post 9/11 articles from iraq

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1


interesting to say the least.

So the US government releases documents supposedly found in Hussein's personal collection that conveniently tie Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Iraq, talk about how France has an interest in Iraq making the world discredit the real reasons as to why they refused to assist in the war, finally give proof that Saddam was interested in WMDs.

Well that wraps up the war nicely. I'll never doubt you again Mr. Bush!

He's not my president.

I'm working on it.


Even if I were to stay, someone who wins by cheating in the elections is not entitled to be in office.


Since we're on the subject, anyone around here from New Zealand?

Who cheated? When? How?

Consider it a challenge.

Phukface/dwellman-

Let's not forget that President Bush actually LOST the popular vote part of the 2000 election. And he lost it by quite a large margin. The only reason he was in office from 2000-2004 was the electoral college. Period.

So, I don't think its very fair to tell someone to move to a different country 'cause he said "he's not my president."

There's no need to get all nasty on the dude just 'cause he doesn't personally believe Pres. Bush is his president. Once again ya'll show ur true colors by immediately questioning someone's loyalty or patriotism just because he/she has a dissenting view of the "President."

Thank god this country isn't full of people who wrap themselves in the flag.

But this is your thread and topic. I suppose you're entitled to say whatever u want to whomever. So I apologize if I took anything away from ur thread... Not my intentions.

dude i wasnt getting nasty,

just because you took it that way, doesnt mean it was said that way.

in this country we go by the electoral college. so if they vote in the president, then thats the president, plain and simple. no ifs ands or buts. thats the way it works. im sorry you see my brashness on the point as being "nasty" when its just the truth,

whether he "accepts" him as president or not, doesnt change the fact the GWB is still "the president of the united states" period. i know you want to change this into a pissing match but im not going to stoop that low.

clinton was my president when he was prez, and all the others before him were prez. plain and simple. if i like the guy or not, his official title is president.

and btw, i wasnt calling forlorn unpatriotic. i never said or implied that, i was just stating the facts man.

Ummm... no. Clinton won the majority of popular vote in both elections.

In 1992 he won 43%. Next closest candidate was George H Bush with 37%

In 1996 he won 49%. Next closest candidate was Bob Dole with 41%.

What I was refering to is the fact that Gore actually won the MAJORITY of the popular vote in 2000 (just like Clinton did in both elections). So trying to compare Clinton to the Bush/Gore election isn't correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ [...] tion,_1992 (scroll down to table)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781448.html

Are you retarded?

Majority means the largest group. If he had the most votes then the MAJORITY voted for him.

The definition of majority doesn't include a specific clause stating "must be greater than 50%."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=majority

2l The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.


The first part says something about more than 50% because if something is over half then it is by default the majority, however it is not a requirement for the majority to be more than 50%.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Some things I'm liberal on, others I'm conservative. To limit oneself to
either only is retarded.

Conservatives, in the strictest sense aren't conservative anyways. They
just think everyone else should be. Themselves, oh they can do anything
they want.

Not a stereotype. Everyone's like that in a sense. I was refering to our
friends on capital hill. I should have been more clear.

Pretty good stuf so far.

Can't really judge this part, however it is likely he has put foward a number of project himself he wanted to cover with these funds.

As a military base Iceland is, or at least was in the cold war era, quite strategically placed, which is why the US is/was investing in the country. As good as you tried to give a historic overview in the Iraq war case, it doesn't become you to loose any sense of historical context in the case of Iceland.

Although limited terms for for all elected officials does have its drawbacks (limited value for long term objectives), the alternative has its own issues (and in my personal view worse than the democratic approach), examples aplenty. Putting the blame either on the president or congress (or a specific part of congress) is just as simplistic as most of the reasoning in hindsight on the Iraqi conflict.

Btw, I do blame policy makers for the chaos in Iraq today. This should have been foreseen and there should have been some plan in place to prevent the current civil war or to dampen its effects (maybe that plan is there and in operation, maybe it would be even a lot worse otherwise).

What would the Iraqi people prefer in general? Live in fear under a ruthless dictator (and his regime), who decided on life or death for many or the current chaos where everybody in your personal environment could be the enemy in disguise?

What else has he done? Seriously, I can't think of a single significant thing he's done in his presidency that's non-war/terrorism related. I guess you could say he reformed Medicare drug benefits... but that's the only thing I can think of.

The fact that Bush put his signature on the Patriot Act is enough for me to utterly despise him.

That document is an abomination.

What's the big deal about the Patriot Act? Guessing you're annoyed by the wire tapping.

Have you even checked into it? So they don't have to go to a court to get permission to wire tap suspected terrorists. It's not wire tapping random people. They have known connections or names, they hunt them down.

Also, if it's not related to terrorism what you're talking about if you did for some reason get tapped, nothing can happen to you. They can't refer you over to other agencies.

Yeah, it may break or push the limits of the law.. but it's not effecting everyone. It's targeting select people.. if it gets abused is another thing.

Right now, I'm all for the Patriot Act.

Whether or not it is useful doesn't phase me. The point is that major parts of it are unconstitutional. How will you know when it's being abused? Who's to say what's an act of terrorism? Who draws the line?

When the people with the power are the same ones deciding what is acceptable and what isn't, I don't like it. It may not be abused right away, but it's laying the foundation and I guarantee you that in the future it will be abused.

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Thomas Jefferson

funny thing about those gps things... kinda off topic

my aunt had her truck broken into last summer. They stole her purse with her cell phone, about 1000 bucks worth of cash, and other stuff...lots of stuff

she called the phone company and asked them to track down the phone with it's gps, they said no...they can only give that info to the police. So she handed the phone to the cos standing right there. They still said no, cuz it violated the privacy protection act...wtf!

They're trying to track down the suspects for robbery! give them the damn info! She had to go down there during office hours, sign 5 documents realeasing her own personal information to HERSELF. By then the phone was trashed and gone with the wind...so sad

You aren't paying for the phone lines at your work. The company is and the company has a right to know what goes on on their lines.

I pay my phone bill and the conversations that I have are between myself and the opposite party. No one else. If the government has sufficient evidence to where I would be suspected of terrorism then they could legally obtain a warrant and tap my phone line. There is NO need for them to tap it under any other circumstances. Warrants aren't exactly hard to get and they establish a public record. Why does the government want to be secretive and tap my line with out me knowing about it?

You're right, having a phone is a priviledge that I pay for. The difference is that I have the choice of leaving the room if someone else is listening. I have no control over a phone tap. The government is taking away my right to privacy.

As far as the cell phone issue goes, I have control over that to an extent. I can turn it off for public view, and I do. I know that the government has access to my location via GPS and I make the decision to keep my cell phone. It comes down to the fact that I have the right to choose. The moment the government starts making my decisions for me is the moment that they have gone too far.

I am not a child. I am an adult and I am perfectly capable of running my own life. If I'm a suspect in a murder trial, then hey, feel free to tap my phones. However, if I'm just living out my daily life there is absolutely no need for the government to monitor my activity at all.

The entire Homeland Security program is a crock of shit. It boils down to the government being able to control our lives. I know we don't live in a dicatorship right now, I know that our government isn't that bad right now. My problem is the fact that everything that is going on is laying the foundation for things to get much, much worse very quickly.

Hitler didn't exterminate the Jews over night. He did it slowly so people would accept it. First you take away a few of their rights. No big deal, they're different anyway. Next he began to slowly take away their businesses by campaigning against them. Then he began to literally take away their businesses. Next thing you know he's relocating them. Eventually he's slaughtering them on a massive scale.

I'm not saying that our government is going to committ genocide. What I am saying is that when evil people are in power, they do things slowly. They bide their time and lay out the framework. Then when the moment is right they seize control. Most people blind themselves with disbelief, they think that "oh, my government would never do such a thing" yet history has proven other wise.

I'm sick of living in a society where people are scared of their neighbors. People lock their doors and shut each other out. When was the last time you struck up a conversation with a random person in line at the grocery store? People live their lives in fear and it can all be attributed to our fear mongering government, aided by the corporate media and the corporations themselves.

Call me an extremist, I'm used to it. Call me unpatriotic. I honestly pity you. You are giving up the only thing that no one could ever take away from you, your freedom, and you're doing it without batting an eye.

Last night! the lady in front of me had all the fixins for home made taco's. I asked if I could come over She said yes, but only if I cleaned her house. (woulda done it anyway) but I think she was turning me down

Also the about a month ago I struck up a convo with a elderly gent outside my apt block while I was waiting for my carpool. His son came and they started unloading this huge wardrobe. The old dude was havin problems so his son got him out of the way, then he was struggling! So I went and helped them carry it in to the house

Good deeds kick ass!

While the tax credits and breaks are certainly welcome I think Bush took it too far. The statement that "tax cuts improve the economy" has never been proven to work over a long period of time (>1 year). It has been proven to stimulate the economy, but that's it. The current economy we see today has had almost nothing to do with tax cuts.

Considering how much we're spending on the war and terrorism, tax cuts (at least to me) are a bad idea. We went from having a budget SURPLUS when Bush took office to having an estimated $423 billion projected deficit for 2006.

Granted there are a TON of unforseen costs. Namely terrorism and the hurricanes. But at a time where we have nearly record deficits, continued tax cuts are a bad idea. Many presidents to come will inherit Bush's reckless fiscal policy. Even Bush's projections state the federal debt won't be eliminated until 2012- and that's subject to a lot of speculation.

As for Clinton, here's a brief list of accomplishments:

1. Completely eliminated federal debt and budget deficits. When he took office this country was $2.4 trillion dollars in net DEBT. When Clinton left office we actually had a surplus of nearly $1 billion. Instead of doing something contructive with it, Bushy just gave it away in the form of a $600 check to every tax payer. (understandably, many believe that's what should happen). However, it's reasons like 9/11 why the Bush administration should of thought it out a little more carefully.

2. Welfare reform. I remind you that this was extremely controversial, especially for a democrat. Clinton very effectively reformed a program that rewarded people for not doing anything. These days welfare is a hell of a lot harder to get and keep.

3. FMLA (family medical leave act). Prior to this law anyone could be fired for taking unearned time off to deal w/ a family emergency, adoption, birth of a child, surgery, etc. The law could still be stronger, but at least it's something.

4. Don't ask don't tell. (of course, this is still controversial)

5. Earned Income Credit. Gave a large tax credit to poor families and businesses who hire low income folks or folks who were on welfare. Nearly every single corporation now takes advantage of this tax credit. I know my business does...

7. Increased minimum wage. Because Bush has refused to take action on this issue, many states now have their own (higher) minimum wage law. Let's get real here- who the HELL can live on $5.15 an hour? Whether someone is qualified or not, many business still take advantage of minimum wage.

Clinton had his fair share of failures too. No doubt about it. But when it came down to working with congress and the senate no one was more successful than Clinton. Don't forget that he had a republican controlled congress for the majority of his terms.

Ironically Bush has had a republican controlled congress for years now and still he can't get anything of significance signed into law! His biggest success has been the Patriot Act. Medicare barely made it. His Social Security and Immigration proposals are all but dead.

It seems to me that whenever Bush encounters any resistance in congress he just drops it. (the only exception being the Patriot Act) Social Security reform was supposed to be his legacy. When was the last time you heard about welfare reform? Immigration reform? Anything other than terrorism or the war? Just what the fuck does he do all day? Seriously- all I hear from him is how great the war is going.

I agree that Bush has a lot of bad luck in his presidency. The dump the economy took wasn't his fault. Katrina wasn't his fault. Sept. 11th wasn't his fault. It's all just bad luck.

However, he has made some incredibly bad decisions. Many of which can be contributed to his own short sightedness and incredible ego. Bush always believes his way is the right way- no room for negotiation or speculation. While that can certainly be a strength, it the case of President it's a weakness. You have to be willing to work with congress. If you take legislation to congress and say "it's my way or the highway" it isn't going to get passed. I admire his stance on terrorism. He has made it very, very hard for terrorists to attack this country on its own soil. This might sound naiive, but I seriously doubt Al Qaida will ever be able to mount a large successful attack against again. It just isn't going to happen. With all the wiretaps and monitoring going on- there's probably nothing the CIA/FBI doesn't know about. Much of this can be attributed to Bush's administration.

But, I still fail to see how the attack on Iraq has made this country safer. It's really about spreading democracy to Bush. And that's fine. It's a damn good idea. Spread democracy and prosparity to Muslims and they'll stop hating us (that's the idea anyways). If it can be done Iraq than it can be done in Syria, Iran, etc. It worked in Japan and Germany didn't it?

But let's call a spade a spade. If we're really in Iraq to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, just say so! If we're really there to spread democracy to all these barbarick Muslims- just say so! Quit using the excuse that getting rid of Saddam made this country safer. If anything it's made things worse. Now we have a whole new breed of trained terrorists in Iraq. We also have a whole lot more Muslims who hate us because their parents or siblings were killed in American lead air raids.

Whew this post is long. So lemme wrap it up by saying this: we still don't have Bin Laden's head. Yet the CIA is "pretty sure" they know where he is. If that's true then why the fuck don't we have the entire 101st Airborne looking for him? Why didn't we get him before we started this insipid war? It's a loose thread that needs to be tied up. Capturing Bin Laden (dead or alive) would be a huge mental blow to Al Qaida and its sympathizers.

Like I said: government schools.

Indeed, but good stuf. Keep it up. I rather see lengthy posts that indicate clear thinking than short, empty headed "funny" remarks (about government schools for example) in topics like these.

Just for clarity's sake, "clear thinking" is not a label I use for content that I agree with, although in this particular case it coincides.

What I find most offensive is not that Bush won the election strictly through the electoral college (he can hardly be blamed for that), but that no one took any action(s) to eliminate the electoral college after the messy 2000 election. After the whole thing was over, Hillary Clinton vowed to look into getting rid of it. While she might have "looked into it" she never took any action. No one did.

The Electoral College is an outdated and archaic form of collecting votes for decisive and timely wins. In the past few elections popular vote counts actually came in before all the electoral college votes. It makes absolutely no sense to continue this program. Popular vote majority should rule- in every election. In fact, in all elections except the Presidency, it does rule! So why should The Presidency be any different?

Indeed getting rid of the Electoral College would be very difficult. It's in our constitution and therefore would require an amendment, which is very difficult to pass. Especially in a republican controlled congress and an administration that made it to the white house via the Electoral College.

This is what must be done for an amendment to pass:

1. Both the house and the senate must approve of the amendment by 2/3 majority in each. That in itself is a huge hurdle.

2. 3/4 of all the States must vote and pass the amendment.

(note: the president has absolutely no say or veto powers in an amendment vote)

All voting in the states is done via popular vote. However, states are not required by law to put the amendment on a ballot- ever. There are several amendments still pending and waiting for states to vote on!

One such amendment (introduced in 1926) would allow employers to do whatever the hell they want with persons under 18! (essentially allowing for what's now known as illegal child labor). 28 states ratified the amendment. But because the amendment requires 38 states for complete ratification- it's still pending.

We have a screwed up system. I'm amazed that it's lasted this long...

I for one would like to see someone stand up and fight to get rid of the Electoral College. However the real problem here is both Republicans and Democrats focus only on electoral votes in Presidential Elections. So if a party (no matter which one) stuck out its neck and proposed eliminating the Electoral College- it could (and probably would) backfire on them. No one cares about popular vote- it's all about winning electoral votes. Carl Rove knew that and it paid off, big time.

-mpjesse