Guard Dog

For the sake of my sanity I'm am going to try and ignore your rhetoric and address the few salient points you seem to be trying to make. But first I must attack some of the "facts" you are throwing out that you are presenting out of context, starting with this one. Since you are recycling things you've already posted I guess I can do the same. Yushaa, all of those quotes you are throwing up regarding the use of atomic weapons were made after the war. In some cases 15 years after. On Aug 6 1945 all the US knew was that Japan was prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child. So Truman is looking at the casualty and cost estimates of an invasion on one hand, and the Atomic Bomb on the other. What other choice could he make? It is more than a little silly to castigate him after the fact on things he could not have known. Hindsight is always 20/20. To suggest that employing a weapon of war, in a declared war against a nation state (who I might add STARTED said war) is an act of terrorism is more than a little silly. And Eisenhower made no objections to the weapons use before hand. Indeed, he had very little knowledge of it since he was not in the Pacific Theater. By throwing out comments he made years later and suggesting that means he was against is from the start is false on it's face. I do understand that it is your opinion the use of atomic weapons was not justified and you are entitled to it. But based on your posting history I doubt you would find anything the US has ever done to be acceptable. Is that so? Allow me to resurrect a post from you last thread that you may not have read: Besides, it's not like the followers of the "jihad" hate doctrine only target the US. In Bali it was just non Muslims in a night club. Australians mainly. England has been hit several times now. Spain has been hit three times in the last four years. And the terrorists there cited the reconquista as a reason. That was like 1491 for crying out loud (by the way the US had nothing to do with that one either). Germany and France have had violent riots when Muslims there did not get their way over something stupidly trivial. They hate the Danes over a newspaper cartoon. The Taliban hated the Chinese and there were a number of "border incidents" mainly consisting of Chinese being attacked. The Russians have been hit many times even back during the days of the USSR. India and Pakistan are mortal enemies. In the Philippines (particularly Mindanao) the Muslim guerrillas there kill non Muslims on sight. Sounds to me like Muslim hate is not reserved for America alone. It is directed at anything not Muslim. Wrong: Toronto Terrorism Canada And Terrorism Home Grown Jihadis: Terrorism a Rising Threat to Canada ISLAMIC TERRORISM, SEPTEMBER 11 AND MISS WORLD 2002 MAYHEM IN NIGERIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS That last article is long and tedious, but there is one VERY relevant paragraph I'd like you to read and comment on. I will quote it below:

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again. Can you elaborate on this? My presumptions was that Alberto Gonzales' firing where unprecedented. Also how can Clinton Fire the attorney general lawyers for individual states? I thought the President couldn't do that, the attorney general is the boss not the president. No it has happened before on a much larger scale even. And my saying Clinton fired them is not technically accurate because Janet Reno actually did that. She was the AG at the time. Just as Gonzalez did the firing now, not Bush. But I am quite certain both Presidents either had a hand in the decision or at the very least knew about it ahead of time and did not object. And the attorneys fired were in charge of prosecuting Federal crimes, or representing Federal interests for whatever region they were in. As I poster earlier, this is all fine and good. The position of US Attorney is a political appointment and those that fill it serve at the pleasure of the AG in office. The AGs and District Attorneys for the individual States are elected officials and can only be fired by the voters, or in some States can be dismissed by the Governor. But only for misconduct. The US AG can not do a thing to them.

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again.

What happened in N.O. came to light after Katrina. The Governor mustered all of the N.O. police then noticed about 30-40 had not showed up. So much to do was made in the media about the missing officers. Then suddenly no one was talking about it any more. It turns out that those "officers" were actually fictitious city employees whose salaries were being paid into funds that certain city officials had access to. I know at least one was indicted but I never heard what happened from it. The Mayor who presided over this debacle was just recently re-elected too. Once again proving Homer Simpson is not so dumb.

He represents New Orleans. As corruption goes in Louisiana, that is little league. Look at hat happened to the New Orleans Police. Over 40 police officers drawing paychecks who only existed on paper?

No joke there. This whole thing would be over. Or just said "We did it because we wanted to. It's our perrogative" If the give the appearance of a cover up then people will get curious and start turning over rocks to see whats hiding under them. But then, does the Bush admin making a PR screw up really come as a surprise anyone?

Or they could just outright bribe them. Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) was just arrested for accepting bribes from a company wanting a contract to set up business in Africa. They wanted him to use his influence to arrange eveything. When the FBI arrested him he had $90,000 in cash wrapped up in plasic, hidden in his freezer. He was indicted and is awaiting trial. Ironicly enough he was reelected last year despite all that. I am reminded of a quote by the great American, Homer Simpson "When are people going to lean? Democracy does not work!"

A special prosecutor would be appointed by the Attorney General, approved by the Senate, and he would be independant of(as in not report to) the Excecutive. I think in the end he reports to the House Judiciary Comittee. Not sure on that point. Enoch would be the one to ask. This is right up his alley.

There's nothing wrong with firing people using an executive discretion explicitly stated as a power of the office. However, if it's being used for the reasons reported that it might be used for, I think it important for the public to know it. I agree. The public does deserve to know the reason whatever it is. But they cannot be legally compelled to provide it. And Yes Wals it is perfectly legal and proper. As long as they were not fired for reasons stemming from age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That would be discrimination and obvioulsy was not the case. Janet Reno fired 93 of them because they were Republican apointees. No other reason. Its a rotten thing to do to someone but it is an executive perrogative. As I said, this whole "scandal" in nothing more than politcs. Once again, look at the hipocrisy. Clinton fires 93, not a word said. Bush fires 8 and it's the end of the world. Clinton pardons over 200 mainly on drug charges, not a word said. Bush commutes 1 and it's the end of the world.

But seriously, i would not get too worked up over this one folks. It is simply political theatre. In 7 years the Bush Admin has fired 8 attorneys and pressured 3 others to retire. I am absolutely certain the reasons were political (aren't they always). Over Clintons term Reno fired 93 and no one said a word. The reason is Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. If he/she want to fire them, that is his/her perrogative. The dems are simply putting on a show in the hopes that the mere hint of impropriety will win a few votes in 2008. Link to source: Bush 8, Clinton 93

now thats multi tasking

both, probably. taks I've never met him. But based on the two career politicians I do know, I would bet he really does not understand.

I'm not sure about that one Wals. Yushaa's first contribution to this board was a four page rant on how much he hates the US, and how much better the world would be if all Americans just went out and shot ourselves. (my words not his). He then tried to give a shred of legitimacy to that by backing it up with "facts" that were either false on their face or presented so out of context they are worthless. Everything GDM posted was correct even if it was not nice. Which brings up the massive double standard around here when it comes to nationality bashing that I for one am getting a little sick of. But that is a topic for another thread.

Game, Set, Match. Tale wins!

Who said that? I did. I just wanted to point out that one should be careful with ones rhetoric, especially when talking about 'the bomb'. Oh man did I walk into that one.

Yushaa, all of those quotes you are throwing up regarding the use of atomic weapons were made after the war. In some cases 15 years after. On Aug 6 1945 all the US knew was that Japan was prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child. So Truman is looking at the casualty and cost estimates of an invasion on one hand, and the Atomic Bomb on the other. What other choice could he make? It is more than a little silly to castigate him after the fact on things he could not have known. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Who said that?

Agreed. Those things usually goes both ways, state + corporate = corporatism --> Fascism. Actually most lobbyists operate on behalf of political groups. If a corporation wants to influence a congressman they usually do it by pretty direct means. For example, Guard Dog Construction Inc wants to build 5000 houses on a plot of land it owns near a military base. But that project requires an easement off of the land owned by the base. The Commanding Officer of the base refuses to grant me easement. Well, I would then go to the US Rep for that district and, at my expense, fly him down to actually see the land. I'd take him golfing, drinks at the country club, fancy dinner all the while trying to persuade him to help me with my problem. It is a LOT like buttering up a girl you want to sleep with. Anyway, he goes back to Washington and puts a rider to grant me an easement in a House Bill on Welfare (or something else that has nothing to do with me). The congressman takes credit for bringing more housing to the district in his next campaign, I make a donation to his campaign in case I ever need another favor. Now a lobbyist operates a little differently. Suppose there is a Bill in the House for the government to sell timber rights to a section of Federal land in Montana. A local environmental group wants to stop it. The would then hire Guard Dog Lobbyists Inc to meet the rep for that district and express to him (over a fancy dinner and drinks the Congressman does not pay for) the views of the group. And of course make promises of campaign support, votes, donations, etc. Political advocacy groups like the ACLU, NRA, PETA, PAY, etc field armies of lobbyists, schmoozing, arm twisting, threatening, and cajoling every congressman nearly every day. There you have it folks, that is how the US government really works. Disillusioned yet? By the way, did you guys know the Lobbyist is a British term? It comes from the days when the British MPs would meet with their constituents in the lobby of the Parliament building. I just read that in the Wiki. Pretty interesting.

Bush is already term limited. I (and Steve) was suggesting term limiting congressmen. But there is now way to keep Presidents from recycling the same cast of political hacks over and over. **** Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff under Reagan, the Sec Defense under George H Bush, and VP now. Rumsfeld was Nixons Secretary of Treasury (briefly), Fords Secretary of Defense, and of course George W Bush's Sec Defense. There are about 15-20 other names I can list right off the top of my head. Congressional Staffs tend to be much smaller and of course tend to be people the Congressmen actually know. People from their home district for example. I favor term limits because as these the years pass and these guys accumulate seniority they accumulate tremendous power that can do real harm to the country and the economy. And they do not set out to do harm believe me. There is no one in Congress who wakes up and thinks, "I think I'll wreck the economy today". The screw up because they have spent their entire lives in "public service" and have no idea how the economy actually works. Case in point, Charles Rangell is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He has been in Congress since 1971. Except for the Army he has never had a real job. But he is in charge of the Committee that determines tax policy (among many other things). He is a big advocate of "Surcharge Taxes" because he does not like to tax "little people". For example, he proposed the spectrum use tax (it's actually called something else, I can't remember it's exact name) on US Cellular carriers. He does this because he would rather tax "greedy cell companies" than tax citizens. But what he does not understand is that taxes on corporations means higher bills for the end user. Cell companies simply pass the cost of the tax to their subscribers as a surcharge in their bill. So the very people he does not want to tax end up paying the tax he created. This is what I mean about these people being so insulated from the real world they cannot even appreciate their own ability to screw it up. There are 435 member of the US House. According to their website there are 237 of them that have served there more than 10 years. More than half. Taks was right. The founders never intended Congress to become a career.

I Hiroshima when I was stationed there. Very sobering. I felt kind of funny being there, US military in a place like that but everyone was nice. In Japan they usually were. I also saw "Suicide Cliffs" in Okinawa where scores of civillians threw themselves off rather than face American occupation. There is a monument there as well.

Why not limit them to one term, or lengthen the terms? Wouldn't that at least help with that problem? I would LOVE to see term limits passed. No more than 3 lifetime terms for a representative, 2 for a senator. The Repubs ran on that in 1994. As soon as they were voted in they dropped that like a hot rock. That is one reason why I seldom vote for republicans. The big problem here is the people in government are so far separated from the people they represent they are almost a different species. Take Ted Kennedy for example. This man has had almost 40 years in elected office. He has never held a job in the private sector yet he is in charge of making policy and law for something he has no knowledge of. It is a real problem. Perfect example. After my failed run for office in 1996 I has talking to Peter Deutsch (Dem). He was gearing up for a 1998 Congressional run (he was elected) and he was asking me about the disparity in military votes between Repubs an Dems. In the 1996 cycle, absentee ballots (which were mostly military) went the repubs way by something like 6-1. So he asked me why the military was so heavily republican. I told him in 1992 when the Dems took Congress and the White House the very first thing the did was vote a pay raise for the Congress and the President. Later that same year they voted down a pay raise for the military. He responded by pointing out that the average pay increase for a lower rank serviceman would only have been $50 per pay period. $50 was nothing why would that upset them. He did not get the principle of the whole thing. Here was a man who had never held a real job, never served in the military and simply could not understand why an extra $100 a month would help a military family scraping by on $16000 per year.

I know they seriously considered demonstrating the bomb to a Japanese ambassador on a deserted island. IIRC that idea was rejected because there was a real fear it was not going to work. If they dropped the bomb on a real target and it was dud the primer charge would be enough to destroy the bomb and no one would know what had happened. Incidently, IIRC the original target on Aug 6 was the Mitsubishi (the main aircraft supplier) factories at Yokohama. But clouds over the drop site made them divert to Hiroshima. Fate is a strange and fickle thing.

Every now and then you post something that is right on the money!

Truman sent a radio message to Japan on Aug 3 1945 giving Japan a surrender or else ultimatum. They refused. Hiroshima was hit. On Aug 8 another communication was made to surrender. They refused. Radio Siapan sent warnings into Nagasaki and the US Army Air Corps dropped leaflets that an attack was imminent. They were ignored. On Aug 9 Nagasaki was attacked. On Aug 10 George Marshall made one more call to surrender and announced that the US would begin systematicaly destroying every Japanese city with no further warning. On Aug 14 Hirohito capitulated. They were given every opportunity to avoid the bombing. Tojo knew the US had the bomb from his agents in Russia. But the Japanese mentality (or at least Tojos) was to fight to the last man/woman/child. And Wals is right. They would have. An armed invasion of Japan would have been a nightmare beyond belief. The majority of the European war was fought in territory hostile to the Germans (France, Italy, Eastern Europe). By the time the allies reached German soil the Wehrmacht was destroyed. The Japanese military was still largely intact. Naval losses prevented them from mobilizing but they would have made a bloody hard fight for every inch of their soil and the Japanese casualties after the invasion would have been in the seven digits. To say nothing of allied casualties which the US would have borne the brunt of. So yes, as tragic as the bombings were, the alternative was worse. Sorry to go OT Wals but it was a point I needed to make. Especially in light of recent threads on this forum.