BREAKING NEWS: Iran backs down..

[2ndAmendment]

Make that, I HATE to be lied to.

And you believe the likes of Nancy, Ted, Hillery, and Diane? You need help.

 

[PsyOps]

More than possible, I would say it's likely. And it could have been dealt with without costing over 3200 American lives.

But then only AFTER we dealt with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

I don't like to be lied to.

How in the world do you combat an enemy that is as mobile as al Qaeda when you know their's a big possibility they may flee to and use another country to regroup? We already knew Zarqawi was in Iraq, isn't that enough for you (in conjuction with all the other facts behind Saddam) to take him out? Containment would have become impossible since we were only doing it from the air. There was no real border control preventing al Qaeda from infiltrating into the country. Fighting a war on multiple fronts is not a new concept you know. Going into Iraq solved a load if different problems to include centralizing al Qaeda in Iraq. IOW, they're not here setting bombs off in our streets.

 

[Idiot]

And you believe the likes of Nancy, Ted, Hillery, and Diane? You need help.

I don't believe anyone, least of all the media. I try to check as many sources as I can and then come to my own conclusions.

 

[PsyOps]

You mean like... Clinton thought he had WMDs too!


You probably never heard that one have ya?

I don't use that as a source of denial. Either the facts were wrong when Clinton AND Bush said it or it was right when they BOTH said it. You can't say Clinton told the truth about the same thing that Bush lied about. The Pelosi thing was wrong. It was wrong when Republicans did it too. The difference is, Pelosi went over to negotiate a peace process, then lied about what Israel said. There is a law on the books (I'm trying to find it) that prohibits a US elected official from going to a foreign country to negotiate a peace process. This is the responsibility of the State Dept. and the President. Last I checked Ms. Pelosi is not Queen nor President. MSNBC raised the question about possible charges against her. So now we face the prospect of the leader of our most ethical Congress in history of criminal activity.

 

[Idiot]

How in the world do you combat an enemy that is as mobile as al Qaeda when you know their's a big possibility they may flee to and use another country to regroup? We already knew Zarqawi was in Iraq, isn't that enough for you (in conjuction with all the other facts behind Saddam) to take him out? Containment would have become impossible since we were only doing it from the air. There was no real border control preventing al Qaeda from infiltrating into the country. Fighting a war on multiple fronts is not a new concept you know. Going into Iraq solved a load if different problems to include centralizing al Qaeda in Iraq. IOW, they're not here setting bombs off in our streets.

It's exactly because of the nature of the enemy that I think the first thing you have to do is from a defensive standpoint. Secure our borders and sea ports. They tightened up on the airlines but I think there's more they could do there.

In conjuction with that we should be conducting a much larger covert operation to find and infiltrate thise cells and training facilities and then bring in whatever force is needed, troops, airpower, whatever, quickly. We should be doing more to work with our allies, the ones we used to have, in this effort. And yes, it's going to take a long time.

We could start with implementing a few of the 40 some recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

 

[Idiot]

MSNBC raised the question about possible charges against her. So now we face the prospect of the leader of our most ethical Congress in history of criminal activity.

Well they'll have a lot of them to prosecute then. By my count there have been at least a dozen congressmen go there since last Dec and at least 5 of them were republicans.

Most people don't even know that there was a republican congressman who joined Pelosi on her trip and was in the meeting with Assad.

That 'liberal" press again, they keep getting confused about who they're supposed to be helping. I guess the "D" and the "R" look too similar, it throws them off.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I don't use that as a source of denial. Either the facts were wrong when Clinton AND Bush said it or it was right when they BOTH said it. You can't say Clinton told the truth about the same thing that Bush lied about. The Pelosi thing was wrong. It was wrong when Republicans did it too. The difference is, Pelosi went over to negotiate a peace process, then lied about what Israel said. There is a law on the books (I'm trying to find it) that prohibits a US elected official from going to a foreign country to negotiate a peace process. This is the responsibility of the State Dept. and the President. Last I checked Ms. Pelosi is not Queen nor President. MSNBC raised the question about possible charges against her. So now we face the prospect of the leader of our most ethical Congress in history of criminal activity.

Do you have a link to the video? I've watched MSNBC all day and have heard nothing about this

 

[forestal]

Oh, but hey, looks like the Bush Administration has some ties with Saddam!

<img src="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg">

This is for all of you who suddenly love the Washington Post.

 

[forestal]

Well Gee!, I hope the UN wasn't listening to Colin Powel when they wrote this, because Colin was relying on intel that both the CIA and DIA discounted, but Feith and his Cabal Intel in the Pentagon said was gold!

Well, yes and no. It was also over Saddam's ties to terrorist organizations. Read UNR 1441 and the IWR.

 

[PsyOps]

Do you have a link to the video? I've watched MSNBC all day and have heard nothing about this

I don't have a video. I was watching it live. But it's called the Logan Act and it states as follows:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I was off with the wording in terms of defining an elected official. It deals with ANY citizen of the US, without authorization. I am not able to find who makes this authorization, but I would imagine it comes from the State Dept. or the WH.

 

[PsyOps]

Well Gee!, I hope the UN wasn't listening to Colin Powel when they wrote this, because Colin was relying on intel that both the CIA and DIA discounted, but Feith and his Cabal Intel in the Pentagon said was gold!

Yes Mr. Powell was relying on the same intel that Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Clinton, Daschle, Albright, Murtha, Byrd, Berger, yadda, yadda... were relying on. The fact that you want to make Bush the liar while pretending every democrat that said the same thing was being truthful shows your political hypocrisy. It was either a lie or it wasn’t.

 

[PsyOps]

Well they'll have a lot of them to prosecute then. By my count there have been at least a dozen congressmen go there since last Dec and at least 5 of them were republicans.

Most people don't even know that there was a republican congressman who joined Pelosi on her trip and was in the meeting with Assad.

That 'liberal" press again, they keep getting confused about who they're supposed to be helping. I guess the "D" and the "R" look too similar, it throws them off.

But did those Congressmen try to broker peace not just without approval, but at the explicit demand from the Bush admin for them not to go? And it makes no difference to me who went with her. If they were in violation of our laws then they ALL should be prosecuted. You're making this out to be a R v. D issue when I'm making it a legal one. You know, sometimes these discussions are beyond the political crap and just down to the brass tacks of the facts.

 

[Idiot]

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Great! We can get rid EVERY congressman and a bunch of obnoxious celebrities at the same time with that one.

Of course all GWB has to do is say he authorized it for his buddies. Too bad Pitts and Wolfe just twisted themselves into a pretzel saying that they didn't coordinate their trip with the WH.

I wouldn't be too worried though. If I was Pelosi I would say...

Bring it on!

 

[Idiot]

You're making this out to be a R v. D issue when I'm making it a legal one. You know, sometimes these discussions are beyond the political crap and just down to the brass tacks of the facts.

HA!

Since when?

Not in this country. Not in this environment anyway. Sadly, not since 9/11.

 

[PsyOps]

HA!

Since when?

Not in this country. Not in this environment anyway. Sadly, not since 9/11.

I see your point there, but I was strictly talking about this discussion not the entire country...

 

[PsyOps]

Great! We can get rid EVERY congressman and a bunch of obnoxious celebrities at the same time with that one.

Of course all GWB has to do is say he authorized it for his buddies. Too bad Pitts and Wolfe just twisted themselves into a pretzel saying that they didn't coordinate their trip with the WH.

I wouldn't be too worried though. If I was Pelosi I would say...

Bring it on!

I don't think I remember any celebrity types going to Israel, having a peace chit-chat then going to another country, having a peace chit-chat then claiming they brokered peace. Well, maybe except Jesse Jackson.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated that the activities of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua that year and had returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States, may have violated the Logan Act; but Jackson was never indicted.

 

[Idiot]

I don't think I remember any celebrity types going to Israel, having a peace chit-chat then going to another country, having a peace chit-chat then claiming they brokered peace. [/URL]

That law didn't say anything about Israel or a peace chit-chat. It said:

"ANY correspondence... with ANY foreign government... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of ANY foreign government... in relation to ANY disputes OR controversies with the United States."

That's a broad brush.

Btw, the Logan act passed in 1799. So, regardless of Reagan threatening Jesse Jackson, it's been about 200 years since anyone was actually prosecuted in violation of it.

Sounds like somebody's blowing smoke.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I don't have a video. I was watching it live. But it's called the Logan Act and it states as follows:



I was off with the wording in terms of defining an elected official. It deals with ANY citizen of the US, without authorization. I am not able to find who makes this authorization, but I would imagine it comes from the State Dept. or the WH.

You were watching MSNBC? Why? How could you do such a thing? Mr. Cheney's gonna be really mad at you when I tell them this.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Forest,
What involvement did Ms. Pelosi have in the release of the British sailors? I'm waiting for you to tell me this.

 

[Idiot]

It's no wonder that Bush has been in such a bad mood lately, even Tony Blair won't let him have any fun.

Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace


Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger, Michael Howard and John Hooper
Saturday April 7, 2007
The Guardian

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

Maybe while he's down in Crawford clearing brush he can find some small animals to kill.