go doug go doug go doug <g>
Dana Doug White writes: > The whole argument reminds me of the Republican campaign rhetoric to the effect > that Clinton had trashed the military by downsizing it, and termed him a > draft-dodger, and much more. When the Bush Administration came into power, they > embraced the downsizing by referring it to having no need for "traditional" > military, but with the new enemy, technology would be more important. yaada > yaada. > > The Republicans are trashing the economic health of the military by using the > National guard, on extended call-ups, with the attending negative impact on > their family finances, In spite of taking all these brave souls away from > their jobs and families, the unemployment rate continues to climb, added to the > events where the largest corporate fraud cases involve mainly Republican > contributors, who not only are able to get justice delayed, but probably will > only get a slap on the wrist if convicted, You steal their money, their futures > and then wave those little flags at them to make up for it. > > And I love all the great support for the Patriot act, in which less that 50% of > the funding went to the Homeland Security department and the rest to Republican > Pork Barrel waste projects. > > Ahh yes, I think I will remain a Libertarian. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nick McClure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:15 PM > Subject: RE: well now > > > | You are exactly right about that having nothing to do with the President > | Bush or the Constitution. I was referring to the fact that the contract was > | extended during the Clinton administration: > | > | "Under similar contracts, the Army paid Kellogg Brown & Root $1.2 billion > | from 1992 through 1999 to support U.S. troops, mainly in the Balkans. An > | extension of that contract from 1999 through 2004 is projected to cost $1.8 > | billion." > | > | This text is from the article I posted earlier in this thread. We know > | Clinton was President from 1993-2001. The contract was extended during this > | period of time. The Gulf War made it clear the US Military needed a standing > | agreement with somebody to support logistics based on what we learned during > | the mobilization phase of that war. > | > | I saw a lot of Udall's description, and I have heard others say similar > | things before. However the point remains, most still voted for it. Those who > | did, and are now saying they were confused with the legal jargon, I have no > | sympathy for. > | > | The stuff was on the news, we all knew about it well before it was passed. > | These guys make the laws and they can't read legal jargon, come on, these > | are the guys who write legal jargon, they should read the bill before it is > | past. > | > | That is just as bad as signing a contract without reading it, only to learn > | later that you are stuck with something. Don't complain to me about it, just > | fix it. > | > | > | > -----Original Message----- > | > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:32 PM > | > To: CF-Community > | > Subject: Re: well now > | > > | > inline > | > > | > Nick McClure writes: > | > > | > > But I am not and will not be bringing up Clinton and any adultery > | > issues. I > | > > think what he did was wrong, and it was conduct unbecoming the > | > president. > | > > That being said, I don't think the question should have been asked > | > unless it > | > > was clear that what he was doing was interfering with his duties as > | > > President. > | > > | > Good. I will even go a step further. It *was* conduct unbecoming a > | > president and the question *should* have been asked. It just has nothing > | > to > | > do with the Constitution or with George Bush. > | > > | > > While personally I think it could have, I don't think there was evidence > | > > that could lead to the conclusion. Anybody saying it did is purely > | > > speculating. > | > > | > I don't know. I think it does raise significant moral issues. > | > > | > > I think saying that Bush has trashed the Constitution remains to be > | > seen. We > | > > still have to remember that it takes congress to pass laws. And many of > | > > these laws per passed in bi-partisan votes. > | > > | > See Udall's description of how the Patriot Act was passed. Remember, this > | > was a couple of weeks after 9/11 and to question the president was > | > tantamount to treason. > | > > | > > The final outcome remains to be seen. I am cautiously optimistic. > | > > | > I just hope it isnt already too late. I am glad lawmakers are waking up > | > about Patriot II. > | > > | > Dana > | > > | > > > -----Original Message----- > | > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:44 PM > | > > > To: CF-Community > | > > > Subject: Re: well now > | > > > > | > > > I think Doug is talking about the exchanges that go: > | > > > > | > > > A - Bush has trashed the Constitution > | > > > > | > > > B - Clinton committed adultery > | > > > > | > > > A - Bush has perverted the governmental process to make his friends > | > rich > | > > > > | > > > B - Clinton lied about committing adultery. > | > > > > | > > > ... Anyway. I am pointing the finger at the Bush administration > | > because I > | > > > think it is doing great wrong. I would criticize Gore if he had > | > railroaded > | > > > a Patriot Act through the Congress as well. > | > > > > | > > > I am still interested in seeing some references to contracts under > | > > > previous > | > > > administrations. If you are correct about that it would make the whole > | > > > thing look a lot less suspicious and belive it or not I don't enjoy > | > > > Orwellian scenarios -- they just seem appropriate at the moment. > | > > > > | > > > Dana > | > > > > | > > > | > > > | > > > | > > | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
