulation, or abuse of people: always in the name of national security. And it only grows worse with time. In other words, war is the thing making this possible.

Further, no one has matched my challenge to talk about this war on a financial basis. Anyone who is scared of socialized health care on financial grounds should have exponentially greater concern over how much it is costing this country to keep ourselves in everyone else's business. And where is this money coming from? Just like every state since the Roman Empire, inflation is the standard way to generate enough "wealth" to support a war. Hence, we end up with:



. . .and its inevitable result.

So that, I think, is a pretty good reason to advocate getting out of Iraq ASAP. I don't think that the reality of how damaging it is to our country is hitting home. Conservatives talk a big game sometimes when it comes to liberty (as liberals will in other respects), but I don't see any of them putting their money where their mouth is.

[KazooSkinsFan]

His tax cuts were of no value to anyone than the more wealthy people in the country

Everyone who pays taxes in this country got a cut and the lower your tax rate the larger percentage cut you got. Sorry, my friend, the facts don't back your conclusion.

[Countertrey]

Anyone who is scared of socialized health care on financial grounds should have exponentially greater concern over how much it is costing this country to keep ourselves in everyone else's business.

Ignore it all you wish, the Tenth Amendment tells us what is a Federal responsibility, and what the Feds should keep their hands off. As an individual with libertarian values, I'm sure you know this.

While the Feds have completely ignored the Tenth Amendment since FDR, it does tell us that what is not identified in the Constitution as a Federal domain, belongs to the individual states. The Constitution identifies defense as a FEDERAL responsibility. Show me where it says the same of healthcare. Now, I realize that this does not constitute "financial grounds", but the point is, (perversions of the Commerce clause aside) Federally funded or sponsored, socialized healthcare is not authorized by the Constitution. Period. If the states want to do it, using their own funding, well... fine.