Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[BrentAllen]

I met Gingrich back when his star was shining brightly. Had my picture taken with him, and had him autograph my GOP hat. When the news broke about his affair, all that stuff went in the garbage. I lost just about all the respect I had for him. He is trying to get back in the game, but is having a hard time - I think most Republicans feel the same way I do, and won't have anything to do with him. Does it really matter how much good you do outside the family when you are causing so much pain and sorrow within it?

Here again is a difference between the parties. Gingrich screwed up and is punished by the GOP. Clinton commits adultry, lies under oath, helps Monica write a false affidavit which his lawyer later uses in court (felonies) - and he is worshiped by the Democrats. How can anyone NOT see the moral differences in the parties??

[packsaddle]

Gone for a few days and wow the topic has sure left illegal immigration. Anyway, to catch up, Brent, I know there are real criminals out there. I've had a couple of them on me for a while (similar to the character, 'Early Grace', in the film 'Kalifornia'). I grew up with people like that (the film, 'Blue Velvet' hits really close to home), one of my old buddies was executed a few years ago for serial killings.

What I meant about 'in your head' was the fear that you have. I drive 35-40K miles each year, a good number of them in your area. The only thing I see to fear around there is the traffic (and I guess I'm part of that as well). I did have one unfortunate encounter with a criminal wannabe (over near Underground) but I was able to 'convince' him that his intent was very badly placed and that he should seek easier prey. He left and I went about my business. No shot fired, no one killed.

 

But I thought of you while viewing the new show at the Museum of Modern Art entitled,

'Safe: Design Takes on Risk'. There are a number of displays of actual products sold as a response to various fears over the last couple of hundred years. One item is a coffin in which a signal is rigged so that if a person is accidentally buried alive, they can ring a bell on the surface to clue someone to start digging (comes with optional breathing tube, extra cost;)). Then there is the key-ring tracheotomy kit. Call it 'being prepared' or 'paranoia', people evidently thought the threats were real enough to create a market. And both of these items, I suggest, have equal merit to firearms carried for sake of paranoia. I have noted, however, that some persons tend to carry because they think it helps to overcome their other 'shortcomings', so-to-speak. H'mmm?

 

Anyway, after visiting with elderly relatives who insist on discussing diet and regularity of elimination, if I ever catch myself approaching that status I'll be sure to drop by and pretend to burglarize your home so you can put me out of my misery. And you'll be able to carve your first notch.

 

Regarding the Reagan HIV thing. I merely point the readers to:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.14/oped1.html

one of many sites on this subject. The point is that early in the emergence of this 100% fatal pandemic disease, a political decision was made to do as little as possible. AIDS was identified in 1981 and Reagan didn't even mention it publicly until 1987. The lack of education alone as to prevention measures and awareness in the public was unconscionable for an epidemic of this magnitude. There is no way to know objectively the number of people infected needlessly as a result of this lapse but it is a huge number.

 

I note, however, that Jerry Falwell was consistent in making his usual condemnation, "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." That is about as hateful as it comes and the radical base of the Republican party seemed to embrace the sentiment. Just a personal view.

 

Scouter Terry, was it something I said? Why am I no longer getting email notifications?

[Trevorum]

"How can anyone NOT see the moral differences in the parties??

 

heh, heh, heh. Thanks for the set-up.

 

Well now, the way I see it, Clinton got a blow job in the White House and then lied about it under oath to the American public. Bush used intelligence about WMD which he knew to be faulty as an excuse to illegally invade a sovreign country, thus causing the deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of foriegn nationals. Which is more morally repugnant? Well, I guess it depends on your own views of sex and violence. I see Clinton as a sleaze ball. Bush on the other hand is a criminal.

 

Like I said, that's the way I see it. I suspect that most members of Bush's political party will defend his actions on some pretext or another.

 

[BrentAllen]

"George Bush lied!" "George fooled us into voting for the war!" Don't you love the Democratic Party? They (Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Washington Post, NYT) all saw the intelligence, and all claimed Saddam had the weapons. The UN did the same. Now, they want to change the story. Blaming Bush for this is their last straw. Investigations have already proved Bush didn't lie, he didn't manipulate the evidence.

So we illegally invaded a sovereign nation, Trevorum? How would propose we rectify that? Do we release Saddam and let him return to Iraq? If we did what you claim, then the only possible solution would be to return Saddam to power. Is that what the Democratic Party is going to call for? That should be interesting...

[Rooster7]

Brent - you're spitting into the wind.

 

As I previously noted, the political left and their supporters are masters of the straw man argument. Misrepresenting the facts is what they do. Never mind that British intelligence stands behind their report to this day.

 

And lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a monster. 60 years after Hitler, people still blame the U.S. for not getting involved sooner. Had we not invaded Iraq, their grandchildren would have made the same claims about this war. Bush would have been labeled as insensitive to the plight of Iraqi Arabs. No doubt, there would have been undertones of racism as the talking heads on broadcast TV discussed why the U.S. waited so long. But since we did the right thing, now they want to label Bush as a trigger happy liar.

 

As for Clinton, he did what he did. Theres no denying what occurred in the Oval office and with whom. Here, the political left wants to play stupid. They roll their eyes and mindlessly recite how the Presidents sexual behavior has nothing to do with his ability to lead. They fail (or refuse) to recognize the seriousness of his moral lapse. If a President fails to be faithful to his wife breaking his oath to the most important person in his life, then what assurances do we have that he will be faithful to the faceless multitudes that he supposedly represents in political office? Never mind that he lied about the affair time and time again, and/or that he tried to redefine words like is and sex. Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office. He not only betrayed his wife, but he disgraced the office and discredited himself, making it impossible for anyone to trust him.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[packsaddle]

I'm not sure about everyone else but Bush sure lied to me. And I bought into it. And unlike Clinton, many thousands of people are dead as a result, more than two thousand of those were ours, and the end is not in sight. Unlike Reagan who eventually admitted the Iran/Contra thing, Bush is diving more deeply into denial. And anyone around him who seems disloyal to his deception - well check it out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865068/site/newsweek

Truth is completely foreign to this White House. I should have expected as much from someone who was a drunk and a cocaine cowboy until he was 40. And it looks like the public is beginning to come around to this truth as well:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

In the most recent ABC/Post poll not only do 60% disapprove of his performance, an astonishing 55% agree that he intentionally misled the public and 60% agree that the war is not worth fighting.

The insurgents for whom a while back we were told had been dealt a fatal blow are as strong as ever and employing more sophisticated devices to kill. Iraq has become, ironically, precisely the terrorist training ground that Bush falsely claimed it was prior to the invasion. And...all the while the actual mastermind for 9/11 continues to thumb his nose at us. Remember Bin Laden? It was Bin Laden, NOT Sadam, who was responsible for 9/11. The UN inspectors were unable to detect WMDs in Iraq because....there WEREN'T any. But Bush successfully played on our trust to use their failure to detect any as evidence for the need to invade. And we bought the lie. This, combined with other deceptions that led to the outing of a CIA operative. That criminal act remains unaddressed because of Bush's subsequent and deceptive resistance to assist Fitzgerald with his investigation.

The lies, the deaths, the betrayal, the deficit, the economy, Katrina, the cronies, the incompetence, the squandering of our good will with other countries...Trevorum is correct. This guy is a criminal.

I don't know much about this site or the poll it covers, but the photo is worth a look.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001977.htm

Oh yeah!

[BrentAllen]

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

 

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

 

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

 

"The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

 

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

 

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

 

"If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons."

 

"So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."

 

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

 

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

 

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

 

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties."

 

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

 

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

 

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

 

Who said it? Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998. Hey packsaddle, did Clinton lie?? How is this different that what Bush has been saying??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

If you had actually used the entire speech instead of the fragments you listed, the answer would be easy. Here it is for anyone who is interested:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html

 

The short answer is that Saddam broke the terms of the agreement and Clinton responded in the manner he said he would. But I think you would get a more personal answer if you posed that question to the thousands of American families who have been destroyed as a result of Bush's lie.

Clinton's action didn't send thousands of our good men and women to their early graves. Bush did.

 

The Clinton administration was mistaken about WMD but not about the agreement. As a result of Clinton's military response and other stimuli, later in the Bush administration Saddam allowed the inspectors back into Iraq. The process was working again. But Bush couldn't wait. For some reason that is still clouded in deception he wanted to invade and he used our fear of WMD as a means of hoodwinking us into supporting that action. And I fell for it just like many other honest people in this country. And I now recognize the lie and I think he should be held accountable for it.

 

A little late, but at least he's doing it...Colin Powell is finally coming clean about all this.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050908231709990004

 

[BrentAllen]

I love this!

Typical liberal Democrat rant: "Bush lied! He fooled us into voting for and supporting the war!"

 

Reporter: "I thought Democrats claimed Bush was an idiot - a crack-head drunk no smarter than a rock."

 

Democrat: "That's right - he is an idiot! He killed what few brain cells he had with cocain and alcohol! The man has no brain!"

 

Reporter: "So... how did someone so stupid fool all you brilliant Democrats into voting for the war?"

 

Democrat: "Uh..... Well..... Hang on..... It doesn't matter - Bush is still an idiot and he lied to us!"

 

Reporter: "That's what I thought..."

 

I actually hope the liberals keep on this tack. They are even putting together skewed polls to show they are right. But where does it lead? That Saddam Hussein should be freed, and returned to Iraq. That is the only place their argument can lead, so I can't wait to hear Howard Dean making that case. Also, Hillary - their only real chance in '08, according to the polls - is pro-war! Yes, this is looking like a very strong argument for the libs! The Democrats are living in the past, where they could change their story and cover up their previous positions with lies. That won't work today, thanks to the internet. All the speeches the Democrats gave claiming Saddam had WMD's, along with all the headlines from the NTY and WP doing the same, are all only a few keystrokes away. So bring it on!

[Trevorum]

I find it facinating the way some people cling to cherished beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. At some point it becomes a farce (case in point: intelligent design -- but that's another issue ...)

 

Reported today by the New York Times:

 

"A high al Qaeda official in U.S. custody [ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi] was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained al Queda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document." (emphasis added)

 

Paraphrasing the rest of the investigative report: administration officials, including President Bush, repeatedly cited Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training al Qaeda in the use of illicit weapons.

 

I don't expect that Bush's Republican Guard defenders will care abut this newly released evidence of his crime. They have already made up their minds that the invasion of Iraq was "Dulce et Decorum".

 

 

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Trevorum,

Is that the best you can do?? We all KNOW the intelligence was fault - no argument there. How does that translate into "Bush lied!" Libi was identified as a "LIKELY fabricator" - this is your smoking gun?? Please tell me you have more than this!

More from the same sourse:

 

"Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan at the end of 2001, recanted his claims in January 2004. That prompted the C.I.A., a month later, to recall all intelligence reports based on his statements, a fact recorded in a footnote to the report issued by the Sept. 11 commission.

 

Mr. Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts. Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war."

 

So we all agree the intelligence provided by the CIA was faulty. Note there were several sources telling the same thing. Note the date - Libi recanted in January, 2004. The CIA recalled the reports in February, 2004 - well after we went to war. Again, how does that translate into "Bush lied!"??

[TheScout]

I thought that the great majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution and that President Clinton also stated during his term that Iraq had WMDs . . .

[Trevorum]

It's really fairly simple:

 

1. Before the war, the administration knew al-Libi was a liar and knew his statements linking Al-Queda to Iraq were false.

 

2. Even knowing this, Bush called al-Libi's statements "credible evidence" and cited them as justifications for the invasion.

 

Therefore, Bush lied to the American public about his reasons for wanting to invade Iraq. (Do you really not see this??)

 

Now Bush is not a Scout and I suppose we can't expect him to be Trustworthy. However, if I am going to be lied to by the most powerful political leader in the world, I think I'd rather be lied to about a personal sexual encounter rather than about the reasons for taking the country to war. But again, that is just me. I guess Republicans see Bill cheating on Hillary as a bigger sin than being responsible for the needless deaths of 2,000 Americans.

[TheScout]

I could have sworn that the joint resolution to authorize the war passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23 and the House by 296-133 meaning that it had great support from the Democratic party as well. Or maybe that isn't true . . .

[TheScout]

It is also quite heinous to say President Bush is responsible for the death of two thousand Americans. Muslim Terrorists are responsible for their unfortunate deaths.