Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted May 8, 2007 at 1:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
127 Comments
Tuesday, April 24, 2007In Re: The charge that Sedgwick County Judge Paul Clark sold outTHE BRENTWOOD CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSUMER LAW CENTER
For Immediate Release (to all major KS media)
April 24, 2007
FORMER SUMMER OF MERCY RESCUER APPLAUDS COMMISSION’S EXONERATION OF JUDGE PAUL CLARK ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGE
Bryan J. Brown, who served as a Deputy Attorney General under former Attorney General Phill Kline, applauds the Commission on Judicial Qualification’s dismissal of the ethics complaint recently filed against Judge Paul Clark.
“I had advised those who sought my counsel that Judge Paul Clark would not sell out for campaign contributions, no matter how he personally viewed the abortion issue,” Brown recently recounted. “All pro-lifers,” he added, “should join me in congratulating Judge Paul Clark for being cleared of these charges.”
Brown stood in the dock before Judge Paul Clark in 1991. He was on trial as a result of arrests during Wichita’s Summer of Mercy. Judge Clark exonerated Brown on the charges leveled against him by the City. Judge Clark’s precedent-setting ruling also
want the rest of the story?
bjbrownsblog.blogspot.com
Wow, I’ve seen self promotion on this blog before, but THAT post takes the cake.
Wassa matter bjb? Are things lonely at your blog so you have to come here to pimp for hits?
…and it’s an item from April 24?
Woof.
Here’s a tip bjb, for it to be NEWS? It must be timely.
Jesus wept. What a maroon.
Are you wingnuts just taking turns setting the alarm for 1am so you can be FIRST on the threads?
Go back to bed. You must be dreaming.
Why is it Americans cannot elect a representative instead of a name from corporate america? What is the romance? Why do americans fall over themselves for political media stars and fat cats? Have we not learned that these people NEVER make things better they just continue the corporate welfare and watch american jobs go abroad. It really stinks!
The news media and corporate america do NOT need to decide who OUR candidates should be for local,state or federal level representation.
The media takes in a ton of cash during our election periods and play a huge role in selecting candidates for all sides of the aisle. Then THEY decide who should participate in televised debates as if no one else matters to the voters. Yes they also seem to decide which issues are important to voters and many times miss the mark. The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who also spend the most money and the question is why?
Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths on the 2008 ballot.Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.
Lets’s demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/Demand a change on the 2008 ballot.
Bryan makes a good point – while one may diasagree srenuously on an issue that does not automatically mean that your adversary is corrupt. The legal system can be exasperating; it all too often does not ‘come down on’ one’s political enemies like you might want it to. That is why both the blindfold and the scales.
It’s old news and I think he posted it long ago. So WHY is he pimping himself so hard?
Kindof odd considering how he usually loves the ones he’s against in this one.
And you know, I really thought that was a meadowlark post. Looked and sounded just like one.
Well Ben, it seems that is the pattern at the Bush DOJ. Rip off the blindfold and put your thumb on the scale. In these united states, justice is neither blind or balanced.
Unless you define balance the way “fair and balanced” fux news does.
I hardly think, with a three week old personal press release, that bjb was here to discuss or inform. He was pimping himself and his blog. How many times has he posted here about this same thing?
And I notice he is touting his “legal” experience under phillllllll. Maybe he intends to give lance kinzer a run for his money in the next reich wing AG primary?
Oh great. Just what kansas needs. Another four years of “all abortion all the time” in the kansas AG office.
Didnt they get the message from the voters in the last election?
Just watch this thread also go all abortion all the time. Again.
Someone tell me again how “fighting the terrorists” in Iraq keeps us from fighting them here?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18549005/
“6 held on terror conspiracy charges in N.J.Men from former Yugoslavia allegedly plotted to attack Fort Dix Army base”
Oh come on TDT, surely you know the answer. How conveeenient that this happened at just the time bush is trying to get more funding for his and dick’s excellent adventure in the mideast.
I’ve already heard this morning that these guys were no more capable than the ninja guys in florida.
And whatever happened to them anyway? Funny, ya never hear any more about them.
I’m so sick of hearing about how we are fighting terror in Iraq to keep from fighting terror here, it’s an idiotic argument. And this proves what logical, SANE people already know, they will find a way to attack us on their terms, whether or not we are in Iraq!! That’s what we need to prepare for, so we’re not caught with our pants down again, like 9/11.
I do think in a way that the “war” in Iraq has become a proxy war between the terrorists and the United States. I think that should we leave immediately, those in charge of terrorist organizations will believe that the US is weak, has no stomach for prolonged “pain” andis ripe for the picking.I also believe, according to reports that I am getting back from the majority of those I have known who have been over there, that the picture is much brighter than is being painted in the Major News media.However, I think the time has come for a change in tactics. I propose, for your blasting pleasure, that we move the majority of the troops to the iraqui borders, and refuse entry to any outside influence. I propose that we contininue to train the Iraqui military and police and do so in areas out of harms way. I propose that we onlysend officers and senior NCOS with iraqui patrols, as we train the Iraqui officers in combat. Perhaps some air cover for our own troops.I don;t want to leave them as sitting ducks if the Iraquis abandon the firefight. I propose that we warn iraqs neighbors of serious consequences if they attempt to smuggle arms/personnel into Iraq. I am sure I have left out many points, but it is a starting point.I wil ask one question though, of those who want an immediate pullout. How many 100s, or thousands, or ten thousands, or hundred thousands of Iraqui civilians should be allowed to die in the sectarian violence that is (at least in my mind) sure to come.Or, since Americans are’nt being killed, do you even care. And if not, isn;t that just more of the “me first” attitude that you ascribe to conservatives?
TDT – you have no idea the number of atacks that have been diverted because of the increase in secuity put in place.
If we show weakness they will only increase and one of them will succeed.
First of all, I do not agree with an immediate withdrawal. I was NEVER for this war, saw it for what it was, and was worried that it would turn into another Vietnam. However, since we removed their leader and destroyed their country, I believe we need to get them at least on their feet before we pull out. Personally, I like the idea of benchmarks, I just don’t like the idea of having Bush/Cheney reporting those benchmarks. They are liars and will say whatever they need to to fund their war. Second, I think that it actually weakens us to have the majority of our military resources in Iraq, and am worried that the terrorists see how weak we are NOW, and will take advantage.Sotheysaid – I do not have the security clearance to know such things, and I realize that. Do you? And I also don’t know how many attacks were diverted before 9/11.
A bit off topic…
I do not understand how anyone can slip through the cracks for care after they return from Iraq.
After leaving Iraq:
I have now been tested for HIV 3 times.
I have had 2 post deployment interviews about my health.
I have had a physical, blood work, and I awaiting dental.
I was just told I now have to do an online post deployment health survey today.
It doesn’t stop.
I would have to purposefully refuse medical treatment or lie about my conditions several times before I would ever slip through any cracks.
This is rediculous. HIV three times?
Sigh…
TDT,We don’t need much ground forces here to dissuade the terrorists. They are not going to stage and amphibious invasion and bring in tanks and artillery.
We are burning out the troops though. Quickly.
According to Wikipedia
The United States Army is one of the armed forces of the United States and has primary responsibility for land-based military operations. As of 2005, it consisted of 488,579 soldiers on active duty, 333,177 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 204,134 in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).[1
The United States Marine Corps, with 180,000 active duty and 40,000 reserve Marines as of 2005,The United States AirForcehad 334,200 personnel on active duty, 120,369 in the Selected and Individual Ready Reserves, and 107,000 in the Air National Guard
The U.S. Navy currently has nearly 342,000 personnel on active duty and 129,634 in the Navy Reserve; it has 276 ship
Seems that the majority of US forces are not in Iraq. i realize that we have other requirements, not all are combat troops, etc. I also know several generals have said that our forces are stretched too thin. i just wanted to point out that statistically, the majority of our forces are not in Iraq.As I posted previously, NG needs to not be counted as they currently are. The active duty force needs to be enlarged to carry out it’s missions
The active duty force needs to be enlarged to carry out it’s missionsPosted by: littlejohn | May 08, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Littlejohn,
I agree with that, to a point. I also believe that the active duty force needs to have its missions more clearly defined. What ever happened to Bush’s pledge “never to get involved in nation building”?
“This is rediculous [sic]. HIV three times?”
This would only make sense if you were a needle sharing IV drug addict AND a gay not using protection.
Does their testing say that have suspicions about you, Nathan?
So, Nathan, you are disputing the many reports of Iraq war returnees being denied health care? What do you think is happening – some big left-wing conspiracy is getting these soldiers to lie about their experiences?
Just because you have had follow up about your health, does not make it so in other parts of the country. Are you saying some of these soldiers are not being honorable and are lying?
“Does their testing say that have suspicions about you, Nathan?”
It is very well known that I am no fan of Nathan’s, but that comment was completely uncalled for.
You owe him an apology.
Tom- you are right. We need a good dialogue and defintition of what th mission of our troops are and how/when they should be deployed. As far as nation-building goes,I think we may be stuck for awhile, but I also am proposing something different, just providingborder security and training as the Iraqis build (or rebuild) their own nation
Multiple ELISA HIV testing usually means someone screwed up the Lab tests or false positives were read because of a lot of reasons…or there is something that is disguising itself or there actually is a positive.
Yeah, WSClark, heavens knows you’re an authority on not giving apologies.
“I’m so sick of hearing about how we are fighting terror in Iraq to keep from fighting terror here, it’s an idiotic argument.”Posted by: TDT | May 08, 2007 at 09:54 AM
Yeah TDT, let’s hurry up and elect a Democratic President. Once again, they will cut the budget of the military and the CIA just like the Clinton administration did. Then whine like the cry babies they are when something happens.
“Just watch this thread also go all abortion all the time. Again.”Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 08, 2007 at 09:16 AM
Why are you worried about it ksfarmgrrl? Everyone knows that the chance of you ever having to get an abortion is the same chance you will marry Dick Cheney and raise a large family of conservative Republicans.
Repub,
You swallowed the biggest lie ever told about the military by Bush. The same underfunded armed forces didn’t “win” the early war in Afghanistan.
The military on attack months into Bush’s first time. You think military equipment just appears the minute Bush took office.
Same military that spent 8 years under Clinton, did pretty well.
It’s been since the Iraq war, that Bush owns military responsibility.
The small forces and “light” armor, EASY said Cheney, CELEBRATED AS HEROES, that’s where the responsibility is. Rumsfeld sent military into Iraq without enough armor on vehicles. It required much armor and larger forces than Bush, Rummy and Cheney realized.
They fired a General early on who said the military wouldn’t have enough troops in Iraq and that could be a problem.
The military has been mismanaged in the Iraq war, overly affected the National Guard, its soldiers and equipment. Tours of duty too often. Long term health care of injured soldiers problematic.
Bush has to own responsibility his handling the military and its pretty bad.
You have to accept Bush being a failure.
$450,000 canopy at the tennis center is collapsing. The Company, responsible for installation, has elected not to respond to inquiries.
I wonder, about the impact on the inner city kids, that were flocking to this facility.
I wonder, how much the taxpayer is gonna get soaked, for this extravagant and unnecessary waste of money? What Council member, gained the most out of this venture?
That dome, if I recall, was 2nd District Councilwoman Sue Schlapp’s personal pet project. Keep in mind she gives her occupation as “tennis pro” – someone who makes money giving private tennis lessons.
Typical Wichita GOBN run amok.
Mrage,
It’s all in the Congressional Record about Clinton’s budget cut and its huge slice out of the military and CIA funds. You should try and read it sometimes instead of propaganda news articles.
Wasn’t it Rumsfeld that wanted a leaner military? But it is easier to blame Clinton for everything, right?
But I’ve yet to see Halliburton not get their money.
Didn’t this have something to do with downsizing the military. From wiki:
The peace dividend is a political slogan purporting to describe the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. It is used primarily in discussions relating to the guns versus butter theory. The term was frequently used at the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, when many Western nations significantly cut military spending.
No morg, it was about Clinton’s obsession to balance the budget, which applied to the government is a laughable idea as governments always run debts.
It had very little to do with a so-called peace dividend.
Again, read the debates in the Congressional Record and get the true story.
Rep,Give us a link.
It’s in Thomas, surely you know about that. And one cannot directly link to specific articles in Thomas as it is not allowed. (to prevent websites from bogging down Thomas computers with massive amount of hyperlinks.)
Rep,Surely I don’t. I have a mere government education from a socialist invested county in a sem-liberal northern state.
“as governments always run debts.”
China has $1 trillion in cash reserves and owns $1.1 trillion in US debt.
Japan has $0.75 trillion in cash reserves and significant US debt.
The United States is the largest debtor nation in the history of he world.
The United States has $9 trillion in actual debt and $39 trillion in unfunded entitlements – in other words, we have already spent all of the SS surpluses over the years.
For reference, the GDP for 2007 will be about $12.79 trillion.
From the DOD’s own website comes this analysis:
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm
Over Cheney’s four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD’s total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.
“$39 trillion in unfunded entitlements”
We can thank the residents of LibWorld for that.Motto — Vote for us, then just put your hand out.
“We can thank the residents of LibWorld”
And how is that, Fleet? Seems to me that we have had some pretty free spending Republican presidents over the past 37 years.
Got a guess?
And if you didn’t catch it the first time, the unfunded entitlements are social security and medicare/medicaid, Fleet.
Not welfare…..
“social security and medicare/medicaid,”
Worthless Lib programs.
Same military that spent 8 years under Clinton, did pretty well.
Posted by: Mrage | May 08, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore’s purported “reinvention” of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America’s defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644
It might have been the military Clinton used for eight years but it certainly wasn’t the military Clinton inherited. Any prez that doesn’t retaliate when our military is directly attacked isn’t worth their salt and he sure didn’t. We will become a nation once again dealing from our weakness instead of our strength if the left wingnuts capture the white house.
When Bush and Rumsfeld said they had to fight with the force they had, this is what they meant. A weakened military because of Clinton.
The cuts in military size and spending began under Bush I, after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Where are the attacks on Pappy Bush?
Morg,
It’s the Library of Congress computer called Thomas.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Ksgrm,
Why don’t you do as I did, and post the numbers from the DoD’s official website, instead of using some radical-right spew?
Oh, my . . .
Looks like Laura Bush has been sleeping nights at a Washington, DC hotel in protest of W.’s binge drinking.
Not confirmed by major media yet. But the spokes-hacks have “no comment.”
No comment on whether the First Lady lives in the White House?
Hmmm . . . that can’t be good.
http://www.eonline.com/gossip/awful/index.jsp?uuid=fa4fba31-6554-44b4-a7eb-629adfcf8ae6
“social security and medicare/medicaid,”
“Worthless Lib programs.”
Now the true spending agenda of the GOP is revealed. Bankrupt the country so that social programs can be eliminated.
If that is the case, I would like to get back the $75K that I paid into the fund and the matching funds that my employers paid in.
“Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people.”
I don’t recall being attacked during the Clinton years–no bullet holes in the wall no bomb damage–Did I miss a war?
You surely missed the war in Bosnia. Of course, Clinton did wait until 10s of thousands of people were executed before doing anything.
It’s just human beings after all. Perhaps Clinton should have kept the troops at home, so they could read about the slaughter of human beings in the New York and Los Angeles Times.
Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s mothball some more ships, de-activate some units and generally make it impossible for our military to deploy other than the Officer’s and NCO club.
“If that is the case, I would like to get back the $75K that I paid into the fund and the matching funds that my employers paid in.”
Finally, ws makes some sense.Welcome to SelfReliantWorld.
I’ve heard that Obama has been caught banging his pet dog. No word, yet, from the MSM, but it should be out soon.
“so they could read about the slaughter of human beings in the New York and Los Angeles Times.”
Like Bush is doing with Darfur.
R,We spend more than the next 25 nations combined. What”s the point, if we aren’t safe now what’s gonna save us?
Wasn’t that Bosnia thing part of a Nato committment?
At least when Clinton deployed our troops, it was for PEOPLE, not OIL!!!
You’re right Morg, what’s the point?
Let’s turn our Navy into a Coast Guard size fleet of ships. About 15 ships should do, you know for ceremonial value.
Let’s reduce the size of the Marine Corp and Army into …let’s say the size of a moderately populated police force, like Baltimore.
About 800 men and women should be able to defend the borders and the country right?
Let’s do away with the Air Force and leave it up to commercial pilots who might carry sidearms.
Yeah, I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
world military expenditures:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
I’m fascinated by the fact that the radical-conservative apologists here ignore my DoD numbers regarding Cheney’s decimation of our Armed Forces. He cut Army manpower by ALMOST TWENTY FIVE PERCENT. He cut real spending in DoD by over 20%, largely by getting rid of trained troops.
If you have similarly-sourced numbers showing equivalent cuts by the Clinton administration, post them.
If not, why aren’t you all bashing Cheney?
Such hostility rep you probably should seek medical advice…….
Jordan Robertson, AP Writer
Cisco Systems Technical Marketing Engineer David Lin looks a various models of Cisco’s IP phones at Cisco headquarters in San Jose, Calif., in this Jan. 5, 2007 file photo. Cisco Systems is expected to announce quarterly earnings, Tuesday, May 8, 2007. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, file)
SAN FRANCISCO — Cisco Systems Inc.’s third quarter profit surged 34 percent as widespread networking upgrades continued to fuel the company’s robust growth.
Yahoo! Yip Yip Yip! :D :D :D :D :D
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/europeans-offer-deal-to-replace-wolfowitz/2007/05/08/1178390306827.htmlEuropeans offer deal to replace Wolfowitz
Goes to show that the antics of Bushco don’t fly out in “the real world”. I wonder if Bush will be smart enough to take the deal.
Repubican,
Yeah, and you Right Wingers were so hot to intervene in Bosnia at the time that House Republicans, led by B-1 Bob Dornan, threatened to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/dec95/nbos110.htm
Making stuff up after the fact to make a point makes you a liar, Republican. How’s it feel to have everyone see you lie?
If not, why aren’t you all bashing Cheney?
Posted by: Tom | May 08, 2007 at 03:37 PM
I’ve been waiting for the same thing. Where are their statistics. I went to Repubs site where he said he found the “evidence” of Clinton’s spending cuts, and couldn’t find it, actually didn’t know how to find it. I appreciated you posting your statistics, since I often get confused when I go to sites that don’t have the information right in front of me.
Rep – Clinton was blocked from helping the Bosnian people by Republicans like Nancy Kassebaum until after the Srebenica massacres. Even then, he was only allowed to do it AFTER the Croations switched sides and it looked like the Serbs would get routed.
ImmigrationIllegal aliens threaten our economy and undermine our culture. While our brave soldiers risk their lives to protect us overseas, our political elites lack the courage to defend us at home. I am 100% opposed to amnesty. As President, I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come, and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay.(Tom TanCredo Candidate for President.)
Now I’m a Democrat, but this could sway me in a diffrent direction! but there are other issues I don’t like so I don’t know. Hope that not Flip-Floppingwww.TEAMTANCREDO.org—–
Deja Vu anyone? I think we’ve had this conversation about Clinton and Bosnia before, and it was shown, as Ben pointed out, that Clinton tried to go over there, but was stopped by Congress. I guess he should have dug up some credible lies about WMDs or links to terrorists.
I must have missed Cheney’s administration. There were two sides to the Bosnia deployment. What was our national interest in going in? Do you think we should go into Darfur? What did we do when the Cole was hit? How did we answer the attack on our barraks?
In 1992 my son left the military after 10 years. He was a technician on a nuclear sub. After Clinton mothballed 2/3 of the entire fleet he couldn’t stay around any longer. He also couldn’t take the pay scales under Clinton and had no desire to raise his family on food stamps.
Tom I am working and blogging so can’t follow up on some links but show me where my numbers are wrong.
Bush41 did reduce the number of military but nothing like Clinton and he didn’t cut back on the equipment and hardware available like Clinton.
I went to your site, tater, and was also impressed. I liked his flat tax support, because I would love to be rid of income tax and the IRS. But he is worrisome on the abortion issue. He is obviously against abortion, but he did point out that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal, it would only give the states the right to decide. Since I think the next president will only be a one term president anyway, I’d be willing to vote for a Repub if his ideas on issues are sound.
Ksgrm,
I already posted the link. It’s to the DoD’s official site, where they give the official numbers re: the DoD budget while Cheney was GHW Bush’s Secretary of Defense. Do you have trouble with my use of a *PRIMARY SOURCE?* I’ll post the link again:http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htmThat’s the DoD OFFICIAL WEBSITE. It’s the page with the numbers I quoted.
Where are you sourcing your numbers? What DoD report? What OMB report? What CBO report? Or are you just pulling numbers out of the air?
Germ:”Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people.”[her germness also said]:”Any prez that doesn’t retaliate when our military is directly attacked isn’t worth their salt and he sure didn’t.”
Morg:”I don’t recall being attacked during the Clinton years–no bullet holes in the wall no bomb damage–Did I miss a war?”
I believe in her standard disingenous fashion, Germ is referring to the Al Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole. If she is, she is forgetting that it was not known for sure that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack until the Bush II administration was in charge. Bush did not retaliate because he was (in the words of Condi Rice) “planning a more robust policy on Al Qaeda.” Of course, during that diligent planning (Cheney was in charge of a committe responsible for terrorism planning that did not meet once according to Richard Clark), 9/11 happened.
“On January 19, 2001, The Navy completed and released its Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation of the incident…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
If I was a wing nut trying to defend this administration, I am sure I would yell “Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton” at the top of my lungs all the time.
“In 1992 my son left the military after 10 years”
William J Clinton took office as President of the United States in January 1993.
He was elected president in November 1992.
How as it your son was affected by Bill Clinton in his role as CIC?
WSC – that is similar to certain people who have blamed Ruby Ridge on Clinton. After all, that ALSO occurred in 1992 …
Warren Christopher went to Europe with an American policy and he came back with a European one.
A 1997 document of the US Congress reveals how the Clinton administration –under advice from the National Security Council headed by Anthony Lake– had “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base” leading to the recruitment through the so-called “Militant Islamic Network,” of thousands of Mujahedin from the Muslim world. Clinton contacted the IRANIANS to ship arms to the Muslims.
That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), “played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.”
Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin (”holy warriors”) from across the Muslim world.
The House Subcommittee report also concluded (page 2): “The Administration’s Iranian green light policy gave Iran an unprecedented foothold in Europe and has recklessly endangered American lives and US strategic interests.
For the “Green Light” Policy – Ambassador Galbraith was the key person both in conceiving the policy and in serving as the link between the Clinton Administration and the Croatian government; he also met with Imam Sevko Omerbasic, the top Muslim cleric in Croatia, “who the CIA says was an intermediary for Iran.”
TDT
I also agree with the flat tax. http://www.TEAMTANCREDO.org
Fact – “The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380″
Fiction – “After Clinton mothballed 2/3 of the entire fleet he couldn’t stay around any longer”
Of course, Clinton cut the number of ships in the US Navy while he was Governor of Arkansas.
Of course, the reduction was only 30% – hardly close to two thirds.
Republican–
I love ancient history too. So many viewpoints, so little relevence.
WSCLARK!
Good one, dude! You earned you pay for the month.
Now the question arises, does Kgrm have a son etc. or is this just a cut and paste of those right-wing e-mails that never end no matter how many debunkings they get?
KGRAM?!
Jou got some esplainin’ to do . . .
The biggest reason the Mujahadeen was able to get a foothold in Bosnia was the Christian genocide against Bosnian Muslims. Had we acted sooner to stop that genocide these secular Europeans would never have needed to seek help from Iran.
We abandoned them to genocide at the hands of Christian Serbia.
So Ben, you do acknowledge then that Clinton helped to spread Radical Islam by inviting Iranian Jihadists and equipment into the former Yugoslavia.
“A 1997 document of the US Congress …”Posted by: Republican | May 08, 2007 at 04:33 PM
What document? Post the link. If you say it’s only in THOMAS.LOC.GOV, give the search keywords.
For the record: Senators and congressscritters can insert just about anything into the Congressional Record. I want to see the facts here.
Darfur – no we should not “go in.” We SHOULD, however, provide logistics and air support to AU and other “boots on the ground.” Our strictly-enforced no-fly zone protected the Kurds; it can help protect Darfur.
In fact, our involvement in Bosnia has been pretty much symbolic; the heavy lifting there was done by EU and NATO troops
And why did Republican “forget” to provide the link to his source?
Probably because it is not only a little bit critical of Clinton, but it is absolutely scathing in its denunciation of George W. Bush:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
“Now the Taliban will pay a price” vowed President George W. Bush, as American and British fighter planes unleashed missile attacks against major cities in Afghanistan. The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly “against international terrorism” has been launched, yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the “Islamic Militant Network” as part of Washington’s foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.
The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.
You have the link Tom, are you incapable of searching it?
I can provide tutorial lessons for you if you wish. I charge $50.00/hour for a six hour course.
And I’m STILL WAITING for the radical-conservative apologists to show where Clinton chopped away at the military to the extent your beloved Dick Cheney did. Manpower reductions of 25%, funding reductions of over 20%…I’ve given my primary source. What’s yours?
You have the link Tom, are you incapable of searching it?Posted by: Republican | May 08, 2007 at 04:45 PM
Just tell me the keywords you’re using to find this “Congressional document” with.
Otherwise, you’re a liar.
I agree Ben about Darfur.
Perhaps we could ask President Clinton to act as an negotiator to invite the Iranians to help suppress the violence. :)
Tom–
Asking Republican for proof is like asking a snake to show its testicles.
Ain’t got any . . .
Capn,
Every time I post something factual on these threads, I take great care in making sure I’ve looked at primary sources, and that I link back to them in my posts. I avoid the “opinion” sites of _both_ sides of a debate – the information found there is rarely accurate or useful.
Is it too much that I ask others to do the same?
Republican – the idea is to beat them to it. In the case of Bosnia the Iranians were Bosnia’s last resort when the entire Christian world sided with Serbia in the genocide.
In Darfur there is a peculiar dynamic – Muslim Arab Sudan against Muslim non-Arab Darfur. (similar to Iraq-Kurdistan) We have an opportunity to help create a wedge between Darfurains and the Arab world by helping Africans protect them from the Janjaweed.
I remember talking to some ‘fly boys’ long ago who lamented that they were not allowed to protect the Kurds at the beginning. They told me the risks would be virtually non-existent. The same situation exists today in Darfur.
I dunno Tom, perhaps you should look at the reports of the Intelligence Committee of the Senate. There are two Senators asking for an investigation of the shipment of arms and personnel to Bosnia.
Senator Dole and Senator Kerry.
Here is a statement from Senator Kerry:
“Mr. President, my interest in getting to the bottom of this case is not based solely on the majority leader’s request. In my view, if the press reports are correct, the United States chose a course of action in Croatia and Bosnia with very serious down-side risks. The Bosnian situation was and is exceptionally complex and presented few good options to policymakers. But our alignment with Iran, even if it was a passive and accidental alignment, was very dangerous. Every President since Jimmy Carter has declared a state of emergency with respect to Iran, and United States laws and Executive orders have embargoed imports from Iran, limited United States exports to Iran, banned United States trade and investment in Iran including the trading of Iranian oil overseas by United States companies or their foreign affiliates, and placed sanctions on persons or countries who supply Iran with any goods or technologies that could contribute to Iran getting destabilizing conventional weapons or any weapons of mass destruction technology. These laws and Executive orders are there for a reason: to contain and isolate a country which conducts and supports terrorism and attempts to proliferate nuclear and chemical weapons. A policy which depends on such an amoral country to arm the otherwise defenseless Bosnian Moslems(sic) is dangerous–not merely politically dangerous, but potentially threatening to our allies and eventually to our own forces, when they deployed a year later. To turn a blind eye to Iranian shipments is to turn a blind eye to the possibility of United States casualties at the hands of the very people we have allowed to be armed, especially with a United States deployment imminent.”
Perhaps Ben, but the War in Darfur is even more entangled than the one in Iraq. There are so many multi-sided members of the fighting organizations there, no one seems to know who is on whose side for more than 1 week at a time.
Republican,
Kerry’s statement is just so much blather. Nowhere do I see the document you selectively quoted in your 4:33 post.
You asked for key words Tom. I am guessing you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Of course, my tutorial offer is still up if you want to learn how to search the Thomas register.
Tom writes, “Every time I post something factual on these threads, I take great care in making sure I’ve looked at primary sources, and that I link back to them in my posts. I avoid the “opinion” sites of _both_ sides of a debate – the information found there is rarely accurate or useful.
“Is it too much that I ask others to do the same?”
Well said!
You are exactly right. We need more facts and less opinion on this blog, absolutely.
But you sure aren’t going to get it from wing-nuts like Republican, Fleetwood, Ksgrm.
They’ve got their opinions and they’re sticking to ‘em. Facts be damned.
They never use links because that’s too much like research.
You don’t need research when you already know the answer and you never change your mind.
They are BOTH entangled. If we continue to abandon a people to such genocide as we did with Bosnia they will seek help whereever they can. Kassebaum and others were happy to let the Christian Serbs exterminate the Bosnians; that is why they were forced to seek help from Iran. Had we stepped in earlier we could have prevented that. Secular European Bosnians had rather little in common with religious fanatics like the Mujahadeen; however we gave them no choice.
Note “to arm the otherwise defenseless Bosnian Moslems” – THEY WERE DEFENSELESS! And we along with the rest of Europe condoned Serbian actions. Had we changed that situation then they would not have been forced to resort to Iran.
Darfur is also complex. That is why it requires careful thought and action.
Republican,
I link back to primary sources on any statistical claims I make, and on any claim I make regarding matters of public record.
It’s a shame you don’t extend the same courtesy to others.
As I mentioned previously Tom, one cannot directly link to Thomas reference sources. They do not allow it.
Tom–
This is where Republican got his cut-and-paste:
“A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997″
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
He can’t link to the primary source because there isn’t one.
Republican,
I just spent some quality time with THOMAS.LOC.GOV.
Guess what?
I have been able to copy and paste links from one browser (Firefox) to another (IE) and back, with no problem. It works in every section I tested: Congressional Record, Treaties, Committee Reports, Current Bills.
Either YOU are the one who needs some tutoring on how to use THOMAS, or you’re not being truthful.
Pick one.
Thanks.
Thanks capn. One problem with the Congressional Record etc is that ANYTHING can be put there. It is easy to insert fiction (as Inhofe has done for example); that can then be “quoted” as though it were real.
Jeez, Tom, you’re realy putting him on the spot.
Stupid or liar?
Take your pick………
Yeah, Republican, let’s see if you can actually find this document that you say is so easy to find.
Because otherwise we’d have to conclude that you’re just full of sh*t as usual.
Prove us wrong, big boy.
C’mon. Let’s see what you got.
Capn,
Thanks for the link. Looks like spew, and all their “references” are to media reports and press releases. No primary sourcing at all.
Ben,
That “anything goes” in the Congressional Record is precisely why I keep pestering Republican for his search keywords/link/other form of proof. I want to see for myself if it’s blather, or if he’s got some real facts to back himself up with.
I’m not holding my breath.
Yup, that’s what counts as “evidence” in CON world.
I gotta hand it to Republican, though.
When it comes to creative lying, the man is a real master. In a few minutes he’s going to come on and say something like, “I found the document but you have to have my security clearance to read it. So, I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.”
It just never stops with this guy.
All he’d have to say is, “okay, there isn’t a primary source that can be internet accessed,” and then we’d know that even though he was lying before, he was now acknowledging that he was lying.
He will not do that, however. He’ll wait a week until someone razzes him about it, and then he’ll say all indignant like, “I already admitted I may have made a mistake,” except he won’t have admitted anything of the kind.
Just unbelievable.
If the words are not Senator Kerry’s , then perhaps he lied on the floor of the Senate. Perhaps there should an investigation.
I mean, you know how much Senator Leahy and Schumer hate to be lied to.
But since you don’t believe the Congressional record, then so be it.
When instructed how to search the Congressional Record in Thomas – The libs refuse to do so.
When given the Congressional Record – They Libs deny that it ever existed and the Congressional Record cannot be trusted.
I will surely remember that, if they ever refer to the Congressional Record again. :)
Links external from other IPs to Thomas are counted, so they have a limited number of times it can be accessed. The search parameters for specific text must use an “encapsulated” html url format or it won’t work.
Thanks, Republican.
There you have it, folks. Full of sh*t as always.
But he thought he could snow us with a bunch of html talk.
Pathetic.
And remember Republican’s claim that one “could not link directly” to thomas.gov?
I searched for Pat Roberts in the Congressional Record.
Here’s what came up.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:1:./temp/~r110QxUWSA::
Now, click that and see if you link right to that page or not.
Why, by golly, it takes you RIGHT BACK TO THE VERY SAME PAGE!
Holy mackeral, what a marvel of technology these internets are . . .
But, Republican, I’ll give you a tutorial for 50 dollars an hour to show you how to link to stuff on http://www.thomas.gov.
Whaddya’ say?
I said “specific text.” So one doesn’t have to wade through tons of stuff to find what they are looking for.
Again, Capn and his buttocks buddy Tom will no longer to reference the Congressional Record as they say it can be changed is a lie.
So the hyperlink you posted Capn is a lie and cannot be believed.
REpublican-
You know, sometimes I agree with your more lucid points, but then your mouth gets in the way. My Dad had a good saying. Put your brain in gear befor your mouth. Take a hint
Jeez, Republican, the link worked just fine for me.
Where is the lie?
littlejohn,
Take your own advice – you’ve exploded into a rage of incoherency on several occasions.
You guys are going to make Republican go to Mississippi again if you don’t stop it!!!
Republican,
It’s because of the open-ended nature of the Congressional Record that I have been insisting on the source of your selective quotes.
THOMAS is a huge database that can take hours to search. There’s no single-point-of-entry to all the data there; you have to use checkboxes, drop lists, links to the specific Congress to search, etc.
Your refusal to provide the keywords you used are meant only to obfuscate your source. Why? What do you gain by making assertions of “fact,” then refusing to provide the background data necessary to test the validity of that “fact?”
I never said I don’t believe the Congressional Record. I said Senators and Congresscritters can insert things in the CR pretty much at whim. It falls under the “revise and extend” part of floor debate. Both sides cover gaffes, insert irrelevant information, and otherwise dump crap in the record that was never uttered in public. You know that’s true.
Quit making up crap I didn’t type.
Thanks.
Links external from other IPs to Thomas are counted, so they have a limited number of times it can be accessed. The search parameters for specific text must use an “encapsulated” html url format or it won’t work.Posted by: Republican | May 08, 2007 at 05:46 PM
Where to begin…
First, the links to THOMAS search queries expire after (apparently) 30 minutes. Interesting – I’d never run across that before; I don’t usually need to spend that much time there looking something up. Grab a bill number, move on…
Second, there’s no way for LOC to “count” the external links from foreign sites into the THOMAS database. The *only* way to do that programatically is to run a bot over every web page in the known universe, scanning for [A HREF] tags. Google and other search engines track links between pages (it’s in the core design of a search engine), but even the most comprehensive doesn’t have them all.
Third, THOMAS doesn’t count the number of times a search-generated url is activated; it expires it inside the (apparent) 30 minute limit.
Fourth, “encapsulated HTML” is what foreign (non-HTTP) applications and servers use to provide information to HTML-enabled clients. Put simply, encapsulated HTML is standard hypertext markup that is contained within a separate program, and used to communicate with an end-user. You’ll find it in cgi applets and servlets, XML documents, AOL child windows, etc. There is no such thing as an “encapsulated” html url format”.
Fifth, Republican said sometime earlier today that THOMAS restricts outside links, quote:”(to prevent websites from bogging down Thomas computers with massive amount of hyperlinks.)”Posted by: Republican | May 08, 2007 at 02:05 PMThis is laughable. External links from foreign websites have ZERO impact on processor loads of the hosting site. The only time the URL gets processed is if someone *clicks* it.
It’s pretty clear that Republican reached into his Scrabble grab bag of words he doesn’t understand, and tossed them out there on the assumption no one else would, either.
Ooops.
Referral url are counted against bandwidth, everyone who has had a Webpage knows this.
Here is an example of encapsulated search where the POST method is used and a URL is provided:
Trust me, each visit is counted and logged.
input type=”hidden” name=”Section” value=”All”input type=”hidden” name=”crnSection” value=”None”input type=”hidden” name=”MaxDocs” value=”10″input type=”submit” value=”Committee Reports on Partial Birth Abortions – 104th”form
“Referral url are counted against bandwidth, everyone who has had a Webpage knows this.”
Um. No they aren’t. If someone posts a link on a foreign web page, there’s no bandwidth cost to the target site *unless the link is clicked by an end user or a bot*
“Trust me, each visit is counted and logged.”
You claimed that links shut off after THOMAS counted (x) number of activations. That’s not the same as logging web traffic.
input type=”hidden” name=”Section” value=”All”Posted by: Republican | May 08, 2007 at 08:24 PM
That’s not “encapsulated html url format.” That’s standard HTML form code; it’s been around since HTML 2.0. Take a look at the official specification of form code, and tell me where you find the term “encapsulated:”http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_8.html
Then you better write Thomas LOC, Tom; it’s from their Website under encapsulated html.
Republican,
You have zero idea what you’re talking about. You’re pulling technical terms out of air, and you don’t even understand their definitions. You don’t know how the internet works, you don’t know how webservers work, and you don’t know the difference between “encoding” and “encapsulation.”
Give this argument up. I typically don’t brag about my professional knowledge, but this is my area of professional expertise. I’ve been writing software since 1977, and software for the internet since 1995. One of the largest projects I designed and authored was one of the first vertical market search engines publicly available.
Find a new topic.
CapnAmerica holds up his hand and high fives TOM!
Another decisive smack down.
Now, any normal person would just take his licks and say, “damn, I was blowing sh*t there, guys. I don’t have a primary link other than the original spew site.”
But not Republican. Not this piece of work.
He’ll latch on to every quibble and ambiguity with the tenacity of a pitbull with lockjaw.
It’s like seeing a car accident. You know you shouldn’t look, but you can’t not look.
Here’s Sugarland singing “Down in Mississippi and Up to No Good.”
Just for you, Repub.
Don’t say I never did anything for you, man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B8OppCuQiQ
From Thomas LOC:
Encapsulated Searches Using The “Post” Protocol
In addition to the hypertext link using the GET protocol to do an encapsulated searches Web developers may want to use a pre-programmed POST search. This syntax is a little more involved but allows you to build a “button” (using an HTML form), which executes the encapsulated search.
From the METASEARCH Page:
Results from a multi-Resource search could also easily be encapsulated inan SRW search response with the provision of just a couple new elements. For example,instead of the existing single Resource schema shown here:SRW:searchRetrieveResponsexmlns:SRW=”http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/v1.0/“xmlns:DIAG=”http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/v1.0/diagnostic/“SRW:numberOfRecords>2/SRW:numberOfRecordsSRW:resultSetId>8c527d60-c3b4-4cec-a1de-1ff80a5932df/SRW:resultSetIdSRW:resultSetIdleTime>600 RW:resultSetIdleTime
Of course, I wouldn’t expect a “HTML GURU” like yourself to realize to search with SQL that some searches encapsulate desired parameters.:)
Oh Tom, did I mention I have my own servers LINUX BOXES with PHP and SQL? :)
Glen Johnson, AP Writer
The Rev. Al Sharpton speaks in this April 20, 2007 file photo in New York. Sharpton, who recently urged that radio host Don Imus be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, said in a debate that “those of us who believe in God” will defeat Republican Mitt Romney for the White House. But Sharpton denied he was questioning the Mormon’s own belief in God. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, FILE)
“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation,” Sharpton said Monday during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library’s Beaux-Arts headquarters.”
Here you go Capn – delivered from the Crypt of Darkness. muahahahaha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFvM5IOaX44
Republican,
First of all, I never claimed to be an “HTML GURU.” HTML is simple document markup language, not rocket science. It’s used by client applications to render plain text into pretty web pages. Nothing more, nothing less. No one needs to be a “guru” to use it.
My area of expertise is in developing server-based applications that provide interactivity to web sites. Specifically, I write custom database software that: Allows site owners to publish catalogs and process orders (a retail furniture chain); Allows attorneys scattered across a large region to research, retrieve, and customize boilerplate filings and briefs; Allows companies serving vertical markets to deploy custom search engines that fully integrate spidering, indexing, management, and client-side retrieval; Allows commodities traders to integrate real-time CBOT data into third-party analysis applications. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Nearly every single internet application “encapsulates” HTML, but only so that it can communicate with the end-user’s client application (browsers, etc). Except for the output delivered to your browser, what happens behind the scenes has nothing to do with HTML.
You display your ignorance of internet technology with every post you make. What you posted is an example of XML and programmatic access to the SRW (Search/Retrieve web service) protocol. There’s *NO* SQL in what you posted. It’s actually an example of exactly what I was referring to in my 8:08pm post.
Just out of curiosity, do you understand what the GET and POST protocols are? Do you know why a developer would use one instead of another?
You still haven’t defined “encapsulated html url format.”
You still haven’t provided the path to the source document you selectively quoted today.
Oh Tom, did I mention I have my own servers LINUX BOXES with PHP and SQL? :)Posted by: Republican | May 09, 2007 at 12:06 AM
So? I know lots of morons with LINUX boxes. They even come with PHP and MYSQL pre-installed.
I own a nice big Lincoln Towncar. I don’t have a clue how to work on the engine. I step on the gas, it goes. I step on the brake, it eventually stops. Owning one hardly makes me an expert.
“You display your ignorance of internet technology with every post you make. What you posted is an example of XML and programmatic access to the SRW (Search/Retrieve web service) protocol. There’s *NO* SQL in what you posted. It’s actually an example of exactly what I was referring to in my 8:08pm post.”
ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO!
I watched about half of that fat blowhard pontificating in a smug superior voice about something that he knew nothing about.
Sorry, reminded me too much of you. Couldn’t take it.
That wasn’t you, was it?
‘Cause that’s how I picture you: middle-aged, rambling, smug, and clueless . . .