... ohh boy, if they got the balls to back up the talk the global economy is in for a kick to the downbelows...
China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Last Updated: 1:48am BST 08/08/2007
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.
Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.
"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added.
He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.
"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.
"China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar," he told China Daily.
The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to prevent America being "held hostage to economic decicions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo".
She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left America acutely vulnerable.
Simon Derrick, a currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the Autumn session.
"The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles," he said.
A bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.
The yuan has appreciated 9pc against the dollar over the last two years under a crawling peg but it has failed to halt the rise of China's trade surplus, which reached $26.9bn in June.
Henry Paulson, the US Tresury Secretary, said any such sanctions would undermine American authority and "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation".
Mr Paulson is a China expert from his days as head of Goldman Sachs. He has opted for a softer form of diplomacy, but appeared to win few concession from Beijing on a unscheduled trip to China last week aimed at calming the waters.
i was hoping China would move to gold as far back as '02, as part of "unpegging" the Yuan and it never happened... but instead? they have made several recent moves into the private sector...
i still expect them to buy gold and silver as part of their next step...
IF they start to dump treasuries? they'll lose a lot of money too...
if our congresses and last two presidents didn't have their heads up their azzes? this situation would never have developed..
remeber Gore getting Chinese contributions?
all they had to do was maintain APPROPRIATE import duties on Chinese goods..
Posted by glassman on :
who's the biggest retailer of Chinese goods in the US (the world?)
WalMart is... where does WalMart call home? Arkansas...
where did Slick Willy come from? uhuh...
you think Hillary will fix this? LOL....
Posted by rimasco on :
she couldnt Fix Bubba hows she gonna fix China
Posted by bdgee on :
Careful now.
The entire history and reputation of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard rest on nothing but writing 100% speculative and slanderous books and articles for far rightwinge publications about Bill Clintin wherein he creates conspiracy theories to feed the appetite of the rightwing radical element.
I don't think China is less than the obvious next competition for the U.S. for economic world dominance. China has no option but to be. And we have no voice in the matter. Eight hundred pound gorillas eat when they are hungry and where they are.
Sadly, so far, particularly where policies of the present administration are concerned, we are playing directly into their hand. China holds the hole card and has us beat already with what they have showing. Our hole cards plus those face up don't cut the mustard in such a gamble. We are only praying that we might hit an inside straight on the last card dealt and that their hole card doesn't match up and fill their possible boat.
DUMB!
Why we should either expect China to resort to unnecessary brute force or to capitulate to our threat. They know they hold the resources and manpower to outlast any effort we present and they aren't foolish.
We are playing a really stupid game and need to have the sense to get out and play a game not stacked in favor of an adversary that has no option but to stick to the course of a 19th century model of progress.
It's time to play smart and get it through our thick skulls that brute force isn't going to bring about world peace or a healthy economy for the U.S..
Posted by rimasco on :
Maybe we should just offer them some camera's and and a few blondes?
Posted by bdgee on :
Oh, you mean those cameras made in Taiwan?
They expect to sort of win those in the eventually economic scuffle anyway.
They have enough money to "attract" all the blondes they can handle. Disposable commodities are not a problem for China.
Posted by rimasco on :
Ouch! maybe we could have Michael Jackson sit down with them.
Check out this video of a phillippine detention center
I think I had a one night stand with that girl?
Posted by glassman on :
slandering Billy boy?
LOL...
all i did was state obviuos fact bdgee...
hillary is Bush light... if the dems prop her up, and make her their choice? they are no better (or different) than the GOP ...
Posted by bdgee on :
Sorry, glass...
I know you are fixated on being a republican and hating Clinton and proud of both, but there just isn't any real fact there, just the hate.
NO ONE is Bush light other than the Attorney General.
Posted by glassman on :
hate? i don't have hate for them..
scorn? yes..
when did NAFTA go thru?
PS, one of the Dems coined the "bush light " phrase...
not the GOP...
remove the wool
Posted by bdgee on :
Remove the wool?
That's what I have been saying you need to do.
I am not a Clinton advocate. Far from it. But constant hatred (that's what it is too even if you call itscorn) and slurs beyond reason and without basis is not being open minded or allowing others to make considerations on a level field.
Bill Clinton has never been convicted of (or even charged or a suspect in) any crime more serious than a traffic ticket and claim that he has and the crap the republicans put him through because of their hatred has made it virtually impossible for the republican party to do anything but continue to force a divided America, not just with the Clintons, but with any non-republicans. The constant hatred and slurs aimed at the Clintons does this Nation no good and immense damage, by forcing discord and guaranteeing partizanship rather than statesmanship.
"PS, one of the Dems coined the "bush light " phrase... not the GOP..."
No, it is the republican party that has fostered the hatred and anger and that demands an absolute adversary position in modern day American political discourse. Picking out one individual example of some person that wasn't a republican that said something equally stupid and hateful does not make it a non-republican creation.
Posted by glassman on :
the Clintons stand for the same economic principles the Bush crew does..
why not answer the NAFTA question bdgee, you know the answer...
they are already on the "teat" as i have shown you with facts in the past...
and the term bush light does come from the dems, look it up yourself. i am not blinded by hate, as you you seem to me to be... i have always posted what i see the way i see it...
Posted by bdgee on :
Well, I never suggested you post other than what you see.
I do suggest you are looking at and seeing the Clintons through republican bigotry and bias, not clearly and not in focus and not fairly.
"bush light"?
I don't recall ever suggesting it was invented by the RNC or any other official or unofficial arm of the republican party.
I have looked it up and where it is used by democrats, other than Obaama, seems always to be some internet humourous or cartoon thing.
I do not find it applied seriously to either of the Clintons other than by you and Obama.
The first person tagged as "Bush Light" seems to have been Tony Blair. It certainly was not meat as a complement. Since them, it has been applied by various political operatives (some professional, some not, often not in the U.S., and always with a negaative intent) in order to denegrate some opposition candidate or some of their positions, usually with no basis, as is the norm in political contest.
G.W. Bush is clearly the worst President of the United States of America ever and, considering the harm and permanent damage he has brought to the world, he is at least in contention for the worst leader of any nation ever in the whole world. (Tony Blair, i.e., Mr. Bush Light, isn't even close on that scale.)
Posted by glassman on :
i agree that Dubya will go down in history as the worst so far....
however?
if we get Hillary next? the only thing that will change is who gets the paychecks...
will things APPEAR to be be different? sure, for a year maybe two...
but,
Hillary is just as deeply into the same pockets as the Bushies have been...
Posted by rimasco on :
Look at it this way bdgee....if Billary won, it would mean 32 years of Bushies/Clinton's. Its already outrageous at 28 years.
hence the phrase.......BUSH LIGHT.
Posted by glassman on :
like royalty...
and it appears right now, according to TV and other "big media" polls that the US is in love with royalty..
i think it's a bunch of BS...
Posted by bdgee on :
You guys don't seem to be hearing what is said.
I have never supported a Clinton. I do NOT support this Clinton, at least not at this point. Howerver, I must evaluate what is possible.
If the republicans cannot come up with some candidate that isn't constantly apologizing for Bush and excusing his attack on our Constitution and, then, Clinton winds up with the democratic nomination, I may be forced to vote accordingly.
At this point, I do not think Clinton will get the nomination. Or Obama. If any one of the currently leading republican candidates or Tompson from Tennessee gets the nomination, we go directly into "stay the course" mode; we do not wait a year to do so. And we will continue to see our Constitution warped to the will of fascism.
I hope both parties, as has generally been the norm through history, will refuse to settle eventually on a candidate among the early front runners. (Refusing to allow the process to do otherwise and look beyond the favorites of the moneyed establishment is what saddled us with dubya and his cast of fascist. [Cast or Caste?])
We don't need a Clinton. We need some one that will not proceed with the destruction of America's Constitution, begin to reestablish its promisses to the people, and can get away from sucking on the evangelical or the corporate tit.
Being realistic, it will have to be either the democratic or the republican nominee. Being even more realistic, at this point, I don't believe the republican nominee stands a snow ball's chance in hell.
I have serious concerns that either a woman or a black can gather and marshal the full force of the American public's accord. I'm not yet able to concede that one can even win, though I say that with sadness for my Country.
Belittling the character of one that may be the next president purely on the tide of a sea of republican propaganda and hatred only assures that if that candidate does become president, it will be without a fair chance to represent the people.
The Country deserves a chance to unite, whomever becomes the next president.
Posted by glassman on :
bdgee? you haven't been hearing what i've been saying for years when you accuse me of being blinded by my GOP affiliations...
if hillary gets elected? i'll be just as hard on her for what i think she does wrong as i was on dubya....
and when she starts talking gun control? i'll be loud...
can you imagine how bad it would be if a gungrabber actually succeeds? and then we get another crew in there that decides the Constitution is "just a peice of paper" ? IMO Hillary thinks that way already...
they were teaching HS kids that the second ammnedment has been incorrectly interpreted as result of the Clinton campaigning practices..
HS history teachers were teaching that the ammendment only guaranteed the states a right to have a militia, and not the individual right to bear arms..this was a Clinton propaganda tool... i was hearing this crap in NE for crying outloud, not even a blue state..
the professor from Emory that published that crap was later uncovered as a fraud.. apparently he had created data from thin air..
he cited census data that had been lost in the Great San Fran earthquake fire...
Posted by glassman on :
Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty
October 25, 2002
Robert A. Paul, Interim Dean of Emory College
I have accepted the resignation of Michael Bellesiles from his position as Professor of History at Emory University, effective December 31, 2002.
Although we would not normally release any of the materials connected with a case involving the investigation of faculty misconduct in research, in light of the intense scholarly interest in the matter I have decided, with the assent of Professor Bellesiles as well as of the members of the Investigative Committee, to make public the report of the Investigative Committee appointed by me to evaluate the allegations made against Professor Bellesiles (none of the supporting documents, however, are being made public). The text of the report is now available online at www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/.
Emory now considers the investigation of allegations of research misconduct against Professor Bellesiles in connection with his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture to be concluded and resolved.
Bellesiles told Lindgren that he had read the (over 10,000) probate inventories on microfilm at the federal archives in East Point, Georgia. When the archive office informed Lindgren that they never possessed the probate records, Bellesiles then claimed he had traveled around the country to most of the county archives holding the originals of the records of his 40 counties. After examining county probate archives cited by Bellesiles, scholars, including Lindgren and his co-author Justin Heather, discovered that much of what Bellesiles wrote about them turned out to be incorrect.
Looking into Bellesiles’ source for probate records in San Francisco showed that these records had apparently been destroyed in the 1906 Earthquake, and could not have been available to him. Bellesiles Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Bill Clinton has never been convicted of (or even charged or a suspect in) any crime more serious than a traffic ticket....
LOL... How about lying under oath? Seriously Bdgee, who is the one with the wool over their eyes?
And before you go claiming it was a vast rightwing conspiracy to slander him... Just remember, he admitted he lied and mislead after the whole thing was over.
quote:"What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds," Clinton said. "I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends and my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame."
Posted by bdgee on :
"How about lying under oath? Seriously Bdgee, who is the one with the wool over their eyes?"
There was no criminal charge ever filed (twas a civil court, dufus, no criminal charge is possible) and no conviction, civil or criminal, for contempt of court.
You need to get off that RNC hate campaign, and stop sucking the fascist tit. YOU are the one with the wool over his eyes.
You need to learn a bit about law and stop making asinine assertions that are impossible.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "How about lying under oath? Seriously Bdgee, who is the one with the wool over their eyes?"
There was no criminal charge ever filed (twas a civil court, dufus, no criminal charge is possible) and no conviction, civil or criminal, for contempt of court.
You need to get off that RNC hate campaign, and stop sucking the fascist tit. YOU are the one with the wool over his eyes.
You need to learn a bit about law and stop making asinine assertions that are impossible.
not charged? LOL,, bdgee we all know he did it.. and to make matters worse? he voluntarily got on TV and lied to US too..
is that different? yes and no....
nobody died... but he still lied..
and? he lost his Democrat controlled congress by passing stupid and poorly conceived gun control laws...
i have my problems with Clinton for who and what he is, not because i need the GOP to think for me, and quite frankly? you are being unfair for suggesting that i do... Posted by turbokid on :
glass is one of the most neutral maniacs on this board.. i see no party affiliation in his posts he simply states the truth and backs it up with links.. instead of pompous pontification and jibber-jabber.
Posted by rimasco on :
Yes glass is good peeps... Posted by bdgee on :
"i have my problems with Clinton for who and what he is, not because i need the GOP to think for me, and quite frankly? you are being unfair for suggesting that i do."
Sorry, but your constant echoing of the republican blather on the subject of Clinton is unfair and over rides any clain of unfairness to you.
Clinton has never been charged with or convicted of any criminal activity more serious than a traffic violation. Claims that a civil court contempt citation of a matter not even before that court are criminal are false and slanderous.
You may have all the problems with Clinton you wish, but the republican hate campaign you participate and apparantly are unable to see in the mirror is not factual and is devious, at best.
Even after republicans spent nearly a billion dollars (most of it not theirs, but the public's money) and improperly transfered grand jury testimony to a civil court under a judge determined to hang him to please the Party, all they could manage was charges about a private consentual sexual encounter, something that was none of their or your or my business.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
I guess lying under oath in a civil court isn't a crime... Posted by bdgee on :
Nope, it isn't.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Nope, it isn't.
What about obstruction of justice? Is that a crime?
P.S.
You should take a few minutes and read up on the case of Barbara A. Battalino a psychiatrist in Boise who was charged by Janet Reno with lying under oath and obstruction of justice around the same time ole slick willy was doing the exact same thing...
Posted by glassman on :
actually bdgee? i happen to know that Anne Coulter was the driving force behind Linda Tripp...
thats what propelled her into "stardom"... and Linda Tripp broke MD law by making those "secret" tape recording of conversations..
in some states? one party must know they are being recorded, and in some states two parties must know...
the thing you don't seem to understand is that i am interested in the truth, no matter who it hurts... the fact is? i doubt very seriously if Hillary would "roll back" any of the newly obtained presidential powers that Cheney has managed to harvest for Dubya...
even tho i didn't vote for them? i had certain expectations of the Clintons in their first term of office, and they didn't live up to any if them... instead they went straight into gun control, and shot themselves in the foot...
that legislation gave the GOP all it needed to win the control of congress back...
i was "on-line" in '92 i used a server called "Prodigy" then, but there were so few others online then that this wasn't a very good resource for varying news reports... so what you say about me being "controlled" by the GOP has more meaning in those days because information was difficult to mutli-source...
today? if i agree with Obama about a few points? that doesn't mean i'd vote for him... the same goes with all of them... when, IMO, he's right? i'm not gonna disagree either.. i'd like to be able vote for FOR somebody instead of against somebody for a change
Clinton had some good plans, and executed them..
but he's just another big government politician.. so is Bush and so is Cheney.. you call them fascists, but that is what all big government politicians are...
Posted by bdgee on :
The hate campaign and the Party first absolutism of the GOP is what has fostered the absolute inability of the politicians (of any party) to ever do anything but "do nothing" and pack the courts with far rightwings extremist fascist leaning evangelical sympathizers.
Constant voicing of those falshoods and expanding on them by projecting specious accusations of payoff from WalMart is playing the acceptable role in the game of the RNC's hate campaign. Songs of political fascism in the U.S. is all that the RNC has allowed for almost half a century, attacking everyone and everything else with hate and slander and insulting lies. Knowing Ann Coulter is a scumbag isn't sufficient excuse to pardon repeating the crap that comes from her evil fascist excuse for rationality.
And accepting the violation of the sancity of the grand jury process, simply because it was violated by a republican appointed hit man special prosecutor amounts to worse than condoning that criminal action. It is undermining the Constitution for Party advantage and to the detriment of the Nation's well being and security.
Again, I am NOT an advocate of Clinton or of his wife, though I do point out that the republican party stole from this country and its welfare, both militarily and economically, in order to destroy the Clintons. That is disgusting; that is un-American; and isn't at all different from the propaganda campaigns generated by the Nazi party on the 20s in Germany to discredit the Gypsys and the Jews. It turns my stomach and should turn the stomach of anyone that isn't of the Party first republican rightwing establishment. Presenting the claim that "everybody does it" is a dodge of the republican Party first Nation later agenda.
I admit that before the insulting (to my Country) impeachment agenda of the republican machine, I was more than sympathetic with many of their interest (not all, by any means). But that ended any hope of the republican party being interested in MY Country and proved they only were, like the Nazis, interested in destroying the Constitution and the rights of the people.
Posted by glassman on :
Presenting the claim that "everybody does it" is a dodge of the republican Party first Nation later agenda.
when they do it? i'll say so bdgee.. in fact? you are the one showing biggotry here...
did Clinton increase trade with China in spite of their obvious human rights problems ? YES! President Clinton has told Congress he plans to renew China's trading privileges with the United States.
The President's decision comes despite allegations of Chinese espionage against US nuclear facilities and continuing concerns in Congress over Beijing's human rights record.
so stuff it bdgee.. the clinton's are in it just as deep as the bushies...
Posted by rimasco on :
Dont you mean Bush lights?
Its not that hard to see.......Both parties ROYAL legacies should END!
Posted by bdgee on :
"the clinton's are in it just as deep as the bushies...
That is a bunch of republican Party line BS to provide a smoke screen to hide party line obedience a cover.
Get it through your head:
I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF THE CLINTONS!
I do not now and never have supported them.
I do insist that the way the republican party machine and its advocates have viciously misrepresented fact in order to destroy the Clintons is un-American. It is designed to keep the public from looking at what they do without us knowing.
Bush is a different sort of animal. He is purely and absolutely determined to alter the Nation's political strength and convert the U.S. into a fascist nation. Granting him cover behind a campaign of hatred and false claims in attacking the Clintons to provide cover for and his fascist rightwing evangelical brethren is what they want.
Posted by glassman on :
don't blow a gasket budgee...
i've said this plenty of times before: i'll say it again:
they (the parties) argue in front of the cameras during the day, but they both drink out of the same champagne bottle behind closed doors in the evening..
if you don't like that? TAKE IT UP WITH THEM, NOT ME... it's just the truth.
Bush latest eavesdroppng bill got passed by DEMOCRATS, (fact) or he would not have had anything to sign...
Posted by rimasco on :
they (the parties) argue in front of the cameras during the day, but they both drink out of the same champagne bottle behind closed doors in the evening..
I like that metaphor.....and its so effing true
Posted by bdgee on :
"if you don't like that? TAKE IT UP WITH THEM, NOT ME... it's just the truth."
The truth is that constant preaching of misinformation in order to denigrate the Clintons is a republican smoke screen strategy to hide their actual efforts.
"Bush latest eavesdroppng bill got passed by DEMOCRATS, (fact) or he would not have had anything to sign."
The truth here that they had no option because if they had passed the bill you would be on the Party line attack claiming the democrats voted against the troops. It's the same nonsense as the republican strategy for funding for Iraq. The democrats have no option; that is not the same as claiming they had options (plural) then declaring they "chose" the one that was inevitable.
The Senate cannot pass any bill the republican machine reject because to do so required 60 votes and the republicans won't free their Senators to vote except via the Party line (most of them are quite in tune with the one Party fascist agenda of the Party). The option is entirely the republican's and claiming otherwise is just more republican propaganda.
The republicans are the cause of this mess and trying to pass it off as if the democrats are participating in it is disingenuous.
Posted by glassman on :
lemme show you a few choice excerpts from the transcrpits of the '00 Bush-Gore debate:
BUSH: I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut.
Now that stands in contrast to my worthy opponent's plan, which will increase the size of government dramatically. His plan is three times larger than President Clinton's proposed plan eight years ago. It's a plan that will have 200 new programs, as well -- or expanded programs. It'll create 20,000 new bureaucrats. In other words, it empowers Washington.
LOL..Bush is more like the Dems than the DEMs are...
Bush: The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
hmmmmm......
and? the coup de grace:
BUSH: They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
this is exactly what he's doing right now....
so calling Hillary Bush light is just as much about Bush acting like a Dem as it is vice-versa...
Posted by rimasco on :
Now ya see this is exactly what your famous for. Within a sentence you say they did have an option and didnt. If they DIDNT have an option it would only be because theyre lacking in the spinal area. This is what Glass has been saying to you the whole time. They play into eachother...thus their in KAHOOTS
The truth here that they had no option because if they had passed the bill you would be on the Party line attack claiming the democrats voted against the troops. Posted by bdgee on :
Let me point out one over riding fact.
The stated intent (most often quoting Rove, but there are several other republican sources) of the re[publican party, is now an has been for years, nothing less than forcing the U.S. to become a "permanent one party controlled" state with essentially dictatorial power.
There is no other observation, quotation, event, or whatever that needs to be considered. The republican party, as it is now constituted, is fascist and evil and un-American and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Posted by rimasco on :
and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
Youre right and I consider the DNC as of the NOW....SUB-CONTRACTORS.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Let me point out one over riding fact.
The stated intent (most often quoting Rove, but there are several other republican sources) of the re[publican party, is now an has been for years, nothing less than forcing the U.S. to become a "permanent one party controlled" state with essentially dictatorial power.
There is no other observation, quotation, event, or whatever that needs to be considered. The republican party, as it is now constituted, is fascist and evil and un-American and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
that wise old saying is how we ended up embroiled with Iraq and Iran right now... it's not wise at all...
Posted by rimasco on :
Not to mention Ihavnt Bilaiden......
Posted by rimasco on :
Which will prooly end up happening here as well....
Musharraf decides against emergency By MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Writer 34 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf on Thursday decided against declaring a state of emergency in Pakistan and will press ahead with plans to hold elections, a government minister said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Pakistani media have been reporting that the military leader would impose a state of emergency to deal with rising violence and political instability — a move that a senior government official confirmed was under consideration. The
He met with legal experts, security officials and officials from the ruling party, a presidential aide said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
After speaking to Musharraf by phone, apparently following those meetings, Information Minister Mohammed Ali Durrani said the president was committed to holding free and fair elections.
"There were suggestions from the ruling coalition and also from certain other political entities that there is a requirement of emergency in the country. But these suggestions were obviously discussed and ultimately it was decided that it this is not the time," Durrani told The Associated Press.
Speculation that an emergency could be imminent grew after Musharraf on Wednesday abruptly pulled out of the meeting in Kabul with more than 600 Pakistani and Afghan tribal leaders, phoning Afghan President Hamid Karzai to say he couldn't attend because of "engagements" in Islamabad. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz went instead.
Musharraf, a key ally in Washington's fight against terrorism, has seen dwindling popular support amid a failed bid to oust the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry — an independent-minded judge likely to rule on expected legal challenges to Musharraf's bid for re-election to another five-year term. Musharraf also has been beset by rising violence in the country, particularly following an army raid to end the takeover of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, an operation that left more than 100 people dead.
In Washington, President Bush said he is confident in Musharraf's ability to crack down on militants at the Afghan border and cooperate with the U.S.
He said he expected Musharraf to take "swift action if there is actionable intelligence inside his country." Bush refused to address whether the U.S. troops would go into Pakistan without permission from leaders there.
"We spend a lot of time with the leadership in Pakistan talking about what we will do with actionable intelligence," Bush said. "Am I confident they (terrorists) will be brought to justice? My answer is, `Yes I am.' "
Tariq Azim, the deputy information minister, had said earlier in the day that a state of emergency could not be ruled out because of "external and internal threats" and deteriorating security in Pakistan's volatile northwest near the Afghan border.
Azim also said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He cited recent remarks by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential candidate, saying they were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.
Obama "remains concerned about the situation and has and will continue to underscore his commitment to maintaining a close working relationship with Pakistan, an important ally against terrorism," according to a statement from his spokesman, Bill Burton. "Part of any working relationship must be a candid and frank discussion of our shared interests in fighting terrorism, increasing regional stability, and promoting democracy."
More than 360 people have died in a wave of suicide attacks and clashes between militants and security forces that began with a bloody army assault on a pro-Taliban mosque in Islamabad in early July.
The government's acknowledgment that the possibility was under discussion appeared to deepen the sense of crisis surrounding the military ruler, who took power in a 1999 coup.
Political analyst Talat Masood said that if Musharraf had imposed a state of emergency, it would be an act of desperation that would doubtless be challenged in the courts, and could trigger a public backlash.
"This is his weapon of last resort," Masood said. "But it would be a weapon of mass destruction, of mass political destruction."
A state of emergency would give Musharraf sweeping powers, including the ability to restrict people's freedom to move, rally, engage in political activities and assert their fundamental rights through the courts.
Yet the Supreme Court — which has emerged as the most potent check on the military leader's dominance of Pakistani politics — could still challenge the legality of such a declaration.
Last week, a bench of the court freed a political opponent of Musharraf, and on Thursday heard a freedom of movement case lodged by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who is seeking to return from exile to run in parliamentary elections. Sharif went into exile after Musharraf ousted him in a 1999 coup.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with Musharraf by phone, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, declining to describe the conversation.
He said the United States believes Musharraf is committed to maintaining the rule of law and implementing democratic reform.
"President Musharraf and the Pakistani government have an interest and they have demonstrated that they want to operate within its laws and Pakistan's constitution," McCormack said.
Musharraf is under growing U.S. pressure to crack down on militants at the Afghan border because of fears that al-Qaida is regrouping there.
The Bush administration has also not ruled out unilateral military action inside Pakistan, but has stressed the need to work with Musharraf.
Another exiled former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was widely reported to have met with Musharraf recently in the United Arab Emirates to discuss a power-sharing deal, told Geo TV a declaration of emergency would be "a negative step for the restoration of democracy."
Under Pakistan's Constitution, the president may declare a state of emergency if it is deemed the country's security is "threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond" the authority of provincial government's authority to control
Posted by glassman on :
LOL, maybe Musharref just hired Diebold too? Posted by bdgee on :
(As I recall, there were those in the republican party seriously advocating the cancelling of the 2004 election here.)
In the past, when it looked like Musharref might be in hot water he always knew how to manipulate things to his advantage.
Posted by glassman on :
Azim also said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He cited recent remarks by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential candidate, saying they were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.
this really amazes me...
how did Reagan get elected? the same rhetoric....
the difference was Iran...
we recently increased the bounty for binladen to 50 millionUS$.. IMO? this just made him a bigger folk hero to the people that follow him...
we SHOULD take 10 million$ in GOLD dust or flakes there and set up a museum for all to see...
whoever brings in Bin laden or at least his head gets it all..
we'd prolly have him in less than six months...
Posted by bdgee on :
No, because they would launch an attack and capture the place and take the gold before that.
They couldn't hold it, but they wouldn't bother once they had the gold.
Posted by rimasco on :
LOL...who's launching an attack? The mighty taliban?
Glass you forgot to say "guarded"
Posted by glassman on :
gee? i guess i'm a dummy huh?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Yes... that philosophy worked out so well with Bin Laden and Saddam didn't it.... LOL
(Edit: Guess I should read the second page before commenting... )
Posted by glassman on :
seriously? does anybody think our troops can't protect whatever turf (or rocky mountain top) they choose?
i (and i am confident the troops too) would be happy to see the taliban or alqueda come and try to take the "gold museum"... that would just be fewer bad guys out there....
gold dust or flakes are important because they aren't coin... the "mountain folk" just want to be able to collect the bounty and ghost....
coins and bullion would be identifiable, dust and flakes aren't.....
as far as they are concerned? cash is just toilet paper...
heroin or opium would probably work even better, but i guess we can't offer that... Posted by HILANDER on :
Nuclear dollar? Heck it's already happening. The US and Canadian dollar are now almost equal in value
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Let me point out one over riding fact.
The stated intent (most often quoting Rove, but there are several other republican sources) of the re[publican party, is now an has been for years, nothing less than forcing the U.S. to become a "permanent one party controlled" state with essentially dictatorial power.
There is no other observation, quotation, event, or whatever that needs to be considered. The republican party, as it is now constituted, is fascist and evil and un-American and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
that wise old saying is how we ended up embroiled with Iraq and Iran right now... it's not wise at all...
First, we are not yet "embroiled with Iran right now", though it is one of the stated goals of the rightwing.
Second, you are beginning to understand.
Posted by bdgee on :
"seriously? does anybody think our troops can't protect whatever turf (or rocky mountain top) they choose?"
Me.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq and have paid attention to what has happend in almost any similar situation throughout history.....the American Revolutionary War, Viet Nam, Labanon, the English in Ireland, etc. (All those guys cheated and didn't fight fair, you know....refused to stand there and fight the way they would clearly loose.)
Those attackers would not launch a formal military attack on that gold, having announce their intent and methods ahead of time.
There is not "protection" from a determined and native enemy that is determined to last. Such a force does not need to win, just refuse to loose. Trying to wipe it out only breeds resentment and new members to replace those killed. It is the will of the people.
Posted by glassman on :
i am beginning to understand? budge, we have been embroiled with Iran and Iraq BOTH since Reagan...
Ollie North ring a bell?
we supported sadam(secular govt) to invade Iran when the Islamic govt there was still fledgling. sadam's invasion instilled patriotic attitudes (especially amongst the very young) within Iran that actually HELPED the Ayatoluh...
beginning to understand? sheesh...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "seriously? does anybody think our troops can't protect whatever turf (or rocky mountain top) they choose?"
Me.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq and have paid attention to what has happend in almost any similar situation throughout history.....the American Revolutionary War, Viet Nam, Labanon, the English in Ireland, etc. (All those guys cheated and didn't fight fair, you know....refused to stand there and fight the way they would clearly loose.)
Those attackers would not launch a formal military attack on that gold, having announce their intent and methods ahead of time.
There is not "protection" from a determined and native enemy that is determined to last. Such a force does not need to win, just refuse to loose. Trying to wipe it out only breeds resentment and new members to replace those killed. It is the will of the people.
budgee, you've been out in the heat too long...
we have no problem taking and holding turf... it's the politicians that are screwing up all the time...
name me one shooting battle that we have lost in Iraq or Afghanistan? we haven't... the politicians have made poor decisions...
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, I agree about the Reagan mess.
And, had we not had a collection of scheming republican Congressmen arrange to make it impossible to put that bunch in prison and also help Reagan to lie to Congress about the participation of top level members of the Administration in that treasonous assault on world peace, we would not have the second coming of that cast of criminals manning the power structure of the republican party now.
But we are not presently and irreversibly "embroiled with Iran", just very very close.
What we must hope is that some means can be found to keep "king george", "The Decider" from bringing about open war between us and Iran (because everyone understands that our military can overwhelm any adversary anywhere anytime, of course, so what is there to loose?), which will eventually bring what could be the beginnings of a third world war.
The world is fed up with our arrogance.
Many of us are ashamed of our arrogance.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Bdgee you do know that no matter who the next president is, we WILL be invading Iran? Chavez might want to roll out the welcome mat as well.
Posted by glassman on :
bdgge? maybe you don't know the proper definition for embroiled;
here:
Main Entry: em·broil Pronunciation: im-'broi(-&)l Function: transitive verb Etymology: French embrouiller, from Middle French, from en- + brouiller to jumble, from Old French brooilier, from Vulgar Latin *brodiculare -- more at BROIL Date: 1603 1 : to throw into disorder or confusion 2 : to involve in conflict or difficulties - em·broil·ment /-m&nt/ noun
we are embroiled with Iran and have been for along time... longer than iraq...
Posted by bdgee on :
Hahahaha
I don't really care what sort of a half baked fool runs the show in Iran, he isn't close to as dangerous as the one we have here, The decider, who has "decided" to keep us embroiled with Iran.
What we are doing now with respect to Iran can be almost completely undone by simply saying so.
It is being done to convince the American public that the same sort of lies used as excuse to invade Iraq are also true about Iran.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Posted by glassman on :
Iran is more of a threat than al-queda..
al-queda is 10,000 men at most..
Iran is 20-30 million men...
and they are trying to build nukes...
Putin has just started sending his long range bombers back on their traditional cold war patrols... Russian bombers resuming Cold War patrols Reuters, The Associated Press Published: August 9, 2007
MOSCOW: Russian bombers have resumed Cold War-style long-haul missions to areas patrolled by NATO and the United States, top Russian generals said Thursday.
A Russian bomber flew over a U.S. naval base on the Pacific island of Guam on Wednesday and "exchanged smiles" with U.S. pilots who had scrambled to track it, said Major General Pavel Androsov, head of long-range aviation in the Russian Air Force.
seems he and Bush are in collusion too? they are restarting the cold war for profit?
seriously bdgee? i disagree with most o f the Bush policies, but i'm not about to agree with whatever the Dems do JUST because i don't like Bush either...
The flight to the Pacific island was part of a three-day exercise that saw Russian strategic bombers making 40 sorties and launching eight cruise missiles, said Androsov, who commands Russia's long-range bomber force.
just practicing for??????
Posted by Relentless. on :
Glass, I know it is out of the ordinary for us to disagree... but I think you are not seeing the big picture. I don't think "we" have any enemy but governments. We too often believe that our government's enemy is our own. As is their plan. The wars we see and the wars we will see are wars between governments... NOT people.
Posted by bdgee on :
Who knows what they are practicing for. Maybe it is just a stunt to convince the Russian public Russia still tries to be a super power. I doubt seriously Putin is fool enough to want war or anything close to that.
Whatever the case, it is against such forces as the Russian military that our own is best suited and can be expected to prevail. (And I'd bet Putin knows that too.)
Any yield of anything to this bunch of republican fascist (and that includes the whole Party, not just those now in the Administration), particularly when it is based on not approving of the democrats or their concerns along the Party line, is merely a statement that the Party line is to suplant national interest.
There is no such thing as a third alternative. Any such hope amounts to nothing but a pipe dream. Either the democrats (most likely as things now stand) or the republicans will prevail in the coming election. Should it be the republican party, there is a very strong chance this nation's Constitutional sanctity cannot recover and return to being what it must be for the Nation to last.
Repeating the denigrating babble of the RNC in effort to make a "permanent republicaan majority" is a quest to promote the destruction of the Constitution. That in turn is far more dangerous than anything seen here since the revolution.
Posted by glassman on :
first off:
i wasn't joking when i asked if Putin and Bush agreed to "restart" the cold war" cuz the people around the world really are beginning to realise the "war on terror" is costing people something like 10 billion$ per terrorist, and that is leading them to the next question which is why do guys living in Afghan/Paki caves have this much relevance to our lives... US Presidential power is almost entirely dependent on being "at war"....
second off: Putin may need the US to look like we are once again a threat to their sovereignty just as Bush made sadam appear to be a threat our sovereignty so that he can further consolidate his own power...
thirdly:
i still believe that government by the people and for the people is possible, but i don't think Hillary "is our girl" (as she puts it) for the job... thinking thaqt and stating the facts as to why i came to that decsision doesn't make me a GOP activist...
lastly: bdgee, accusing people of repeating the RNC party line (over and over again ad nauseum) will never get anybody to take you seriously.
if you recall or reread back thru the posts here? i have pulled direct quotes from people like Rove (in particular) saying their plan was nothing less than to permanently destroy the democratic party... i may have even been the one that showed YOU th exact quote, idunno, it don't matter who saw it first..
but
in the end we need at least two parties... i would like to see a third, and i'd like to see it happen now...
Posted by bdgee on :
I didn't suggest that you were joking. Sorry if that is how it looked.
I'm sorry, but your constant "(over and over again ad nauseum)" railing against the Clintons, almost always the exact same stuff put out by the RNC and almost always without substance gets a bit old.
There was never anything but hateful political intent involved in all the attacks on the Clinton's through the absurd "investigations" that proved over and over that there was no basis for the "investigations". Accept the fact that your guys blew multi millions in the effort and were entirely off base all along. I'm tired of that BS about Clinton being a criminal, because it simply isn't true.
What was criminal and couldn't be investigated because the republican party refused to allow it to be investigated is how secret criminal grand jury testimony (having no relation to the "investigation" that was supposed to be the subject of the "investigation") was illegally handed to a civil court.
It isn't just the Bush Administration that we have a problem with, it is the Party that WILL NOT control its champion, The Decider, and, in the face of proof that he is violating the Constitution, insist on refusing to allow any correction.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a viable third party. It won't happen so long as this Country and its Constitution remain viable entities. Any vote for a third party, until things are already beyond reclamation is simply a thrown away vote. (And any protest vote actually counts a a vote for one of the major parties, depending on which side's total it dilutes.)
Yes, we need at least two parties. Without two viable and active parties, the Constitutionally provided separation of powers and checks and ballances are simply ignored by the party in power, creating a fascist dictatorship by the Party, unless the elected members of that party acts as statesmen rather than Party loyalist. But it is the established goal of the republican party to have only one party.
We know who and what it is that has infested our government. It is time to aim at the guilty, not just rail on that instead that the people in "the other party" are the same. Party loyalty by republicans got us here.....party over Country.
Otherwise, we get at least 4 more years of this mess and probably that "permanent republican majority" desired by the republicans. THEN we have a pure fascist system.
Posted by glassman on :
bdgee you couldn't have been reading my posts..
clinton lied under oath... it's not a topic of "debate" he did it... live with it...
i don't agree with MOST of their policies.. the policies that i don't like don't differ that much from Bush's policies... Bush said he was different, but he's not...
and when you accuse me of repeating RNC "dogma"? you are just proving you didn't read my posts, or can't remember what i have posted..
and for you to say that we still have a GOP majority or that the Dems didn't pass Bush's legislation tells me that you don't have a clue what's going on...
you said they are victims... LOL thats a whining excuse... and untrue...
i suggest you dig into the story deeper and quit making excuses for Pelosi and Reid... they have the POWER in the congress now..
and don't go on about the 60 senator rule either, i know exactly how that works...
i don't care who it is in office at the white house, they need pressure on them all the time...
Billary has been in control of the dems for a long time, and they are playing a long game here.. and i don't like it.. period...
IMO? the GOP wants to run against Hillary, so i'm not hurting the dems by pointing out the flaws there...
remeber, Billary went after the gun control legislation and lost control of the congress... they weren't listening to the people then either...
Posted by rimasco on :
Bdgee, I think the point hes trying to make is.... plain and simple....Hillary is no better and will not be getting his vote.
She already served as Queen for 8 years. Your just in total denial if you cant see any ripple effects from THEIR era.
Another thing PLAIN AND SIMPLE. AS A PERSON... her husband cheated all over her. Do you honestly believe that relationship is real? If so what kind of a woman does that make her? Is she a woman scorn? Something tells me no....JUST A CARPET-BAGGIN AND MUNCHING BULL-DYKE.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL rim... you're gonna hurt his feeling calling her carpet bagger...
but yeah that's correct....
she moved to NYNY for nothing more than her shot at the white house.. and it was only becuase they had a special residency rule that allowed her to run soooo soon after arriving there...
had she gone back to Arkansas to run? i wouldn't have scorn for her on that topic..
ask her opinion about hedge funds? LOL... she sounds just like a GOP hawk...
why not? after all? Chelsea works for one that specializes in "distressed" companies...
Posted by rimasco on :
This woman couldnt keep her husbands pecker in his pants and you want her to run OUR country.
And as far as "Bubba's integrety" goes.... Your wife is the closest person to you in the world if a person is WILLing to lie to that person on a daily basis what kind of a person does that make him? Trustworthy? Yeah I know, he only abused his wife and nobody else
You seem to take it very lightly what Bubba did to her. Are you Mormon?
I say give her a seat on a panel of "The View" and call it a wrap.
Posted by glassman on :
i don't have that kind of disrespect for her rim,
my problem with her is that IMO? she will just be a return to willy's cabinet...
as i've said before ? they at least hired people that deserved their jobs, (unlike many of Bushes appointees) but that doesn't mean i agree with their policy attitudes..
Posted by rimasco on :
No disrespect. I just dont know what the agenda of a swinging couple in the white house is capable of.
Posted by glassman on :
IMO? the monica thing was a disgrace to the whole nation, not just the GOP, who ran whitewater thing over the waterfall, but to Linda Trip who broke the MD wiretap laws, anne coulter for pushing Linda into going public and especially to Willy for (IMO) taking advantage of young person who was his EMPLOYEE...
i could care less if their marriage is open or not...
Posted by bdgee on :
glass..,
"clinton lied under oath... it's not a topic of "debate" he did it... live with it..."
Yes, but it is not a criminal offense. It is civil, such a thing as bankruptcy or liability for a tree in your yard falling into the street and hitting a parked car. He has not been charged or convicted of any crime such as lying to disrupt a criminal investigation or diverting federal funds from the sale of weapons to Iran to support a South American revolution.
(The fact that his testimony, in a civil trial, was called false testimony because it conflicted with testimony specifically from "secret" (and most certainly questionable) grand jury testimony was and is is a crime.)
Contrary to your repeated assertions and implications, Clinton did not commit any crime with his testimony ...."...live with it..."
"i don't agree with MOST of their policies.."
I don't either.
"and for you to say that we still have a GOP majority or that the Dems didn't pass Bush's legislation tells me that you don't have a clue what's going on..."
I never said such a thing or anything that could be reasonably so misinterpreted. I said that in order to get a bill thorough congress requires having 60 votes in the senate in order to get it to a vote on the floor of the Senate and the republican control more than 40 Senate votes and used that to stop any and all democratic efforts to end the Iraq mess.
It isn't the democrats stopping or refusing, it is the republicans.
You pass out RNC doctrine repeatedly, such as the incessant blaming of Pelosi and Reid for the republican partisan political divisiveness that stops legislation that the people want done now to stop the irresponsible war in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid do not control those 40+ votes stopping the process in the Senate....the republican party does! If it could get a floor vote, then Bush would veto it and the republicans DO NOT WANT a failure to fund the troops laid on their watch.
"(H)illary has been in control of the dems for a long time..."
is another favored RNC total falsehood without basis of any kind. Were it even fancifully close to fact, how did Reed become the Senate Mamority Leader?
Rim,
The point is, ANYBODY IS BETTER THAN BUSH or anyone that will carry on this disgraceful Iraq occupation and the even more disgraceful attacks on the Constitution. All of the realistically possible republican candidates have promised to maintain "business as usual" and :sty the course" to victory, (whateverr they now mean by victory).
"Do you honestly believe that relationship is real? If so what kind of a woman does that make her? Is she a woman scorn? Something tells me no....JUST A CARPET-BAGGIN AND MUNCHING BULL-DYKE."
Your attitude concerning Hillary Clinton is vulgar as much so as the vulgar language you state it in. It is none of your business, or mine, what is the basis of their relationship. It is their sacred and private relation and you and the republican party show about as much respect for it as you do for mine or some Joe Blow's or anyone whose ancestors to the forth generation weren't all born free, white, and 21 and in the continental United States (and that is just one single reason for fear of Party and its intentions).
(Your always flippant, too often improper, and generally insulting attitude about anything or anybody not pre-sanctioned by the RNC brands your concern for this Nation as second, at best, to your Party. That's sad....not just that you do it, but your whole party treats the rest of the world that way. It didn't used to be that way. Maybe you support eschewing diplomacy in favor of John Wayne-ing things and the "shock and awe" theory of international relations because you have completely lost the art of diplomacy and know only crudeness and arrogance.)
There is more to leading that force. (Most mule teams are driven from the rear by an often harsh but familiar protective voice, but I suppose you have to have had some serious exposure to mules and mule skinners to know that.
Franklin could never get Adams to understand about compromise and cajoling in the art of diplomacy. As a result, Adams was a hopeless failure in France, while Franklin not only brought home the bacon, he toted back to these shores the entire whole carcass of the beast he went hunting.
Posted by glassman on :
Contrary to your repeated assertions and implications, Clinton did not commit any crime with his testimony ...."...live with it..."
you're confused again...
show me my repeated assertions and implications.. you won't find them cuz i could care less..
you've confused me with other people.. as a matter of fact? you come in here and do this to anybody you disagree with...
i stated a simple fact: clinton lied under oath. you know it's true...
as for the issue of the 60 senators ? i have no clue what you are talking about now.. but it's not what you were talking about before....
you made all kinds of excuses for why the BIPARTISAN bill went thru....
and the Clintons have been leading the Dems for a long time.. you are just in denial abou tit.. it's not some RNC falsehood...
if you wanna talk politics bdgee, i suggest you brushup on it a little better.. i follow it pretty closely.. both parties...
Posted by glassman on :
Yes, but it is not a criminal offense. It is civil,
Clinton lied to a grand jury bdgee.... i think you are truly confused about what a crime that is...
Contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign
that's the "rub" huh?
not criminal enough to be a "crime", but criminal enough for disbarment and to be found in civil contempt...
it's funny how if you agree with me, i'm not spouting RNC "credo" but if i disagree? in am RNC "parrot" ....
Posted by NaturalResources on :
If it walks like a parrot, and squaks like a parrot... Guess what?
Glassman want a cracker? ...
Posted by bdgee on :
"Clinton lied to a grand jury bdgee"
NO HE DID NOT!!!!!
That lie and its fallacious implication come directly from the propaganda machine of the RNC and you repeat it (like a Party loyalist?).
There is no such thing as a grand jury for a civil action.
Moreover, Clinton voluntarily requested suspension from the Arkansas Bar Association, which was the only such association in which he was a member. Thereafter, "Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar" (a technicality, because it requires a state license to practice law, which in turn requires an active membership in a state bar association) "from which he then chose to resign", (borrowing a quote from your own quote above).
There is a big difference in disbarment and voluntary suspension or resignation of membership in a bar association. Accidentally confusing the two things is shameful when you are using it as a tool to smear the standing or stature of a political opponent....then there is intentionally misrepresenting one as the other.
I don't really believe the republicans are so ignorant of the facts and the law that they are confused. Is it that the republican machine was so disgusting and disheartened in their open hatred of the man after being unable to make their specious impeachment work that they decided to smear him by claiming he was fired from a job he quit?
Richard Nixon was disbarred. Bill Clinton was not, he resigned. You posted quotation to that fact yourself....
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "Clinton lied to a grand jury bdgee"
NO HE DID NOT!!!!!
That lie and its fallacious implication come directly from the propaganda machine of the RNC and you repeat it (like a Party loyalist?).
There is no such thing as a grand jury for a civil action.
Moreover, Clinton voluntarily requested suspension from the Arkansas Bar Association, which was the only such association in which he was a member. Thereafter, "Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar" (a technicality, because it requires a state license to practice law, which in turn requires an active membership in a state bar association) "from which he then chose to resign", (borrowing a quote from your own quote above).
There is a big difference in disbarment and voluntary suspension or resignation of membership in a bar association. Accidentally confusing the two things is shameful when you are using it as a tool to smear the standing or stature of a political opponent....then there is intentionally misrepresenting one as the other.
I don't really believe the republicans are so ignorant of the facts and the law that they are confused. Is it that the republican machine was so disgusting and disheartened in their open hatred of the man after being unable to make their specious impeachment work that they decided to smear him by claiming he was fired from a job he quit?
Richard Nixon was disbarred. Bill Clinton was not, he resigned. You posted quotation to that fact yourself....
lol budgee... now you are the one buying and selling spin....
i was hoping you'd just forget about this stupid idea that i need to be spoonfed data and stop calling me a RNC parrot and accept the fact that i have a mind of my own: but since you insist?...
here's how clinton 'splained his testimony, in his own words:
President Bill Clinton Aug. 17, 1998
CLINTON: Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.
Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.
But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.
I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct.
I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.
In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.
The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.
This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.
Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.
Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours.
Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.
Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.
We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.
And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.
the part about the lie? they make you swear to tell the whole truth...
and? as to losing his law practice license? Clinton would have lost his case if he hadn't cut a deal..
as a matter of fact? accepting a "plea bargain" is a de facto admission of guilt..
it doesn't matter how much whitewash you throw on it...
Posted by glassman on :
the sad truth bdgee? i really don't care one bit about monica anymore...
what i do care about is trade policies, and nation building policies, and individual freedom policies, billary isn't gonna roll back ANY presidential powers if they get back in office.
but you keep accusing me of bullchit, so i'll just keep proving to you that i base my opinions on facts as best as i can determine them...
i know you have this habit of calling everything GOP propaganda, but the fact is that i want Bloomberg and Nagel to run.... as independants...
Posted by bdgee on :
"billary isn't gonna roll back ANY presidential powers if they get back in office."
Is a statement based purely on bias and, strangely, coinciding with RNC propaganda.
I remain of the opinion the Clinton won't win the nomination (or Obama). I base that on the history of early front runners over the years. Although, I must admit she stands in a much stronger position than have most, considering the name recognition and her Senate membership.
I can't imagine any third party candidate doing anything other than disrupting the people's choice. I also can't imagine Negal bolting the Party.....could happen, but i don't yet consider it likely.
"it doesn't matter how much whitewash you throw on it..."
It isn't whitewash, it is fact. What you are doing is smearing crap over that fact.
Clinton did not lie to a grand jury, he was not found guilty of any crime, he was not disbarred
Posted by glassman on :
he was technically disbarred pending appeal before he plea bargained it to the suspension bdgee....
and he admits he omitted the truth, which is in lawyer-speak? a lie...
try to forget about the gop propaganda machine for ahwile.. it ain't good to dwell on it so much...
the GOP is collapsing before our eyes...
Rudy may be able to salvage it...
Posted by bdgee on :
You need to try and forget the hateful smearing of the man and his wife with false claims. If you don't like him or her, fine.....say so...but that does not justify presenting as fact things that are false or even impossible.
I don't see any of the republican candidates that has much chance of overcoming the disgust and distrust the public holds for republican abuse of power. It isn't just dubya's abuse of power or the Administration's, it is the fact that the republican machine refused to allow Congress to stop it and still does. And it isn't only in dealing with the Iraq war. It is systemic.
An even more obvious reason that none of the republican likely candidates can win is that everyone of them is promising to take up where dubya leaves off in Iraq and that is not even close to what the public wants.
There never has been and never will be a perfect candidate for president or a perfect president. There will always be some difference between him or her and each of us...sometimes many of us. That is why the Constitutional proscribed separation of powers and checks and balances are essential for the health of this Nation. But face facts, republican abuse of power simply ignores those functions of our government and overrides the Constitution in favor of Party loyalty and the nation is in danger as a result.
I'll tell you where there was a lie sworn to under oath, in both 2000 and 2004. I'll just provide a part of the oath sworn before a Federal Judge acting in official capacity in an official and Constitutionally required procedure: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute...and...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Posted by rimasco on :
c'mon......its just a piece of paper....
Billary had her 8 years. I would vote for Obama before voting for the "babe in the woods"
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
I'll tell you where there was a lie sworn to under oath, in both 2000 and 2004. I'll just provide a part of the oath sworn before a Federal Judge acting in official capacity in an official and Constitutionally required procedure: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute...and...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The same lie was told in 1997, 1993, 1989 and on and on.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You need to try and forget the hateful smearing of the man and his wife with false claims. If you don't like him or her, fine.....say so...but that does not justify presenting as fact things that are false or even impossible.
bdgee. i have presented facts here straight up. instead of presenting factual rebuttals? you are the one that has been disingenuous...
show me one false hood that i presented as fact.. use specific quotes and prove that it's falsehood...
you can't, cuz i didn't...
Posted by bdgee on :
You claimed more then once that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. He did not. He was never before a grand jury.
That's one. Don't bother me with proving more, I can but your game of demanding proof for stuff has been met. I will not play that game again.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You claimed more then once that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. He did not. He was never before a grand jury.
That's one. Don't bother me with proving more, I can but your game of demanding proof for stuff has been met. I will not play that game again.
he was never before a grand jury?
budgee... i posted you in Clintons own words that he admitted to not being honest to the grand jury..
you are FOS...
President Bill Clinton Aug. 17, 1998
CLINTON: Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.
Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.
But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.
I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct.
I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.
In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.
The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.
This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.
Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.
Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours.
Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.
Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.
We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.
And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.
Clinton revises timeline of Lewinsky affair Book's account differs with grand jury testimony
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:49 AM EDT (1149 GMT) Clinton's memoirs have thrust him back in the
(CNN) -- In his new memoir, former U.S. President Bill Clinton says his "inappropriate" encounters with Monica Lewinsky began when she claimed they did, during the government shutdown in November 1995.
That account contradicts his August 1998 testimony before a federal grand jury that investigated the case.
The discrepancy between testimony by Clinton and Lewinsky about the timing of the affair was one of the points that led the House to impeach Clinton for providing false testimony to the grand jury about "the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee."
In his 1998 testimony, the former president said, "When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong."
That timeline would have put the start of the affair after Lewinsky had completed her White House internship and had taken a staff job.
But on page 773 of his book, "My Life," Clinton said, "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."
"For the next 10 months, I didn't see her, although we talked on the phone from time to time," he said.
In her grand jury testimony, Lewinsky said their sexual relationship began on November 15, 1995, at a time when government officers were shut down because of a budget dispute between Clinton and the Republican Congress.
Independent counsel Ken Starr, in his report to Congress recommending impeachment, said the motive for Clinton to lie about the timing of the affair "appears to have been that the president was unwilling to admit sexual activity with a young 22-year-old White House intern in the Oval Office area."
You did not post in Clinton's own words that he lied to a grand jury. You have chosen to misinterpret facts.
Posted by turbokid on :
man, he gave you the quote and the link.. what do you need him to do call clinton up and have him stop by your house
CLINTON: Good evening.
This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
good stuff, you guys are funny.
Posted by glassman on :
who's on first?
Posted by bdgee on :
There is no grand jury in a civil proceding.
Your links are specious if they say that Clintons testimony was to a grand jury. It was in a civil deposition. Either you sources are incorrect (Starr, for example leaked secret testimony to the judge in the civil case, making clear that the one was willing to tell a lie to reach his ends and the other, was willing to accept violation of the rule of law in order to hand Clinton) or you have misinterpreted what they say.
Again, Clinton did not lies to a grand jury. You claim is false.
Moreover, there is serious consideration that the statement the judge claims is false is a bogus interpretation of the fact.
Posted by glassman on :
yo budgee. this is obviously a sore point for you, i don't know what you want for proof...
later on today? maybe i can find a youtube copy of Clinton talking about it..i'm sure some propagandist has maunfactured one somewhere
clinton lied under oath more than once, he's a liar just like the rest of 'em...
Posted by bdgee on :
I want facts
Clinton was not charged with and not convicted of any criminal offense.....ever.
He did not lie to any grand jury and the judge that cited him for contempt was citing him with civil contempt.
The republicans have posted to the internet hundreds of thousands of lies about that fact (yes, Starr lied, in addition to publicising secret (by law) grand jury testimony (not of Clinton, but of Lewinslki) and you continue their cause.
The civil action in which Clinton was cited for lying was a civil deposition and there is no criminal penalty therefore. He resigned both his membership in the Arkansas Bar Association and in the Bar of the Supreme Court; they were not taken from him as a punishment for conviction in any criminal proceeding.
Posted by rimasco on :
What about the part where he came on tv and lied to the entire world about monica?
Posted by glassman on :
yawn....
you are the one "spinning" now budgee...
i never said one word about conviction...
i KNOW he lied, YOU know he lied ,Hillary knows he lied
everybody KNOWS he lied...
Posted by bdgee on :
He didn't lie, Rim, though you and your absolute republican bias do call it that.
Sexual activity, by definition, not by religious or social connotation, requires the act of insertion of the male member into the female for human beings. He stated he did not have sexual relations, not that he did not have lustful relations.
Moreover, it is not a criminal offense to lie on TV or in public. Were that the case, where would we have the entire republican party now. (And don't give me that republican line of BS that the democrts do it too......the democrats didn't ignore facts and lie to bring about the Iraq invasion (except maybe Lieberman, who is a republican in sheeps clothing. And they did not vote to invade Iraq. That is a pure lie. They voted to give the president power to use force olny after exausting all other means....he and his republiucan party did not do as the vote required.)
Posted by rimasco on :
Sexual activity, by definition, not by religious or social connotation, requires the act of insertion of the male member into the female for human beings. He stated he did not have sexual relations, not that he did not have lustful relations.
I dont know bout you...but in my neighborhood if you insert yo thang in a womans mouth, ear, nose....etc.......well dem be SEXUAL RELATIONS
Posted by rimasco on :
For you to let him slide on such a gross technicality shows your allegiance to the DNC Oberman, Franken, parrot, propaganda, facist, neo con game etc etc etc
Posted by rimasco on :
You defending his sorry ass excuse proves that you are easily manipulated by the peers of your choosing...
At least we call Dubya out on his nonsense...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: He didn't lie, Rim, though you and your absolute republican bias do call it that.
Sexual activity, by definition, not by religious or social connotation, requires the act of insertion of the male member into the female for human beings. He stated he did not have sexual relations, not that he did not have lustful relations.
Moreover, it is not a criminal offense to lie on TV or in public. Were that the case, where would we have the entire republican party now. (And don't give me that republican line of BS that the democrts do it too......the democrats didn't ignore facts and lie to bring about the Iraq invasion (except maybe Lieberman, who is a republican in sheeps clothing. And they did not vote to invade Iraq. That is a pure lie. They voted to give the president power to use force olny after exausting all other means....he and his republiucan party did not do as the vote required.)
that still brings us back to you saying i lied which is not true...
this whole {re}definition of sex is what opened the door for Bush and Rove to recruit the whole conservative Church into their corner...
these decent folks were appalled to hear your definition of sex, and know it's just a lie... Clinton had sex with an intern.. that's a violation of his office.. period. no debate..
and he admits in his memoirs.
this legal "manueuvering" with the use of words is also the same BS the Bushies are doing to abuse their power, which brings me back to Hillary being Bush light...
thanx for making MY point budgee, i knew you could do it if you tried...
Posted by rimasco on :
Glass is right, Clintons webster dictionary version of "sexual relations" was a slap in the face. For you to parrot his excuse is a joke
LOL....Here is the Urban Dictionary version look at the foot note
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)