[QUOTE=Lary Ellis (Top)]Bush served in the military and flew one of the most notoriously dangerous aircraft ever fielded by our military. If you haven't served you wouldn't have clue what I am talking about.

To say Bush served like any other Active Duty person is just ridiculous. He served part time of a part time commmittment, that he did not finish. That's not service, that's a vacation.

Larry, you said upsetting liberals is not an issue to stop the potential bomb drop on the U.S. First, its not just liberals having a problem with this. Bush's own administration has had problems with this. The AG, deputy AG both disagreed with Bush's memo supporting this and supporting the torture issue. The Justice Department, Comey, Goldsmith (sic) disagreed with Bush on this. Other republicans, many others, disagree with this. Its not a part line issue. Only to the radicals.

I served in the military, 8 years total. 4 Active and 4 reserve. I dont have your level of service, and I truly respect your service. But I and many others who served and are republicans, disagree with Bush on this matter and disagree that we have enough soldiers in Afghanistan and that they have been given enough tools to suceed. So I can and do understand the appreciation of my brothers and sisters in the military. You should be more careful about who you accuse of being clueless and baseless. Obviously you never know where the other person comes from.

I served in the middle east. I know what its about. I complained when Clinton downsized the military to the point of being stretched to thin. And that was without two simultaneous fronts, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO GET THE JOB DONE IN AFGHANISTAN. I hope I am wrong, but how many years have passed now and its still not done. Your opinion is like saying soldiers in Vietnam had everything they needed to get the job done. They didnt and neither do we.


Larry, John Kerry is not my beloved. You have no clue. It has nothing to do with democrat or republican, you just think it needs to be. You seem to think that if you are against Bush on this issue, you must be a demo. I suppose that's what people thought of Hitler, right. The congress did vote to go to war, which I support totally, but you somehow think I must be against that because I disagree with this issue. You dont get it.

No body forgot who voted to go to war. THAT's not the issue. You are attached to something that has nothing to do with this issue.


You said it yourself, you watched Clinton close bases and downsize the military. That sucked, I was there and as a result was gone constantly from my family. For you to say we were downsized badly and not prepared with enough manpower because of Clinton and then say that we have plenty of forces in Afghanistan is very contradictory and inconsistent at best. For you, all of Bush's problems were inherited. Nothing was or ever will be Bush's mistake or problem.
I watched as Clinton closed bases and downgraded our Military, we were not

"We still have forces there, we never left." Well, by your conclussion, I suppose we dont need that many soldiers, sailors and marines in the military. Ya right. We dont have enough and the pentagon just pubished a report that the military is stretched to the breaking point.


"Again I must point out the painfully obvious, A vote was taken and we went to war. Bush did not do it on his own, but it suits your need to blame it all on him." Bush was given the congressional powers to go to war, Yes that's right. How Bush fights these wars is Bush's duty and responsibility. Congress is not responsible for his actions, so I dont know why you keep bringing this up.

"You need to talk with somebody who has actually been involved with Afghanistan, you would learn quickly that it is not a problem with manpower that has kept us from locating Bin laden." Your wrong, and I have talked with sailors serving there. We cannot cover all the areas to keep him from evading everytime. Read the reports.


"Won't argue with you there Clinton did let the ball drop on Bin Laden as well as Somalia. I lost close friends due to his ineptitude as a Military leader. "

I totally agree that Clinton messed up. Like your claim that Bush W. inherited the mess, in many respect so did Clinton. Bush Sr., failed to confront the issue. Bush Sr., failed to finish the first Iraq. Reagan supported Sadam and contributed somewhat to the creation of those problems. We should have never interferred with some of those issues in the middle east. I dont have any problem with chucking rocks at any of these guys because I think each of them contributed to the international relation problems we have today.

Finally, I dont think I deserve or america deserves what they get because they want a president to be honest sometimes and follow the letter of the law, that's why we voted him into office. Is it so much to ask. Oh ya, i voted for bush, but I am a big enough boy to admit a mistake.

 

I know you would herb, where we part ways is you believe the President has done something illegal, having studied this issue on my own and not just believing the rhetoric tossed around, I find he HAS acted within the laws.

Which is also what he keeps telling every one. Do your self a favor and look in to it yourself, you can easily search on the web for the information. I am not going to tell you where to look as I would then be accused of leading you astray. The info is there and it proves all this is nothing more than smoke.

Don't believe everything you see in the media, we all know they have their own agenda no matter which way they lean. if the President has in fact broken the law, he will be called on the carpet for it.

Congress will convene and hold hearings to get to the bottom of it, IF laws have been broken. I don't see them rushing to do that, and that also points to the fact this is a non issue.

 

I must apologize for possibly being too harsh in my statements. Look, I understand where Lary and everyone else is coming from. I just, personally, take the risk of losing freedoms very very seriously, like everyone does. I worry that if Bush or any other president starts overly asserting their office, that it will snowball out of control and we will lose the meaning of that office. Checks and balances are a must. You might say that Bush has created a sort of revolution fo the executive branch. He has, constantly, pushed the envelope of his powers. He has stated that the war powers given to him allow him to not obey the other laws, such as FISA, etcetera. The executive branch and legislature have bumped heads constantly over the war powers act. Bush has taken a very strong position and I believe has changed the executive branches relative power over of the other two branches of government. Too much power in any branch of government is dangerous, that's where I am coming from.

 

Do I like Big Brother listening to my phone call to Aunt Gertie....reading my email when I used the word "Bombed"? Not really, but would rather them do that then have some real kook, terrorist, etc, blow up my family and friends at the local mall, football game, concert, etc.

Face it.....times are different now. I'll let the Feds do what ever is necessary to stop crime both foreign and domestic.

Get a grip.....if you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it?

 

I also understand what steven is saying, and I don't like the idea of giving away my freedoms. But if I have to sacrifice to keep my grandchildren safe, then for me it is an easy call.

I also understand Steven's passion on the issue, and don't take any personal insult to anything he has said here. We may not agree, but we are both Americans, and that has always been good enough for me

 

Do you folks really think that President Bush has done so many things to push the envelope of executive power?? If you do truly believe that then you need to take a trip back to history class and look at some of the things that both the Roosevelts did in WWI and WWII as well as Wilson and every other president that has been in office during both declared and undeclared wars. Everyone has forgotten the attrocities committed on our own citizens, especially the Japanese, during WWII. The laws involving the loss of civil liberties was immeasurable during previous conflicts, but once again we have forgotten those as well. True they were taken off the books, but not for quite a few years; many in fact stayed on through most of the cold war. In the fast paced world of today it is easy to forget even the most important and life changing of events. I still remember 9-11 and exactly where I was and how I felt, but I know people the same age as me who can't. This is true no matter the age or demographic, people forget. Any way back to my point, This is a neccesary evil, it wasn't repeat wasn't done illegaly, although it is controversial, but I feel fine having it in place for a little while. as I stated before it isn't hurting you and until it does it is a valuable tool for our gov to have. IT SHOULD NOT STAY ON THE BOOKS FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY, but for now I can live with it. Just don't forget its there cause in a few years it needs to be removed. Sorry for the long post but I hope I made a valid point.
Nick

 

OK, here is where I start sounding like I am contradicting myself....

1) Bush SHOULD do what needs done to protect the American people.. no arguement from me there. Larry, thats where you and I agree 100%

2) It SHOULD be done INSIDE the scope of the law....thats where I agree with Steven&Herb.....(Copy that Herb, ya may never see it again )

My assertion is that IF Bush has violated FISA or any other law, then he needs to beheld accountable for it, and just claiming" it is inconveinent" is no excuse or justification....That is why I am looking forward to the "Specter Hearings" to answer this question. Until then I think we have reached an impasse as a nation on this issue.( and probably in this thread as well)

Slim, the past does NOT justify the "now"....yes, civil liberties were trampled on during WWI and WWII....we look back now and say it shouldnt have happened and blame mass hysteria, ect. for it. That in no way is an excuse or reason to allow anything similar to happen again. By similar I mean ANY deprivation of the rights of a citizen of the USA.

And Larry, if that invasion ever happens, I wont be standing shoulder to shoulder with you...... I learned better tactics than that!!, But your dern right we'll be aiming the same direction.......... plus it might be hard to find ya in that ghillie suit......

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whi...ots/index.html

 

I beleive they are the same one's telling us these things that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ect.

 

You surely don't believe there haven't been any attempts sense 911!!!

The fact that there haven't been any SECESSFULL attempts tells me we are doing something right.

God Bless George Bush, and God Bless America.

 

God bless the folks who still have the ability to beleive anything this administration says. I wish i could.

God bless the Clintons, Jimmy Carter and the Raggin Cagin !!

 

they're going to need that after all they've done to screw us over.

 

Yes, yes and amen.

there have been multiple rings and groups brought down before they were even able to make attempts, let alone attempts made that failed. there's more than one reason that's not national news. one is that the details of who it was and who found them isn't vital for the general public to know. two is that the media will never announce anything that bush does right.

AND NO!, I don't believe EVERYTHING the guy has done is correct but he's a whole lot closer than the former admin.

 

I think we're close to arriving here in this conversation -->

 

Agreed.......