posted
First, the Supreme Court that decided the election was NOT impartial,
Second, the Constitution requires the actual counting of the vote and the reporting of that count. Thus, the 2000 election was NOT Constitutional.
(In other words, it was a non-democtic election and we are no longer a democracy.)
Third, it is false that 'THE New York Times, Washington Post and CNN verified the results in Florida". They determined that if the vote was that reported by the republican party and it's quite partial agents, then Bush won.
They did NOT decide or declare that Bush actually won, only that if the count was as they had been told, then he would have won. The actual tally was quite different from what they were provided as can be found proved by the work of the London Times.
Fourth, the loaded question, "I would like to point out none of this adequately explains why Democratic leaders do not work to prevent genocide." fosters another dispicable and insulting lie.
Why must these sorts of insults and lies be couched as if they were intended to be innocent queries, as if the poster did not know better use of the English language, when the fact is they clearly are intended to be assertions of guilt and brandings of evil doings and intent?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and Griffo? the vote was certified in Congress as per rule of law, the two recounts occured as per the rule of law, a 6 month review conducted by New York Times, Washington Post and CNN verified the results in Florida, that's a myth...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"fosters another dispicable and insulting lie."
Except they aren't lies, bdgee. I left the Democratic party over this.
"insults and lies be couched as if they were intended to be innocent queries,"
As a former Democrat, I make no pretense that this is not painful. But as a centrist, I know he truth is cathartic. They were guilty when I was a Democrat bdgee. No lies, I have presented where they came from. One mistake I made was that Warren Christopher was Secratary of State, not UN spokesperson who was Madelyn Albright as the below articles from the NSA at George Washington University point out:
I mean come on, bdgee, how will we ever learn from our past if we do not acknowledge our sins in that past? How do we learn from our errors, if not evil doings, if we refuse to acknowledge they exist.
During Clinton's watch, 2,000,000 Africans died in genocide and ethnic cleansing alone (Rwanda and Sudan). That doesn't excuse Reagan allowing Saddam to gas the Kurds and Iranians, or for that matter arming Saddam along with Germany, France and Russia.
But here is my point, I hear alot of complaints about one side of the aisle, and I offer a balance to that. All this is well-explained in my other threads Bdgee, let's not continue to rehearse it here. Truth and documentation are clearly on my side regarding Clinton and your documentation, or actually Glassman's documentation, about Reagan and Bush I are true as well. To me that is balance.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have checke my facts. You have hunted carefully to avoid facts and quote propaganda.
All that is important now is getting this bunch of crooks out of power. Attempting to sidetrack it to anything else for whatever excuse is like telling an eighth month pregnant single teenager with no home to solve her problem by using safe sex.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have checke my facts. You have hunted carefully to avoid facts and quote propaganda."
Let's see, I used Glass' source: National Security Archives from George Washington University. Beyond that any search of Rwanda and Clinton will give you the same evidence I posted here. Public Broadcasting Service is propaganda? Frontline is propaganda. I suspect you have done no research or you would find the entire world community has documented this one bdgee. I left the Democrats because of this, I have researched it thoroughly and across political spectrums.
"All that is important now is getting this bunch of crooks out of power."
That may be, but again that is not the topic we are discussing here. There are lots of threads about the Republican crooks. Our friend GB has started one very similar to this one, you are welcome to share your thoughts on the Republicans over there if the balance I offer is offensive. Amazon.com explained that all very well in their survey. People get angry when confronted with a different view of the truth. Since mine is supported aggressively by historical facts, you may want to express your angst about the present administration in a place where facts are presented in a way more to your liking. That's okay, bdgee, no harm no foul.
The reason this remains germain is that Clinton's inactivity in Africa continues to have ripple effects today.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is importAnt concern with a dictatotial regime being in control of our government and you want to deflect that serious concern with hateful attacks on Clinton.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN ACCUSING CLINTON OF WHAT BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING AND WHAT IS BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT, OTHER THAN TO ATTEMPT TO SANCTION THE EVIL COMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't find any contradicting evidence did you bdgee. There is none. Yes, I see bdgee, when you don't like the truth, you deflect. You use an old tactic: avoidance. Caught with the facts, you change the subject. Plenty of other threads for that bdgee, this one is for balance.
"There is importAnt concern with a dictatotial regime being in control of our government and you want to deflect that serious concern with hateful attacks on Clinton."
Since there is no dictatorial regime I need offer no deflection though you lie, and it's sad to see an educator lie. But this thread is not about President Bush, it is about how Clinton's running away from Somalia ahd repurcussions in Rwanda and Sudan. That comes straight from so many sources with absolutely no contravention whatsoever. There are plenty of other threads to say whatever you want about Republicans, as an apolitical person, I feel balance is necessary so I tell the truth and post topics to balance the boards. Why does that vex you so?
"GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN ACCUSING CLINTON OF WHAT BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING"
Since the topic is Rwanda and Sudan, what is Bush responsible for? Nothing. But the War Crimes tribunal that tried the Rwandan genocidal regime, the UN documentation and the State Department documentation tell us Bill Clinton was blocking action in Rwanda after running from Somalia.
Bill Clinton admits it is the biggest mistake of his administration, 10 yers after the fact, but he admits it. The Rwandans credit Clinton directly for encouraging them to kill a few Belgian troops so the UN troops would leave. Gen Dalliere does likewise. The journalists of the day do the same. All documentation says the action in Somalia, the inaction in Rwanda have led to genocide in Sudan which continues to this day. How many people of color must die before it is genocide to you bdgee? 1.2 million die before Clinton leaves office, with a mess Bush has to clean up.
"THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN ACCUSING CLINTON OF WHAT BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING"
Again Bush was not involved in federal government in 1994 so he has no responsibility for the genocide. He does however have responsibility for not having an exit plan in Iraq. That, while again not part of this thread's discussion, is not evil, it is wrong. Evil connotes malicious intent, wrong constitutes a mistake.
"OTHER THAN TO ATTEMPT TO SANCTION THE EVIL COMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION."
Again not a topic of this thread unless you are talking about the Clinton administration. So I will follow the thread's parameters. I would not suggest Clinton's administration is/was evil. I am merely saying for the sake of historical accuracy that Clinton's inaction allowed genocide to flourish in Africa. That was rather evil activity in Africa by Africans. Regarding the Clinton administration whether you consider blocking UN efforts to place more peace-keepers, making statements through the Secretary of State that we would not interfere at the UN as evil actions is up to you. I think "reprehensible" is a more apt word.
But as I said in earlier posts:
"If you believe in obeying the treaties we sign, we were compelled in Iraq in 1988 and before if you follow other treaties, Rwanda in 1994, and Sudan by 1995. That is if you believe we are bound by treaty. Now if you believe we can ignore our treaties, then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty. What you are trying to apply is a logical inconsistency that sounds an awful lot like political opportunism. My point is the US is engaged in entangling alliances that make us responsible for ending genocidal regimes within the broader world community and we are also bound to demand an end to the illegal practices at GITMO. There is a consistency to that.
Yet Warren Christopher was perfectly willing to let Rwandans die as the representative of his administration. I affirmed that most were not overtly racist but their policies in combatting racism were hamstringed by the Clinton Administration's willingness to let Africans die, again people of color, as long as Americans don't have to."
As you can plainly see, I seek parity in the treatment of presidents and I point out in these threads, though not exactly in this quote, that the president is wrong on GITMO, and I should add the other illegal holding stations around the world, and should end those illegalities immediately or face war crimes hearings. Now tell me, is that sanctioning evil? Is that supporting Bush? If you think so bdgee, then it's because you are not reading objectively.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Lost the topic of the thread hey Gordon? Why did Bill Clinton allow genocide to happen, by his own admission?
already "splained"....
war in other places..and this terrible thing involving a blackhawk helo...
you guys act like the prez is SUPPOSED to tell the country what to do... the leader is supposed to have a two way relationship with his/or her constituency... you are fascists to the bone... the prez is not the spirit guide to the nation... the prez is still a public servant...
Bush has no idea what that means... unless of course it means that, you, as a public servant, work for him....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you guys act like the prez is SUPPOSED to tell the country what to do... the leader is supposed to have a two way relationship with his/or her constituency... you are fascists to the bone... the prez is not the spirit guide to the nation... the prez is still a public servant..."
Well sure if governing is done strictly according to focus groups and public opinion polls, you are correct.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: "you guys act like the prez is SUPPOSED to tell the country what to do... the leader is supposed to have a two way relationship with his/or her constituency... you are fascists to the bone... the prez is not the spirit guide to the nation... the prez is still a public servant..."
Well sure if governing is done strictly according to focus groups and public opinion polls, you are correct.
you've been roved....
this is fascism....
Hitler did have hundreds of thousands of followers just like you...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pity is, they so took to the conditioning, they can't understand they can't think afterward.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Gordon, sure looks like those reservist and Guard troups in Iraq are close to being like Germany in WWII.
A western front with Syria.
Eastern front with Iran.
And the damned resistance fighters in Iraq playing the part of the French resistance in the "occupied land" of Iraq between.
There are even lots of unfriendlies that wouldn't hesitate to play the part of Japan.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
war in other places..and this terrible thing involving a blackhawk helo..."
No explanation. You are a Democrat through and through Glass. So much so, you can't see me for what I am. What I find amazing is this is the first time I have seen liberals, people from my former party, Glass included, denying the importance of history, to bolster their case, because at every turn they lose on the facts. Apoliticals like me, learn from history, facts change our paradigms, and we progressively teach others a better way.
You mentioned the Blackhawk, Clinton's moral cowardice in pulling the troops out as the world credits that as the cause of an encouraged Rwandan group executing genocide and Sudanese leaders intensifying their campaign of ethnic cleansing of Christians. Yes, Clinton effectively spit on the graves of 18 soldiers, tucked tail and encouraged genocide. But given bdgee's racial slur it's obvious there are people on the left that do not value people of color in the same way they value paler types.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mentioned the Blackhawk, Clinton's moral cowardice in pulling the troops out as the world credits that as the cause of an encouraged Rwandan group executing genocide and Sudanese leaders intensifying their campaign of ethnic cleansing of Christians. Yes, Clinton effectively spit on the graves of 18 soldiers, tucked tail and encouraged genocide. But given bdgee's racial slur it's obvious there are people on the left that do not value people of color in the same way they value paler types.
and you are a man with trigger finger or NOT?
i think not... i think you are one of roves pets....
show me who in the white house served with honor...
my point is that Clinton couldn't have done it... and Bush has only invaded Iraq by misrepresenting facts, and you are incorrect to claim you have a plan to bring anybody to the political table.. in fact? all i see is you trying to divide the country more... which is what rove has done so well...
even with the Monica thing? Clinton had more support than Bush does...
and i didn't/don't like Clinton, i'm just examining the facts without prejudice...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was by division that dubya won in the first place.
No, I'm not talking about the 2000 election, but the governors race in Texas.
He (under guidance from Rove) planted well financed slander against the two leading democratic candidates during the primary election, but making it look like the other was paying for the campaign of slander, forcing them to attack one-another visciously, thereby smearing each so badly they had little hope in a following election.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and i didn't/don't like Clinton, i'm just examining the facts without prejudice..."
No you're not. You're examining the facts like a Democratic party-liner. Even Bill Clinton admitted HE DID WRONG. You can't even admit what the primary person did admit. You can't admit it because deep down, you admire him.
"my point is that Clinton couldn't have done it..."
read the NSA file Glass. Nuff said there. He could have, he chose not to expend political capital. He traded hundreds of thousands of lives for votes. It led to the deaths of 2 million Africans while he was in office and continues to do so because of this administration's distraction.
"you are incorrect to claim you have a plan to bring anybody to the political table.. in fact? all i see is you trying to divide the country more..."
No, I have presented a plan, it works, you just don't like the plan because an apolitical person presented it.
Look Glass, since even Clinton admitted I am right about this Rwanda genocide, let's agree as we did on Carter. Clinton could have acted to prevent Rwanda in Somalia first and then in Rwanda which later spread to Sudan. That is what history records, the very NSA records you have gone to in the past. Do you need to now invalidate what you said earlier in order to justify your allegiance to Clinton?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
the one where Bush lost the popular vote: quotes: BUSH: I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, if we're going to scare you in the voting booth. Under my plan the man gets immediate help with prescription drugs. It's called Immediate Helping Hand. Instead of squabbling and finger pointing, he gets immediate help. Let me say something.
----------------------------- MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, if President Milosevic of Yugoslavia refuses to leave office, what action, if any, should the United States take to get him out of there?
BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.
MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?
BUSH: No.
MODERATOR: Why not?
BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem.
i don't like to post this much stuff at once.. Bush was actually asked : MODERATOR: New question. We've been talking about a lot of specific issues. It's often said that in the final analysis about 90% of being the President of the United States is dealing with the unexpected, not with issues that came up in the campaign. Vice President Gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken, that illustrates your ability to handle the unexpected, the crisis under fire?
posted
It's interesting that you can't seem to stay on topic here. Clinton's genocide prevention record is the topic: something 1 intervention to 9 avoidances and two really big ones. Bush debates don't figure into that. Avoidance isn't good for the blood pressure you know.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
there's the proof that the country did not want to be involved in any more interventions..
Clinton has said it was a mistake...
but he didn't have a consensus to go do it..
you are apolitical? LOL...right
BUSH: I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL.... griffo... i voted for Bush... that time anyway...
BUSH: You know, this man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, I read in the "New York Times" where he said he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fundraising Bill. But he wasn't in the Senate with Senator Feingold. And so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. And I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue.
outspending? omygod...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just who declared that "Clinton's genocide prevention record is the topic" and who granted you the power of enforcement and appointed you as debate monitor?
Wouldn't that be akin to setting up a life long professed enemy of the United Nations as an ambassador thereto?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
MODERATOR: Should the people of the world look at the United States, Governor, and say, should they fear us, should they welcome our involvement, should they see us as a friend, everybody in the world? How would you project us around the world, as president?
BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.
this was the GOP way...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but he didn't have a consensus to go do it.."
Costs to sit in the big chair, Glass. The right thing to do was to save lives, by his own admission. In 1998 when he went to Rwanda he apologized and accepted responsibility. He wanted the office, he got the headaches that go with it. You look at the NSA files and see how he not only didn't commit US forces, the US prevented the insertion of the word genocide into UN documentation, because it would have committed us to act. That is the bottom line. He obstructed fly-overs, humanitarian assistance, anything that would draw us in: moral cowardice that killed 800,000 people.
See you all talk as though I hate Clinton. You talk like it's "Monica-gate." I could care less what he did with her, other than in the business world he would have been fired, but what I do care about is 800,000 Rwandans and 1,200,000 Sudanese that died because Bill Clinton said it wasn't popular. You know, George Bush has run an incompetant war, and very likely illegal prisons but our troops have been responsible for no where near that level of carnage. For that matter Saddy's level of murder and mayhem is exceeded by whom? Shi'a and Sunni territorial in-fighting.
This isn't about party affiliation, this is about reforming the great Democratic Party that used to be articulate, assertive and human rights based. Where did that go?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
