In the 30's Churchill warned repeatedly about Adolph. He needed to be eliminated!!! He was called a "war monger" and a "nut". And, of course, that lack of action cost 50,000,000 deaths in WWII Liberals have a long trail of failures. Even the USSR gave it up but yet the good ole American Democratic Party still clings to ideas left over from the 60's. Can anyone name one good idea to come out of the Democrats? Harry Reid is a leader?? A joke. The man is an embarrassment to the Senate. The last Democratic Senate leader (Daschle) was voted out. Tom Foley, ex Democratic Speaker of the House was also voted out of office. The Democratic govt of Calif was THROWN out of office, LOL. Howard Dean is a racist anti-semite Nazi They have really turned into just a "mob" of special interest. This is why the Democratic party is so ape over Bush. They know after 9/11 that it is very unlikely the country will ever elect a democrat as President again. And, Clinton, was "lucky". Everybody forgets that Ross Perot got 15% of the vote. Take that out and Bush is re-elected. Also, Clinton never got even 50% of the vote. The clown Kerry showing up in his flight jacket. What a fool!! The President has vast powers as Cmmdr in Chief., especially in relation to foreign activities and enemies of the country. Have you noticed that not many elected Democrats are saying anything? And guys, if you are not a native born American, I don't really care what you think of the US. You need to be very worried about your own safety. Because, after all of this, we are not coming to help you. The US wil be alright. Just my 2 cents worth SteveD
Throughout history there were thousands of similar "warnings". 99.9% of them did not pan out. The one about Hitler did. Try a statistics class at your local community college and you'll understand your logical fallacy. You may want to let Jerry Kilgore of Virginia and Doug Forrester of New Jersey know about that, they'll be ecstatic. And exit polls showed that half of Perrot's support came from democrats and the other half from republicans. Your post is not worth 2 cents.
GUEST COLUMN Presidents all the same when scandal strikes Published on: 12/28/05 Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens. First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications. This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something different than what he actually said. If McLellan's last name had been McCurry, and the topic an illicit relationship with a White House intern rather than illegal spying on American citizens, I could have easily been listening to a White House news conference at the height of the Clinton impeachment scandal. On foreign policy, domestic issues, relationships with Congress, and even their selection of White House Christmas cards and china patterns, presidents are as different as night and day. But when caught with a hand in the cookie jar and their survival called into question, administrations circle the wagons, fall back on time-worn but often effective defense mechanisms, and seamlessly morph into one another. First, we get a president bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali. He knows he can't really tell the truth and he knows he can't rely only on lies. The resulting dilemma leads him to veer from unintelligible muttering to attempts to distract, and then to chest-beating bravado and attacks on his accusers. Soon, he begins taking trips abroad and appearing at the White House podium with foreign leaders with minimal command of English, allowing him to duck for cover whenever scandal questions arise. Of course, the president can't carry the entire stonewalling burden alone. The next actors to enter the stage typically are the president's press secretary and the White House counsel's office. Serious scandals tend to spawn congressional investigations and independent counsels. As Clinton quickly learned, and Richard Nixon before him, the best way to short-circuit such endeavors is to force the investigators and lawyers to fight like dogs for every inch of ground they get. By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a sea of motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag out an investigation to the point of exhaustion. By the time the investigation actually slogs through this legal maze to bring real charges or issue a report, the courts, public and media are so sick and tired of hearing about it that the final charges fall stillborn from the press. A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying the partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the wheels don't start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you go negative and you don't let up. If you're always attacking your accusers, the debate becomes one of Democrat vs. Republican, rather than right vs. wrong. Anyone who questions the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to distract a president at war. Yet another tactic is to shore up your congressional base in order to avoid or at least control pesky oversight investigations. A president's job here is made far easier if his party maintains a majority in one or both houses. Even if your party doesn't enjoy control of either the House or the Senate, you can still achieve your desired goal, as did Clinton â America's master scandal handler. You've just got to work harder at it. The signs are everywhere that the Bush White House is busily implementing all parts of this defense strategy. It would be refreshing if it decided to clear the air and actually be honest about its post-Sept. 11 surveillance. However, that's unlikely. The problem this president faces, as did his predecessors, is that full disclosure would lead to the remedy stage. No president wants to fight that end-game. âFormer U.S. attorney and congressman Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. His Web site: www.bobbarr.org
this thread would be so much more informative and worth following if people would stop calling each other names and stop classifying each other in terms of support for a political party. it would also earn the US citizens as a whole some lost respect. the issue at hand? just imagine that 9/11 was state sponsored terrorism, but from within. then, the rest of the pieces in the puzzle land just nicely. awesome, been wanting that for quite some time. perhaps then, it's time to go long on the USD, because this clearly indicates rock bottom (sorry, was a joke and a cheap shot below belt)
1- Churchil, last I looked was English. 2- The then US pres. did not want to get in the war, you might want to look more into it and find out the dealings behind the curtain. Look up Prescot Bush also. Look at hte pres. relationship to Jewish people also. Enjoy....
Hmmm, there were so many other potential Hitlers, huh, that 99.9% of them caused leaders of another country to publicly make statements warning of their aggressive tendencies? Where do you get that figure from, dddooo? Furthermore, what is your point? Assuming your figures are accurate, so what if Hitler was the only "one" that came to pass? The tens of millions of deaths as a result should be discarded? Vigilance should be lifted because of your assessment that, mathematically, the chances of another entity capable of killing millions of your own countrymen are small? As ZZZzzzz likes to point out: Brilliant! Just brilliant!
Another faceless lying pos from the government - "Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 _ likely beyond the life of any computer in use today. Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on. "After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said. " A recent software upgrade? At a spy agency? And you didn't know? WTF - it came with the software you got at Sam's Club? Full article: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/28/D8EPGENO2.html
You forgot to sign it :- Hapaboy PhD (Hindsight) And exactly who are you comparing to Hitler? And who exactly was warning that Htler was going to cause a war that would claim 50m lives. Certainly NOT the US Prez. Maybe you need to get your history books out and learn some more hindsight numbnuts and stop posting nonsense that is worse than your usual low standards.