US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

You misquoted me a while ago, greviously.

And apologized for it.

Remember?

Cycloptichorn

I recall that one time! What I don't recall is misquoting you a second time.

Again, getting back on subject!
MEASURABLE PROGRESS

The Bush administration's solution is the seven-step course they specified in 2003. It is the course they have stayed and are staying and have repeatedly declared they will stay. Their solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. They have completed five of the seven steps in their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election.
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military.
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government.
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval.
(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government.
(6) Help train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(7) Remove our military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.

Is their progress toward their solution fast enough? NO!
Have they committed many blunders along the way? YES!
Are they making measurable progress toward their solution? YES!
Is an increase in Iraqi voter turnout of more than two-million measurable progress? YES!

Not bad for government work! Who in government would have done a better job?

Not I, but another.

Also, I would ask you again to refrain from posting the same thing over and over again to spam up the thread; we're well aware of what your position is, you don't have to post it on every single page in the exact same text.

Cycloptichorn

It is not "the exact same text" each time. Although, I admit that when I do repeat a previous post, my changes are usually minor.

That aside, I will continue to repeat my posts when I think that appropriate. I generally will think that appropriate when urging getting back on topic or when responding to a repeated allegation (however reworded) of some other poster.

In otherwords, if you do not want me to repeat, don't you repeat and do stay on topic.

I'm sure Ican would refrain from posting the same facts again and again if people would just stop putting the same misinformation out there again and again. It is only when somebody puts out some pretty grevious misinformation that Ican dutifully pulls out the facts.

I think it is reasonable to counter misinformation with facts.

Good post, BBB. Thanks.

Bush admits he authorised spying

Radio address
President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.
The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said.

He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and insisted he had upheld the law in defending Americans.

In his weekly address, he confirmed a report which appeared in the New York Times on Friday - and attacked it.

Because of the newspaper report, "our enemies have learned information they should not have", he said.

Senators of both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the programme on Friday.

'Big Brother'

Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.

Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".

But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".

The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the United States had communicated with associates outside the country before the attacks - but that the US had not known that until it was too late.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.

He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which has been renewed more than 30 times.

'Illegal leak'

Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public a day before his speech.

"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said.

The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm

Published: 2005/12/17 16:14:52 GMT

If Bush is doing what's legal under US laws, why does he do it in secrecy and without the court's authority?

So those being watched don't know it?

That seems rather obvious to me.

McG, It's obvious to you because you know hardly anyhing about the Constititution and the government's checks and balances to keep us safe from intruding into our private lives.

McG, Also doesn't seem to understand what republicanism stands for; one of the GOPs main issues used to be less government intrusion into our lives. On top of that, the GOP also used to mean less government spendng. We're at a point now where 45 percent of government debt is owned by foriegn countries. Once they stop buying these 'bonds' the interest rates on government debt is going to become much more expensive, and interest rates are going to go through the roof!

This should not be ignored (emphasis added by me).



www.m-w.com

The most important function of government is to protect its citizens from harm. I would class the destruction of the WTC and the loss of 3,000 lives as EXTREME HARM.

There is no "rebellion or invasion." No, the most important function of government is to protect our Constitutional rights. That's what they swear to when taking office.

Senator Kyl went on record to say that he fervently hoped there would be no terrorist attack when the Patriot Act was not extant as a shield against such acts.
It is incredible that the left wing in this country is so anti-Bush that they would put the nation at risk. It is evidenct that if the Patriot Act is allowed to expire because of Democrat intrangisence, the shield will be down and the terrorists may operate with impunity. It is my understanding that if the Patriot Act expires, the Jaime Gorlick barrier which prohibits information sharing between various US agencies like the FBI and the CIA then goes into effect.
I would not wish to be a Democrat Congressman if we are in fact attacked in this country while the Patriot Act is not in force.

What would the History books say?

Democrats betray country--Put populace at risk for political advantage.

If we lose our Constitutional rights to win any war, we have lost the war.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS???????????????

The Constitution of the United States

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

What is it about Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense and General Welfare, you don't understand, CI?

I assure you that the destruction of the World Trade Center and the horrible deaths of 3,000 of our countrymen, did not provide for Domestic Tranquility, did not show that we had a good defense and did not promote the general welfare TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE.