Guard Dog

No argument there. I'd have handled the whole war on terror much differently had I been in the White House. But GHB and Clinton bear a big part of the blame for everything that has happened vis-a-vis the war on terror. When Reagan left office the CIA was strong, capable, and well funded. Bush then Clinton utterly destroyed it and left a pathetic joke behind right when we needed it the most. This is exactly the kind of fight an organization like the CIA should be dealing with. Armies battle countries, not invididuals or ideologies. To quote a movie "The military is a broadsword, not a scalpel." The invasion of Afghanistan was necassary beacause there the country was run by terroists. After that an capable intelligence service making use of Special Forces should have taken over. Too bad we did not have one.

I just can not understand why in the world you think we need the federal government to get things done in this country. Right now my company is rolling out a new mobile communications system that will literally change the way people watch TV, access the Internet etc. No other country on earth has anything like it or even close. The Federal Government did not do it, we did. Right this very moment Florida is building a hybrid diesel electric bullet train between Orlando, Tampa, and Melbourne. Eventually it will connect every city in Florida. Uncle Sam did not pay one penny or lay one rail. Floridians did with a hotel bed tax. And a Florida company employing Florida workers is doing the actual construction. Not an out of state or even country company that would do it for the lowest bid as a Federal contract would require. All we need Uncle Sam to do is follow the seven articles and twenty two amendments in the Constitution. And get the heck out of our way and lives otherwise.

He did that on Meet the Press more than once. I saw it myself. He spouted a lot of things he was not in a position to know given who he was and where he had been. Kinda makes you wonder what classified info his wife was passing on to him, who had no need to know. As to the second part of your post, I can see how you would feel that way. I mean with all of the terrorist attacks on US soil since the Iraq invasion what other conclusion could we draw?

Ideally even a divided government will still do what must be done. In other words is something is important (such as defense appropriations, budget approval, etc) is usually sails through with a minimal amount of bickering.

YES! That is when we are all safe from them. When they are so hleplessly deadlocked thay cannot hurt us. Jefferson said it: "The government that governs least, governs best"

Oh for Gods sweet sake. The only thing that Wilson was reporting was the Iraq did not buy uranium from Nigeria. And Libby's "part" in the affair was that he either lied or misremembered some phone conversations in an investigation that was utterly pointless because the DOJ knew all along who dropped the hint of Wilsons connection Plame and the CIA. Maybe Taks in not the one who should be paying closer attention to the news.

Last time we had that we threw them out after two years of attempted socilaisim and government excess. I think the ideal make up is a 20 seat democrat majority in the House, and a 9 seat Republican majority in the Senate. Then it does not matter so much who the President is. Any intelligent American should tremble when one party holds all the cards.

Pagans, no sense of humor.

Well that would improve the rating for the State of the Union address. She would need to lose that ridiculous pseudo British accent she picked up somewhere. If you are not actually British, don't try to do that.

It also had political hacks like John Foster Dulles and Henry Stimson and although they were appointed to high positions, they could not have been elected dog catcher on their own. I would not worry about it. If Thompson is elected he could hardly be worse than some recent presidents I will not name.

I think $6k each. Explain that to me. If, as stated in the article, CBS had the set legally declared as a summer camp through a loophole, then I imagine the most they could do is waive the camp fees. Perhaps there were some under the table payoffs, but a summer camp does not pay kids to attend. From the article: This whole concept seems to tread dangerously close to child labor to me. But then again, I will not watch it so at least I won't be rewarding them for doing so.

Medieval TW 2 again. This time as the Turks.

The more I hear about ME, the more impressed I am. Too bad I'll never get to try it. Unless a PC port is made. Best part of all, it is their own IP. They own it and I gather have full control over it. I wonder who will be cast as Commander Shepphard when the movie starts pre production?

I think $6k each.

Let me make one more point then bow out of this thread all together. I hope I have at least somewhat demonstrated this desire for impeachment is wrong headed, based purely on emotion, and will lead down a road you guys do NOT want to follow. Plus it requires an actual crime, and to date there has not been one. It is easy to dislike or even despise GWB and convince yourselves he is the worst President ever. The truth is, you do not know that. In less than two years he will leave Washington DC and pass into American history. There is no way to know what place he will hold there until more time has passed and the ultimate outcome of events he set into motion are known. Right now the Iraq mess looks like a debacle. 10 years from now we may be saying that is was the right thing to do. When Reagan left office who would have believed the Soviet Union would collapse just a few years later because of him in large part. When Eisenhower left office he was regarded as one of our best Presidents ever. Now we know he was one of the worst and laid the foundations for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War. Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt were hated when they left office. Now the are ranked in the top 5 of our best Presidents. What I'm getting at here is you cannot really judge a political leader without a historical context. And for GWB, and Clinton before him it is still too soon to say if they were any good and where history will remember them. Right now, neither is looking good. One of the best things about American politics is the impermanence of it. Former Secretary of State James Baker once said, "Someone asked me what was the most important thing I had learned since being in Washington. I replied that it was the fact that temporal power is fleeting." Baker went on to observe that once driving through the White House gates he saw a man walking alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and recognized him as having been Secretary of State in a previous administration. "There he was alone - no reporters, no security, no adoring public, no trappings of power. Just one solitary man alone with his thoughts. And that mental picture continually serves to remind me of the impermanence of power and the impermanence of place."

He should have had AT&T!

The one who has the Conch will be in charge!

I think you are better off that way. All mine is good for is the NFL, NHL, the History Channel and DVDs.

Marcy Colquitt, on of the lawyers for the congressional campaign I worked on told me that. I have heard it batted around elsewhere too, not the least of which was from Robert Wexler, US Rep from Florida district 19. He is a very nice guy, buy the way. Nice guy to have a drink with but his lack of knowledge of the Constitution and US History is both amazing, and more than a little disturbing. But he campaigns well, and I guess that is all it takes.

It is a little OT here but one of my favorite American statesmen and patriots was a man I'd bet none of you had ever heard of. Thomas Dewey. He ran against FDR in 1944. His campaign staff and running mate John Bricker begged him to separate himself from FDR by criticizing his management of the war. He flatly refused. He told them "I'd rather lose the election and win the war". Can you imagine John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Obama, McCain, or any modern politician saying that? Me neither.

No. It has been tried and shot down by the court every time. FDR was also admonished by the court for internment of Japanese Americans, and the federal government did pay reparations (granted FDR was dead by then). The Constitution clearly defines the responsibilities of the three branches in peace and war. Summed up, Congress authorizes and pays for war, the President fights it. Congressional oversight of war execution is something relatively new. Lincoln also tried to imprison "enemy combatants" only then they were called sympathizers and saboteurs. That was also slapped down by the Court. Grant tried it against the Klan (that was a Congressionally passed law), that was also slapped down. Clinton signed a law called Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which did (among many other things) limit HC by limiting the number of appeals on a Federal death penalty and limited the role of federal court in state decisions. The first part of that has been struck down, the second part has stood and probably will. The whole checks and balances thing really does work. If one branch of the government gets out of hand one of the others will reign it in.

Excerpt:

To quote Jimmy Buffet:

I can't believe I'm doing this again. I'll give it one more try. Teeth, what to Bill Clinton, GWB, Ulysses Grant. and Abraham Lincoln all have in common? They ALL suspended or weakened Habeas Corpus on the pretext of a "National Emergency". And every time it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It is not illegal to pass a law, no matter how wrong it is. It IS illegal to enforce a law the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional and struck down. To date no President, this one included has done that. Dictatorship??? Are you even familiar with the definition of that word? You are a smart guy Teeth. You know better than that. That is what I was talking about when I said emotion over reason. Yes. If the US pulls out now every death there will have been for nothing and every dollar spent would have been wasted. Iran will take over the country and we will have another war to fight 10 years from now. Exactly what we all said when we were packing up to leave Kuwait in 1991. The Dems know this, they are NOT stupid. If Kerry had been elected in 2004 very little would be different. You would just be complaining about him. I agree with you, it was a foolhardy thing to do (invading Iraq). But whats done cannot be undone, and it MUST be seen through to the finish. Most Americans already believe (as I do) that the Democrats are weak and spineless in foreign policy. If they order a retreat and Iraq falls (it would) history would blame them for the result even though they did not start it. As I said, they are not stupid. They will say all the right things to capitalize on the political momentum generated by the anti war types, but in the end they will do what they must. It is not illegal to lie in a speech, or policy meeting, etc. It IS illegal to lie under oath. See the difference? There IS a difference. Also Being proven wrong about something does not mean they lied about it to begin with. Like I told Sand, suppose you truly believed I was hiding space aliens in my house, because intelligent people you trusted presented evidence to you that I was. And suppose I fueled your suspicions by not letting you look. If you kicked down my door and found no aliens does that mean you were lying or just wrong?

It is more than passing ironic that in the 231 year history of the US we have had a number of highly corrupt Presidents none of whom were ever impeached. And I do not mean GWB. Warren Harding accepted bribes (allegedly) from Sinclair Oil. Grover Clevland abused his wife. James Garfield accepted bribes from Union Pacific. Ulysses Grant looked the other way as tax revenues were diverted to a conglomeration of whiskey distillers that his own attorney general had an ownership interest in (which by itself was a crime). Then he interefered in the investigation that followed. Jimmy Carter's own brother was a paid agent for Lybia, and his OMB manager Bert Lance was stealing money from the White House and Carter attempted to cover both of these things up. Anyone remember Iran-Contra? Bill Clinton accepted a 4 million dollar "donation" from China then refused to investigate suspected chinese espionage at Los Palamos. None of these Presidents were impeached for these flagrant offenses. The only two US Presidents who were impeached (Johnson and Clinton) it was done for such a minor and insignificant violation that their prosecution could only be called political. One last thing to consider. Tit for tat is considered fair play in American politics, like it or not. A Democratic congress went after Nixon and Reagan, a Republican one went after Clinton. If they go after GWB now, what do you think will happen when the tables are reversed and we have a democrat in the White House and a Republican congress? And as we have seen with Johnson and Clinton, you do not need a reason. Sound like something you guys would like?