Proud Bush Supporter

[Allan from Fallbrook]

beachlover: I’m not conflating Gitmo/Abu Ghraib with the Lewinsky situation (and, AGAIN, it had nothing to do with Clinton’s keeping his zipper up, it had to do with a sitting President SUBORNING PERJURY.).

I am, however, bringing your attention to Clinton’s policy of extraordinary rendition (he started the policy and used it extensively), whereby individuals that the US suspected (and that word is key) were sent to “black” sites throughout the world, including Egypt, Saudi and Jordan, and questioned without due process, rights or representation.

Clinton’s hands were quite dirty and not only on rendition, but also in his support of covert eavesdropping programs like NSA’s Carnivore and Echelon.

As to Catholic schooling: I was merely bantering on this point and was NOT drawing a comparison or trying to minimize anything. Before you start pontificating about Dubya, get your facts straight. The US has been actively involved in covert ops going back to before WWII. As I said in an earlier post, assemble your facts before trying to blackball Dubya like he represents some aberrant behavior. History tells a vastly different story. Read it.

[urbanrealtor]

I think that the assertion that Clinton was using extraordinary national security measures on the scale of Bush is about as believable as the assertion that we won (or almost won) Vietnam or perhaps that Castro was more cruel and retrograde than Bautista. And no, I don’t suspect I will convince you.

The difference with Bush is that he sought to instantiate this as formal policy. In other words to expand it into the domain of the rule of law.

Again, to rehash the earlier threadjack: WINE STEALS

This conversation would be far better over pizza and Chateauneuf-Du-Pape. Just sayin’

[urbanrealtor]

I think that the assertion that Clinton was using extraordinary national security measures on the scale of Bush is about as believable as the assertion that we won (or almost won) Vietnam or perhaps that Castro was more cruel and retrograde than Bautista. And no, I don’t suspect I will convince you.

The difference with Bush is that he sought to instantiate this as formal policy. In other words to expand it into the domain of the rule of law.

Again, to rehash the earlier threadjack: WINE STEALS

This conversation would be far better over pizza and Chateauneuf-Du-Pape. Just sayin’

[urbanrealtor]

I think that the assertion that Clinton was using extraordinary national security measures on the scale of Bush is about as believable as the assertion that we won (or almost won) Vietnam or perhaps that Castro was more cruel and retrograde than Bautista. And no, I don’t suspect I will convince you.

The difference with Bush is that he sought to instantiate this as formal policy. In other words to expand it into the domain of the rule of law.

Again, to rehash the earlier threadjack: WINE STEALS

This conversation would be far better over pizza and Chateauneuf-Du-Pape. Just sayin’

[urbanrealtor]

I think that the assertion that Clinton was using extraordinary national security measures on the scale of Bush is about as believable as the assertion that we won (or almost won) Vietnam or perhaps that Castro was more cruel and retrograde than Bautista. And no, I don’t suspect I will convince you.

The difference with Bush is that he sought to instantiate this as formal policy. In other words to expand it into the domain of the rule of law.

Again, to rehash the earlier threadjack: WINE STEALS

This conversation would be far better over pizza and Chateauneuf-Du-Pape. Just sayin’

[urbanrealtor]

I think that the assertion that Clinton was using extraordinary national security measures on the scale of Bush is about as believable as the assertion that we won (or almost won) Vietnam or perhaps that Castro was more cruel and retrograde than Bautista. And no, I don’t suspect I will convince you.

The difference with Bush is that he sought to instantiate this as formal policy. In other words to expand it into the domain of the rule of law.

Again, to rehash the earlier threadjack: WINE STEALS

This conversation would be far better over pizza and Chateauneuf-Du-Pape. Just sayin’

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: It’s a distinction without difference in that both Bush and Clinton were following established covert protocols.

To whit: FISA (1978) begat the various programs that moved through NSA Carnivore/Echelon (1994) and culminated in the Patriot Act.

The idea somehow that Dubya “got off the reservation” and went rogue is arrant nonsense. It’s akin to folks claiming that if Gore had been President following 9/11 we would have seen a better script than the one Dubya followed. In terms of the Iraq II war, I would agree, but the idea that Gore would have pushed Saudi Arabia into some sort of regime change or handled Musharraf and Pakistan differently is risible.

Several posters on this board have bought into the patently absurd notion that Clinton was somehow this kinder, gentler President that was bookended by ghoulish Republicans. History tells a different tale and one that goes clear back to US involvement in the Banana Wars of the 1920s.

And, given the present state of relations with Vietnam and their movement (albeit somewhat jerkily) towards a free market economy, it is entirely arguable that we did, in fact, “win” the Vietnam War (if you buy into the “America as Empire/Trade Follows The Flag” trope).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: It’s a distinction without difference in that both Bush and Clinton were following established covert protocols.

To whit: FISA (1978) begat the various programs that moved through NSA Carnivore/Echelon (1994) and culminated in the Patriot Act.

The idea somehow that Dubya “got off the reservation” and went rogue is arrant nonsense. It’s akin to folks claiming that if Gore had been President following 9/11 we would have seen a better script than the one Dubya followed. In terms of the Iraq II war, I would agree, but the idea that Gore would have pushed Saudi Arabia into some sort of regime change or handled Musharraf and Pakistan differently is risible.

Several posters on this board have bought into the patently absurd notion that Clinton was somehow this kinder, gentler President that was bookended by ghoulish Republicans. History tells a different tale and one that goes clear back to US involvement in the Banana Wars of the 1920s.

And, given the present state of relations with Vietnam and their movement (albeit somewhat jerkily) towards a free market economy, it is entirely arguable that we did, in fact, “win” the Vietnam War (if you buy into the “America as Empire/Trade Follows The Flag” trope).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: It’s a distinction without difference in that both Bush and Clinton were following established covert protocols.

To whit: FISA (1978) begat the various programs that moved through NSA Carnivore/Echelon (1994) and culminated in the Patriot Act.

The idea somehow that Dubya “got off the reservation” and went rogue is arrant nonsense. It’s akin to folks claiming that if Gore had been President following 9/11 we would have seen a better script than the one Dubya followed. In terms of the Iraq II war, I would agree, but the idea that Gore would have pushed Saudi Arabia into some sort of regime change or handled Musharraf and Pakistan differently is risible.

Several posters on this board have bought into the patently absurd notion that Clinton was somehow this kinder, gentler President that was bookended by ghoulish Republicans. History tells a different tale and one that goes clear back to US involvement in the Banana Wars of the 1920s.

And, given the present state of relations with Vietnam and their movement (albeit somewhat jerkily) towards a free market economy, it is entirely arguable that we did, in fact, “win” the Vietnam War (if you buy into the “America as Empire/Trade Follows The Flag” trope).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: It’s a distinction without difference in that both Bush and Clinton were following established covert protocols.

To whit: FISA (1978) begat the various programs that moved through NSA Carnivore/Echelon (1994) and culminated in the Patriot Act.

The idea somehow that Dubya “got off the reservation” and went rogue is arrant nonsense. It’s akin to folks claiming that if Gore had been President following 9/11 we would have seen a better script than the one Dubya followed. In terms of the Iraq II war, I would agree, but the idea that Gore would have pushed Saudi Arabia into some sort of regime change or handled Musharraf and Pakistan differently is risible.

Several posters on this board have bought into the patently absurd notion that Clinton was somehow this kinder, gentler President that was bookended by ghoulish Republicans. History tells a different tale and one that goes clear back to US involvement in the Banana Wars of the 1920s.

And, given the present state of relations with Vietnam and their movement (albeit somewhat jerkily) towards a free market economy, it is entirely arguable that we did, in fact, “win” the Vietnam War (if you buy into the “America as Empire/Trade Follows The Flag” trope).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: It’s a distinction without difference in that both Bush and Clinton were following established covert protocols.

To whit: FISA (1978) begat the various programs that moved through NSA Carnivore/Echelon (1994) and culminated in the Patriot Act.

The idea somehow that Dubya “got off the reservation” and went rogue is arrant nonsense. It’s akin to folks claiming that if Gore had been President following 9/11 we would have seen a better script than the one Dubya followed. In terms of the Iraq II war, I would agree, but the idea that Gore would have pushed Saudi Arabia into some sort of regime change or handled Musharraf and Pakistan differently is risible.

Several posters on this board have bought into the patently absurd notion that Clinton was somehow this kinder, gentler President that was bookended by ghoulish Republicans. History tells a different tale and one that goes clear back to US involvement in the Banana Wars of the 1920s.

And, given the present state of relations with Vietnam and their movement (albeit somewhat jerkily) towards a free market economy, it is entirely arguable that we did, in fact, “win” the Vietnam War (if you buy into the “America as Empire/Trade Follows The Flag” trope).

[wannabe2077]

I think Democrats pose a bigger challenge to US society with their stronger support for government employee unions, entitlements, illegal immigrants etc.

Having said that Bush has ruined the Republican brand with his idiotic foreign policy and complete lack of intellectual curiosity which has translated into the Wall Street/housing mess.

[wannabe2077]

I think Democrats pose a bigger challenge to US society with their stronger support for government employee unions, entitlements, illegal immigrants etc.

Having said that Bush has ruined the Republican brand with his idiotic foreign policy and complete lack of intellectual curiosity which has translated into the Wall Street/housing mess.

[wannabe2077]

I think Democrats pose a bigger challenge to US society with their stronger support for government employee unions, entitlements, illegal immigrants etc.

Having said that Bush has ruined the Republican brand with his idiotic foreign policy and complete lack of intellectual curiosity which has translated into the Wall Street/housing mess.

[wannabe2077]

I think Democrats pose a bigger challenge to US society with their stronger support for government employee unions, entitlements, illegal immigrants etc.

Having said that Bush has ruined the Republican brand with his idiotic foreign policy and complete lack of intellectual curiosity which has translated into the Wall Street/housing mess.

[Author]

Posts