With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does not
abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves. They
thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by the
Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Larry Blanchard wrote:

With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.

These are some of the Republican family values that I read about.
j4

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and publicly
repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're fighting.

I agree.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.

Yep.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

Give it some more time. I'm reading one right now, as a matter of fact.

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

You're speaking in future tense. It's already happened, but hopefully it's
being dealt with.

In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does not
abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves. They
thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by the
Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.

I disagree Leon. Lowering our own standards will not further our cause.

To parallel past woodworking conversations, consider Delta's woes. To
compete with lesser quality imports they apparently lowered their own
quality standards in order to compete against this perceived (import)
threat and in the process still lost market since a segment of the
consumers valued quality over price.

The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com
http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html

"Leon" wrote in
:

In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does
not abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them
selves. They thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but
not abide by the Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.

Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
moral standing as the enemy.

Most of us would prefer to be able to say "we're better than
them" rather than "it's OK for me because they did it first".

John

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does
not
abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them selves.
They
thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but not abide by
the
Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.

I disagree Leon. Lowering our own standards will not further our cause.

It's great that we can disagree. I wish we could have higher standards but
this is a different kind of enemy. They go after civilians. War is war and
you simply do not want to be on the loosing end. If the enemy understood
diplomacy we would not be at war.

To parallel past woodworking conversations, consider Delta's woes. To
compete with lesser quality imports they apparently lowered their own
quality standards in order to compete against this perceived (import)
threat and in the process still lost market since a segment of the
consumers valued quality over price.

I think the problem here is that way too many in the U.S. feel that they
have a right to things that perhaps do not have a right to have. Delta, and
I am sure the labor union that its workers belong to are both to blame.
Call me a bit cold hearted but the workers manufacturing the Unisaw and
other products here in the US are over paid plain and simple. Delta could
probably compete with a great product if it was not strangled with
overpaying its workers. While the workers probably have been loyal and know
their craft well, Delta has deminishing returns on its investment of
employees. Simply put, Delta could compete and build a better product, if
it could pay the employees what they are "really" worth. Lets get real
here. These tools are way behind the technology curve when it comes to
needing "know how" to manufacture them. The simple solution here is to
simply pay the workers what they are really worth so that Delta can compete
or Tax the hell out of the imports like the import automobiles are taxed.

The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.

Again I totally agree, but I would rather win the war that has been declared
against us rather than loose because we were the only ones following the
rules.

"John McCoy" wrote in message
0...
"Leon" wrote in
:

Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
moral standing as the enemy.

I agree. But we were the ones that were attacked. That changes everything
when it comes to war. We really do not want to loose the war. I personally
would rather not have Bin Laudens dream come true. Remember the old saying,
all is fair in love and war.

It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:

With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?


Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and publicly
repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're fighting.


I agree.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.


Yep.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

just to add; when YOU get elected, you can do things YOUR
way, Dougie.

dave

Bay Area Dave wrote:

It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to
decide what's right. Since he was elected, let him do the job as he
sees fit.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm guilty
too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos surfacing that
say the president can authorize torture?



Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and
publicly repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're fighting.



I agree.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because the
Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for our
troops as well.


Yep.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Leon" wrote in
m:

Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
moral standing as the enemy.

I agree. But we were the ones that were attacked. That changes
everything when it comes to war.

Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
.. .
It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.

I am going to stand squarely beside you on this one Dave. Imagine how
much could be accomplished by our government if it was not always at war
with itself. Republicans against the Democrats. Democrats against
Republicans. To hell with what is right or good for the people as long as
one party wins over the other party. I blows me away that both parties
think that we cannot see this all this crap for what it really is, school
yard bickering. If the government had to make a profit all this BS would
come to a screeching halt. We have lost a great leader and my deepest
respect and sympathy goes to the Ragan family. Why does it take something
like this for the two parties to work cooperatively together?

But back to the point your were making, if we the people would give the
president, "any of our presidents" respect and work with him and not fight
him tooth and nail all the way because he is not a member of the correct
party, things would be a lot better. If he screws up, we replace him like
we did with Carter and how we would have done with Nixon had he pulled that
crap in his first term and had he not decided to resign. I think we as
Americans have learned to bitch too much and not do anything to help solve
the problems.

"Scott Cramer" wrote in message
s.com...
"Leon" wrote in
m:

Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
I guess I look at all things in general and come up with the obvious.

I view the Geneva convention like I view most gun laws. Criminals
don't care whats illegal so they the laws don't affect them. It's those
who abide by the laws that are affected.
Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
followed it. Certainly not Iraq in 91 or more recently ( though you rarely
ever here about this). So once again it is only the U.S. and a few of our
allies who care enough about it to follow it or enforce it if it isn't.


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:07:16 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.

No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution ?
There are limits, even for a president.

I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
bit.

Remember what happened on October 23, 1983? Ronald Reagan was the
President. They bombed the Marines and 240 good Marines were killed. What
did we do? Reagan, realizing defeat, pulled the remaining Marines out of the
Lebanese war. This coupled with the defeat of the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan demonstrated to the Bin Ladens of the world that a super power
can be defeated by small, committed groups.

We have send the message, directly and decisively that the US will not ever
again, cower to a terrorist or a government that gives aid to terrorists.
This is what I believe drives President Bush currently.

I will tell you that I do not condone torture or brutality as a means to
extract information from a prisoner or any other captive. I do support
doing what we can to trick, bribe, scare or intimidate them into providing
us with useful information.

I have a niece in the Navy and a nephew in the Marines in the gulf and on
the ground as I type. I pray daily for their safety. My nephew told me
that the local Iraqis are very grateful to the US for getting rid of Sadam
and his government. Its only a small faction of old government cronies and
zealots that continue to make trouble and the world press zeros in on them.
After the press leaves, the crowds break-up and go back to normal
activities.

As long as we have solders there, we should support them. If in hindsight,
it is determined this effort was wrong, we need to change our government by
using the democratic methods laid down by other that also gave their lives.

Dave




"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The US needs to be the leader in human rights and conforming to
conventions and treaties - if one doesn't fit current times then take
the high road to change the agreements while still abiding by the rules
currently in place. An eye for an eye only makes the government look as
brutal and uncivilized as the perpetrators.


Rather like taking a saber to a modern day fire fight and saying they
don't fight fair isn't it? If you go to a street fight, best not to
expect Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Bill in New Mexico

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:16:27 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this because
the Geneva convention and other treaties provide protection for
our troops as well.


I've not seen the memos. Do they explore theoretical possibilities in
a general way, or are they presented in the form of a legal brief,
with appropriate citations and precedents?

Do they advocate a course of action, or do they describe the limits of
allowable actions?

Do the memos address the concerns of dealing with legally defined
combatants, or are they broader and take into consideration those who
may be thought of as illegal combatants?






Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution ?
There are limits, even for a president.

Despite all you read/hear, don't suppose for a second that both the
legistlative and judicial branches will NOT see to that, particularly
considering the current political climate.

I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
bit.

We think so also ... and many thanks to you POME's.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04

"Leon" wrote in message

"Scott Cramer" wrote in message

Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
I guess I look at all things in general and come up with the obvious.

You can't win here, Leon ... but you can at the polls, where it counts. Just
make damn sure you do.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/15/04

"Scott Cramer" wrote in message
s.com...
"Leon" wrote in
m:

Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
moral standing as the enemy.

I agree. But we were the ones that were attacked. That changes
everything when it comes to war.

Really? We were attacked by Iraq? When? Must not have made the
evening news that day. I know, they coulda- mighta- maybe- well it's
possible they were thinking about making weapons of mass destruction 'n
such, but we invaded them. They never attacked us.

You might ask the pilots who patrolled the no-fly zones while dodging SAMs
if they were ever attacked. Is repeatedly firing missiles at our aircraft
an act or war?

todd

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

You can't win here, Leon ... but you can at the polls, where it counts.
Just
make damn sure you do.



I know... In Know...

I agree with your entire statement. There are too many
folks eager to armchair quarterback every presidential move.

What galls me the most though, is the lack of unity we
display to the rest of the world. Some of the politicians
act more like traitors than public servants, IMHO. I get
disgusted with the likes of Kennedy. He should stick to
something he does best; drinking.

dave

Leon wrote:

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
.. .

It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.


I am going to stand squarely beside you on this one Dave. Imagine how
much could be accomplished by our government if it was not always at war
with itself. Republicans against the Democrats. Democrats against
Republicans. To hell with what is right or good for the people as long as
one party wins over the other party. I blows me away that both parties
think that we cannot see this all this crap for what it really is, school
yard bickering. If the government had to make a profit all this BS would
come to a screeching halt. We have lost a great leader and my deepest
respect and sympathy goes to the Ragan family. Why does it take something
like this for the two parties to work cooperatively together?

But back to the point your were making, if we the people would give the
president, "any of our presidents" respect and work with him and not fight
him tooth and nail all the way because he is not a member of the correct
party, things would be a lot better. If he screws up, we replace him like
we did with Carter and how we would have done with Nixon had he pulled that
crap in his first term and had he not decided to resign. I think we as
Americans have learned to bitch too much and not do anything to help solve
the problems.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes, I'm
guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the memos
surfacing that say the president can authorize torture?

Why dont you go to an APPROPRIATE Newsgroup and ask
R

Bay Area Dave wrote:

It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let him
do the job as he sees fit.

There's too much wiggle room in that statement - at least for my
comfort. It doesn't bother me that he has considerable latitude
in the performance of his job; but an important part of that job
is to preserve and protect the Constitution.

I feel obliged to respect the office; but do not feel obliged to
respect the office holder if I become convinced that he does that
job badly - if he participates in or acquiesces to activities or
conduct unworthy of respect.

Too, the President serves at the will of the majority of the
population. In my mind he is accountable to the American people
and can not honestly hold the office and simultaneously flout the
will of the people or deviate from either the letter or the
spirit of the Constitution.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

With this groups propensity for off-topic rantings (yes,
I'm guilty too), how come I've seen no comments about the
memos surfacing that say the president can authorize
torture?

Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would
promptly and publicly repudiate those memos and dismiss the
people that wrote them.

I'm glad you're appalled - but I'm afraid that even if your
wishes were fulfilled, nothing would change significantly.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

My feeling is that we're in danger of becoming what we're
fighting.

I agree.

I think Larry's comment is insightful; and I think this is always
a danger. Somehow it seems that when people focus their attention
on others (either as individuals or as a group) they tend to
become more like those others. All too often the opressed turn
right around and conduct themselves as did their former opresors.

Note that our military, in general, is opposed to this
because the Geneva convention and other treaties provide
protection for our troops as well.

Perhaps or perhaps not - I lean toward the "not" side because I
think that other issues can too easily lead to GC violations -
and I don't think that these treaties provide much protection for
our troops at all (even though I really like the idea that they
/might/).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article ,
Leon wrote:
...
So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
^^^^^^^^^^^ did you really mean to say this? :-)
...

From Merriam-Webster: 2 : an appointment of time and place for a
meeting; especially : TRYST returned from an assignation with his
mistress -- W. B. Yeats
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:07:16 GMT, Bay Area Dave
wrote:

Since he was elected, let him do the job as he sees fit.

No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution
? There are limits, even for a president.

I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and
balances" of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's
political system to that of the USA, but your founding fathers
did a damn good job on this bit.

They didn't do badly at all, did they? But, Andy, let's not
forget the heritage(s) from which they drew many of their best
ideas...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In this case, you have to fight fire with fire if the other side does
not abide by the rules. The enemy brought all this on upon them
selves. They thought they could hide behind the Geneva convention but
not abide by the Geneva convention. Can't have you cake and eat it.

Looking at it the other way, tho, it's kind of hard to take the
moral high ground and declare the other side to be evil and
odious, when our leadership appears to be just as lacking in
moral standing as the enemy.

Most of us would prefer to be able to say "we're better than
them" rather than "it's OK for me because they did it first".

John

Yeah, that's kinda like what the Redcoats said when those damn colonists
refused to wear bright clothes and walk slowly toward them all grouped
together. They were certainly able to say that they fought a "civilized" war
while those ignorant, nasty rebel colonists hid behind trees. You see where
fighting in a civlilized way got the British don't you?

Dave Hall

"Henry E Schaffer" wrote in message
...

From Merriam-Webster: 2 : an appointment of time and place for a
meeting; especially : TRYST returned from an assignation with his
mistress -- W. B. Yeats
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu


I spose my spell checker made the best of the way I spelled "end his life".
;~)

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
. ..
I agree with your entire statement. There are too many
folks eager to armchair quarterback every presidential move.

What galls me the most though, is the lack of unity we
display to the rest of the world. Some of the politicians
act more like traitors than public servants, IMHO. I get
disgusted with the likes of Kennedy. He should stick to
something he does best; drinking.



Yeah.... While the jokes about our politicians are funny, and I like Leno
as much as the next guy, this, "free speech" does not send the right
message. Who of any intelligence would want the job with all the ridicule.
If we treat them with respect we might get some talent in there.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

There's too much wiggle room in that statement - at least for my
comfort. It doesn't bother me that he has considerable latitude
in the performance of his job; but an important part of that job
is to preserve and protect the Constitution.

Totally agree.

Fortunately, if Bush was not doing this the Democrats would be the first to
start the impeachment proceedings like the Republicans did with Clinton.
;~)

Too, the President serves at the will of the majority of the
population. In my mind he is accountable to the American people
and can not honestly hold the office and simultaneously flout the
will of the people or deviate from either the letter or the
spirit of the Constitution.

No, the president serves at the will of the majority of the Electors of which
there are what, 535? Even there it is only every 4 years. Once elected he
serves at the will of a very small minority of either the House or Senate (that
number being the minimum number of those who could block an impeachment in the
House or a conviction in the Senate). The Constitution does not even talk about
a presidential election and allows the states to select their electors any way
that they want. A popular vote for president is not required at all (by the
Constitution) if a state decides to select its electors in some other manner.
The President is not meant to represent the people, he (or she) is meant to
represent the states and the states are NOT meant to be represented in direct
proportion to their respective populations. They are clearly NOT supposed to
blindly follow the "will" of the people - they are supposed to lead and are
thus insulated from short term shifts in public opinion (one of the big
shortcomings of a parlimentary form of government IMHO). The Great Compromise
was truly great but is truly not understood in todays world.

Dave Hall

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:34:19 +0000, David Hall wrote:

The Great
Compromise was truly great but is truly not understood in todays world.

And that's what Hillary finally figured out after spouting off about
getting rid of the Electoral College. She's part of the Senate which has
equal State representation, not equal population representation.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

In article ,
says...
It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.

We elected a president, Dave, not a dictator. Are you saying he
has the right to ignore treaties (and, some would say, the
constitution)?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.

We elected a president, Dave, not a dictator. Are you saying he
has the right to ignore treaties (and, some would say, the
constitution)?

Some might say ignoring the constitution,,,, but the Democrats would be all
over that if that were true.

In article ,
says...
Same way with the Geneva Convention. None of our advesaries have ever
followed it.

Actually, the Germans stuck to it pretty well in WWII, as did
we. Neither side was perfect, but I personally talked to German
POWs and to US GIs who'd been prisoners.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

hmm...my newsreader doesn't have Larry's post in this thread
that you have quoted, Leon.

to Larry: The president is elected for four years under the
premise that if we do OUR job to elect the best person for
that top job, he will carry out his oath of office, which to
my recollection, mentions nothing of taking the pulse of the
man on the street, before acting in accordance with his best
judgment and those advisors that he has hand picked to make
his tenure in office as successful as possible. To act only
to appease the public would create havoc. The public is
swayed by the liberal media and really has no business
trying to run the country by demonstrating in the streets or
calling in to talk shows, or writing their petty complaints
to their local newspaper. The voters can make an adjustment
at the next election.

dave

Leon wrote:

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

It's not the president's job to poll every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, to decide what's right. Since he was elected, let
him do the job as he sees fit.


We elected a president, Dave, not a dictator. Are you saying he
has the right to ignore treaties (and, some would say, the
constitution)?


Some might say ignoring the constitution,,,, but the Democrats would be all
over that if that were true.

In article ,
says...
I've not seen the memos. Do they explore theoretical possibilities in
a general way, or are they presented in the form of a legal brief,
with appropriate citations and precedents?


Tom if you go to:

http://online.wsj.com/public/us

they have text of at least part of the memos available as a PDF
file.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"Leon" wrote:

So uh,,, you believe that Iraq was totally inocent, had nothing to do
with, did not help in any way, those that attacked us. The attempted
assignation on Bush Sr. does not count?
I guess I look at all things in general and come up with the obvious.

Yes, I believe there is no proof that Iraq provided any aid at all to
the 9/11 attackers. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

The attempt on Bush Sr was 1993. We already bombed the Iraqis in
retaliation for that. See
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/con...30fr_archive02. Seems a
bit like ancient history, doesn't it?