Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Oh no...the swearing police are back.

Posted By: nm on 2008-10-17
In Reply to: Take it easy - sw

.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Swearing in....

My take on it is that this is a country founded on Christian principles.  The swearing in should be done with a Bible.  The Muslim gentleman swearing in on a Bible is no different than any other nonChristian swearing in on a Bible, which has been going on for years.  I am sure that not every member of Congress is Christian, but they all swore in on a Bible.   NonChristians are sworn in on a Bible in courthouses across this country on an almost daily basis.  The reason I say this is not just faith-based but also an effort to protect this country and its beginnings, our traditions, our history, etc.  The more we cave in on things like this, the further we slide down the slippery slope.  We need to be aware and very careful about our choices...as people seek to remove God from our public lives...and we need to be very extra careful about who or what they might seek to replace Him with.  It begins very quietly and insidiously....and I also believe that there will come a day when there are many who will wish they had not been so quick to want to remove God and His influence.  Just my take on it.


He got a look when Biden was making wise cracks about Justice Roberts at the swearing in. sm
I think when he is under stress he has a hard time hiding how he feels, but I think it is more a sign that he is honest about his feelings, not that he is going to act out in some crazy way.
One of the police chiefs
of one of the parishes in LA said that civilian water management people and civilian engineers etc. were being recruited to come there because the National Guard was overwhelmed in size and in capability. He said some had just come for 2 or 3 missions in Iraq or Afghanistan and were exhausted. I'm sorry I did not get his name. I will be more vigilant next time so if you want to tell someone they are alledging something that is untrue you'll get the right person.  I's just the messenger. Since I am not there I have no idea how many National Guard are there, on call, whatever, but I still believe they are needed here more than there.
The US is becoming a police state.sm
It is not full-fledged yet, but 95% there. There is a rush to incarcerate (1 in 136 Americans are in jails and prisons). National ID card by 2010, RFID chips, face scanners installed at high schools, those who disagree with government are called homegrown terrorists (another false flag) or traitors. It is very well known that both Bush presidents support the one world government (NWO). The USA no longer resembles the Constitutional Republic it is supposed to be. Land of the free is an illusion.
We are not world police
So Saddam was a bad person..so what..that means we are supposed to sacrifice our hard earned taxes to pay for a war in Iraq?  That means we are supposed to sacrifice our brave military to invade a nonthreatening country?  There are many places in this old tired world where people are being brutalized..It is not our responsibility to be the world police, it is not our place to save the world from itself.  If Iraq was a threat to America, that would have been a different story.   This invasion and control of a Middle Eastern country was thought up in the early 1990s by Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz.  On the other hand, we are no better than Saddam now..We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, destroyed an ancient country, we cant even give them full time electricity or fresh water or safe secure homes and jobs.  The war was wrong, the situation in Iraq is worse than when Saddam ruled.  Iraq was better off with Saddam in power.  However, keep trying to justify the war..It provides me a chuckle daily when I see the republican spinmeisters come up with a different reason for invasion almost daily. Bush says Iraq will be a comma in the history books..I disagree, Bush will be looked upon as a warmonger who got it so wrong, a failed presidency
Not our job to police the world...
Clinton - Kosovo. Clinton - Somalia. People died there too. If we had stayed in Somalia and nipped AL Qaeda in the bud there...if Clinton had accepted bin Laden from the Sudan...if, if, if. Have you read the Iraq Liberation bill? The idea for invading Iraq to topple saddam was born during Clinton's term...Bush did not invent it. All the same people who protest it now voted it into law. How would you expect anyone to take you seriously? It is never the liberal's fault. That is the one thread that remains true.

Yes, it is a matter of CHOICE. Why, though, is it only YOUR choice?

You danced around it, but it is very true...because there were some botched abortions in the 40's and 50's, we now have abortion on demand, our own genocide to the tune of 1.2 million a year, and somehow this is acceptable to you in the name of CHOICE. TO some of us, it isn't. You get choice, we don't. You need to change the name of your party, because it has little to do with democracy. If abortion was put to a vote of the people it would fail. Precisely why your party will not allow that to happen.

Because of this war we have ignited the fires of extremists and terrorists? Where were you for the first world trade center bombing? Where were you for Khobar Towers...the USS Cole, the african embassies? Somalia when your soliders bodies were dragged through the streets? They have been ignited for years, but were ignored for 8 of those years by Bill Clinton!

You enable abortion in the name of choice...you advocate it. If it went to ballot, you would vote for it. That is advocating it, no matter how you try to parse words.

Why is it easier to get incensed about war than about abortion? Do you think those infants want to be killed? Do they not have a right to life? Where is their choice?
Have you ever lived in police state?

Because if you had you'd definitely be able to see the VAST difference between a police state and the American state.


Also, your one-world government theory about the Bush's doesn't sync with your view that Bush is alienating the rest of the world, but I guess you think because Bush wants democracy for the world he somehow is planning to take over the world.


Wow, you are very steeped in conspiracy theory I'll give you that.


Why the spelling police have shown up! sm
I make typos all the time and so does everyone else. 
Call off the typo police.
nm
spoken by the grammar police.
xx
Your point? Are you the spell police? nm
.
And who appointed you the "Posting Police?" sm
Everybody is entitled to an opinion just as you are. You should be able to get a pretty good idea of what the posts will say from the subject line. If you are so thin-skinned that you have to take offense at somebody elses posting, then either leave the board and go elsewhere or just don't open the thread. Easy as that.
Humor police in the house....(sm)

The intent of the post was not to compare an embryo to a turkey, but rather simply a joke saying that she would take up one cause but not the other.  If you read the posts below you might understand the joke.


However, since you mentioned it, I'm sure I could make that comparrison.  Our ideas of when life begins are obviously not the same.


 


Police Memorial Week
Still another example of a President to be ashamed of. He is the First President to show such disrespect!
 
Hello everyone,
  
May 10-16 was Police Memorial Week.   It is a week to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving as a law enforcement officer in the United States
.  The week is filled with various events to honor fallen police officers and their families.To provide you with Just a little background,  May 15 was established by President John Kennedy as "Peace Officers Memorial Day" and the calendar week of May 15 is known as "Police Week" according to presidential proclamation 537. 
 
     http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24099
 
The point of this email is to inform you of something I believe everyone should be aware of. President Barrack Obama did not attend this event. This may seem insignificant, but every year for at the past 21 years the president, regardless of political affiliation, has given a speech on May 15 on the steps of the
U.S. capitol to the family members of fallen hero's.

I am sure the president has more pressing issues to focus on than attending a ceremony for the widows, parents, and children of fallen police officers. It is understandable he may have needed to miss the ceremony for a more urgent matter and I say that with all seriousness. But, at the time of the ceremony where do you think Barrack Obama was? He was giving a tour of the White House to the 2008 world series champion Philadelphia Phillie's. I know the Phillie's are important and all, but the man could not take 30 minutes out of his day to take a short car ride 10 minutes down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol, give a 10 minute speech and then drive back to the Whitehouse?
 
This is not a political issue and has nothing to do with being a democrat, republican, green party, independent, or whatever other political affiliation you may have chosen. This is about honoring fallen officers and paying your respects. It is obvious we know where Barrack Obama stands when it comes to supporting your local, state, and federal law enforcement officers.
 
I feel everyone should know what occurred on
May 15, 2009. You will probably not hear this in the mainstream media so I would encourage you to share this with anyone and everyone you want. 

Police Memorial Week
Still another example of a President to be ashamed of. He is the First President to show such disrespect!
 
Hello everyone,
  
May 10-16 was Police Memorial Week.   It is a week to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving as a law enforcement officer in the United States
.  The week is filled with various events to honor fallen police officers and their families.To provide you with Just a little background,  May 15 was established by President John Kennedy as "Peace Officers Memorial Day" and the calendar week of May 15 is known as "Police Week" according to presidential proclamation 537. 
 
     http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24099
 
The point of this email is to inform you of something I believe everyone should be aware of. President Barrack Obama did not attend this event. This may seem insignificant, but every year for at the past 21 years the president, regardless of political affiliation, has given a speech on May 15 on the steps of the
U.S. capitol to the family members of fallen hero's.

I am sure the president has more pressing issues to focus on than attending a ceremony for the widows, parents, and children of fallen police officers. It is understandable he may have needed to miss the ceremony for a more urgent matter and I say that with all seriousness. But, at the time of the ceremony where do you think Barrack Obama was? He was giving a tour of the White House to the 2008 world series champion Philadelphia Phillie's. I know the Phillie's are important and all, but the man could not take 30 minutes out of his day to take a short car ride 10 minutes down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol, give a 10 minute speech and then drive back to the Whitehouse?
 
This is not a political issue and has nothing to do with being a democrat, republican, green party, independent, or whatever other political affiliation you may have chosen. This is about honoring fallen officers and paying your respects. It is obvious we know where Barrack Obama stands when it comes to supporting your local, state, and federal law enforcement officers.
 
I feel everyone should know what occurred on
May 15, 2009. You will probably not hear this in the mainstream media so I would encourage you to share this with anyone and everyone you want. 

Aha! SPELLING POLICE starts again!
This is a sign that you feel in the weaker position. It was a TYPO, o.k.!

Everone who starts with grammar and spelling police, insults and bashing admits that he has been cornered and his weakness shows.

Playing grammar- and spelling-police is NOT tolerated on this Forum, read the rules of this forum!

Got it!


Chertoff says bird flu = police state.
It may not be foreign terrorists you have to fear at your door! - This week Chertoff announced that in the event of a widespread bird flu epidemic here it would not be the medical authorities or health departments who will be running the show - the Department of Homeland Security intends to take over and make our medical and quarantine decisions for us.

Apparently with the migrations of the world's birds about to begin, all the experts are saying that this bird flu could rapidly spread across the world and become a really serious threat.

What has the Bush Admin. done to prepare? They bought themselves 100,000 doses of Tamiflu. You, on the other hand, can wing it. There's no more left. Let's see, 100,000 doses ought to just about make sure his haves and have-more base will have plenty to go around.

Bush supporters in la la land will have no trouble believing those doses are meant for babies and the elderly, and of course somehow for themselves. For the rest of us, the word is: Garlic, goldenseal and echinacea, and stop filling the bird baths.
Iraq: Insurgents infiltrate police

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents have infiltrated Iraq's security forces, a senior Iraqi official said, as the fallout continued over British forces' use of armed vehicles to smash their way into a police station to rescue two undercover soldiers.


The British government said it would not pull troops out of Iraq after the fury over the controversial rescue of two special forces soldiers arrested in Basra and allegedly handed over to local militia.


Two Iraqis died in the violence, Reuters reported.


Iraq's National Security Adviser, Dr Mouwafak al-Rubaie, said he did not know how far security forces had been undermined by insurgents.


He told the BBC: Our Iraqi security forces in general, police in particular, in many parts of Iraq, I have to admit, have been penetrated by some of the insurgents, some of the terrorists as well.


I can't deny this. We are putting in place a very scrupulous, very meticulous vetting procedure in the process of recruiting a new batch of police and Iraqi army, which will, if you like, clean our security forces as well as stop any penetration in future from the insurgents and terrorists.


Al-Rubaie added: I can't give you a percentage of the extent of the penetration, but I have to admit that the Iraqi security forces are penetrated, to what extent I don't know.


Meanwhile U.S. officials revealed that nine Americans, including five soldiers, were killed by bombs in Iraq during Monday and Tuesday.


Four troops, assigned to the 2nd Marine Division, were killed Monday in Ramadi, the U.S. military said. The deaths brought to 1,904 the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. (Full story)


In Basra Wednesday the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior said it was looking into what led to UK armored fighting vehicles bulldozing the wall of a Basra police station jail in a bid to free the special forces soldiers.


Inside, troops discovered that the two men had been handed over to the militia by Iraqi police and freed them.


The men's capture Monday came just a day after British forces in Basra arrested two leading members of the outlawed Mahdi Army which is loyal to firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and is widely believed to have heavily infiltrated the local Iraqi police, the UK's Press Association reported.


The two arrested men from the Mahdi Army were the group's Basra area commander, Sheikh Ahmad Majid al-Fartusi, and his aide Sajjat al-Basri, PA said.


According to PA, the two British men detained by police were members of the Special Air Service and appeared to have been quickly handed over to militiamen by police.


The mission to rescue them, which was condemned by many Iraqis, was launched amid fears they could face summary execution, PA said.


One Iraqi member of parliament said that following the arrest of the SAS men, the Mahdi Army had tried to take them hostage to exchange them for its two leaders.


Four tanks invaded the area. A tank cannon struck a room where a policeman was praying, policeman Abbas Hassan told Reuters.


Standing next to mangled cars outside the police station and jail that he said were crushed by British military vehicles, he added: This is terrorism. All we had was rifles.


A spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said the British operation against the jail had been a very unfortunate development but his office later released a statement saying there was no crisis in relations with the British.


Iraqi policemen at the jail Tuesday surveyed a mass of rubble, broken plywood and air conditioning units where their perimeter wall and a number of prefabricated structures once stood.


A number of flattened cars appeared to have been run over by British Warrior armored fighting vehicles.


The two special forces soldiers, who were travelling undercover, were arrested after allegedly becoming involved in a firefight with Iraqi police at a checkpoint. Iraqi officials claimed they had shot dead a local policeman and wounded at least one other.


The British soldiers are believed to have feared the men were really insurgents dressed in police uniforms, PA said.


British Defence Secretary John Reid defended the subsequent action by British troops against the Jamiat police station jail, saying it was absolutely right.


We do not have designs to stay (in Iraq) as an occupying imperial power. Nor are we going to cut and run because of terrorists, Reid was quoted as saying by the Daily Telegraph newspaper.


The paper said that Reid and British defense chiefs would meet Iraqi PM al-Jaafari Wednesday in London to discuss security issues.


In dramatic scenes outside the jail Monday, British troops were confronted by an angry mob, hundreds strong, throwing stones and petrol bombs and several soldiers suffered minor injuries.


After they discovered the two SAS men were not in the jail, Iraqi police were confronted with a 30mm cannon and revealed they had been given to the militia.


Brigadier John Lorimer, commanding officer of 12 Mechanised Brigade in Basra, said: We will be following up with the authorities in Basra why the soldiers were not immediately handed over to the multinational forces as Iraqi law shows that they should have been.


It is of deep concern that British soldiers held by the police should then end up being held by militia, he added.


You need some serious education on fascist police states
if you are referring to the U.S. Now, parts of France on the other hand has had to become a police state at times due to the riots against almighty socialism. Irony is a fun thing to watch play out sometimes and also how people think the grass is greener anywhere but where they are.
ROFL. Enter the typo police....
at least you found a different subject to attack on. Still snide, but nevertheless...attack, attack, attack. I look forward to your report on all the other posts and then posting our QA scores. Hop to it! LOL. geezzzzz.
St. Paul Police Protest the Press

Be careful of your constitutional rights - they are rapidly disappearing.


http://www.truthout.org/article/st-pauls-police-protest-press


hope there are no spelling police today...
good thing I am not running for president, huh? But then, hmmm, maybe I could too. Seems like just anybody these days can do it.
Who made you the spell police? - see message
You don't have anything to say cos you know she's right so you come back with a "you spelled a word wrong"?????

We've been told over and over and over....leave your QAing out of this board.
Spelling police not allowed on this board.
.
Michigan Police Officer's Take on Obama...
This was forwarded to me by a boyhood friend who is a retired cop.

Please pass this along to everyone that you have on your e-mail list because this is just the beginning if this arrogant, egotistical, super liberal, president wannabe gets into office....

To all,

I have read all of the emails from not only some of the MTOA board members, but from other Law Enforcement & Military personnel about Barack Obama's rudeness and what seems to be disgust for basically anyone in uniform. Well, it's my turn to add to the list of emailers and here it is:

So members of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department, Michigan State Police, (me included) and other local agencies inside Calhoun County are working with Secret Service in the security of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's bus arrives in Battle Creek and pulls into the stadium area. Before Mr. Obama exits the bus, he has the Secret Service get off and tell all Law Enforcement personnel in uniform that they now have to stand behind the bus so Mr. Obama is not seen with anyone in a Law Enforcement uniform before he gets off or while in the public view. So, everyone from Michigan State Police, Sheriff's Departments and other agencies look at each other for a brief second, go and stand behind the bus out of sight so Mr. Obama does not have to see, or been seen with, what to him is 'undesirables' since he refuses to been seen or even acknowledge Military or Law Enforcement personnel in uniform. And he wants to be our commander-in-chief!


At a time of war and terrorism in our world, this presidential candidate who is being protected by various branches of the military & law enforcement at the tax payers expense, refuses to acknowledge, be seen with, have in his photographed background, any type of Military or Law Enforcement in uniform.

But this is not in the headlines or in the news or on TV. The TV news doesn't show us marching around behind the bus. In the future, look and see if you can see a single soldier or police officer in uniform when you see Obama. Why? I wonder what the story or media frenzy would be if it was Muslims, blacks, whites, Jews, or any other race, gender, religion, and/or occupation, that Mr. Obama refused to be seen with or have around him.

Why would I make this up? Everyone in Law Enforcement knows we have traditionally had more funding under Democrats.

Just food for thought leading up to November 4th.

Jason Kern
Michigan Tactical Officer's Association
Michigan State Police

Executive Board Member

Befoire you sic the typo police on me, make that
x
Um, excuse me, NO spelling police here - read the
nm
They also tried to call police on the news reporter that
was there. Stated  he wasn't allowed to be there. The reporter checked with their lawyer and he's allowed to be 10 feet away, but although he was 10 feet away, the Black Panther still tried to get rid of him. The BP also stated there was no BP there with a night stick. Yet I think the reporter saw him for himself.
Are you okay with police shooting a man who's about to kill his wife?
I'm sure you are, unless you're really as nutz as I think you are.

So...'Splain the difference to me, Lucy! The justification is precisely the same regarding a terrorist who's planning to kill thousands - except MORE SO.

You pathetic boob.
Capitol Police say they *screwed up* when arresting Sheehan









Sure they did.  Some lowly rogue Capitol cop decided on his own to arrest Cindy Sheehan. 

 

Just like the lowly rogue soldiers in Iraq who have been arrested and convicted and punished because one of them had the bright idea that they should torture prisoners.  None of these people could possibly have gotten orders from the Oval Office, right?  Of course not.  Bush hates torture, right?  LOL! 

 

Sometimes the lies are so transparent and ridiculous, all I can do is laugh. 

 





  MSNBC.com

NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped
Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt


NBC News and news services

Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006



WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.


U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.


But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.


“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.


He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.


Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.


Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”


The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.


Criticism from Rep. Young
Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”


“Shame, shame,” he scolded.


Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and was asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.


“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’


They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.


She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.


“I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,” Sheehan wrote in her blog.


Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.


Told she could not wear shirt?
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond, she said.


Sheehan, however, told a different story in her blog.


“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things, ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.”


She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.


“I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”


She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, “Protester.”


“He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.


Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.


The Associated Press and NBC News contributed to this report.




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69718&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f11120353%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s83197986163419?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=1/1/2006%2020%3A0%3A8%203%20300&pageName=Story%7CU.S.%20News%7CPolitics%7C11120353%7CNBC%3A%20Charges%20against%20Sheehan%20to%20be%20dropped%7C&g=http%3A//msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=U.S.%20News&c4=U.S.%20News&c5=Politics&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=11120353&c16=Story&c18=17&pid=Story%7CU.S.%20News%7CPolitics%7C11120353%7CNBC%3A%20Charges%20against%20Sheehan%20to%20be%20dropped%7C&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2711120353%27%29&ot=A&oi=576&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2006 MSNBC.com




URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/


Who died and made you the "free speech" police? sm
Who cares what you think of Sam's posts. You are free to read or not read. That is what debate is all about. And I use that term loosely in regards to some of posters on this board. Most of the posters have legitimate points of view. If you are that upset over what she posts, then feel free to disregard what she puts. You should be able to figure out what the message is about by reading what is under the thread and not having to open the thread.

If you don't agree with our consitutional right to freedom of speech, then you need to rethink your priorities. Nobody will ever agree with anybody else 100% on this board and in real life, and I wouldn't expect them to. That is what makes our world go around.

Don't like the posts?? Don't read or go to another board. I agree with Sam.
ROFL...don't make me call the spelling bee police....nm

It is all about timing and the fact that there was a pet chimp shot by the police the other day.
Give it a rest.
Oops, before the spell police come I meant I feel, not Il fee
Ha HA ha....too funny.
Fascist police state vs. socialism - great choices.nm
z
Civil Liberty Effects - Police State Pizza
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
Police putting names of activists on terrorist lists. sm
Dissent is patriotic. I wonder how many people are on these lists. It's creepy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245_pf.html
oops - to the spelling police I meant family not famiy (nm)
x
Oh my. Spelled leery wrong. Forgive me O spelling police (nm)
.
YEAH!! You tell it girlfriend. My grammer police are at the door until Monday morning!
nm
She's going to talk to police and possibly make public statment tmrw
Will be interesting. I'm sure we'll know soon enough if this story is true.
whoops, typing too fast and made errors .. be 4 the spelling police get me
s
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid. 
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war.  Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?

It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??

You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!


All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight.  You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around.  For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.


Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.*  Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.)


We should just go back to

ignoring them, Democrat.


Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people.  They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.


Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response.  Not one.


They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.


OMG, they are back
The neocons are back..the administrator tells them not to post here but THEY ARE BACK!!  A fungus is among us!
Welcome back...nm

Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm
I think anyone who is still able to think for themselves can see it, it is almost predictable actually. Because of all that is going on lately, the translation for that propaganda is:

You need to vote for Republicans so you will not get killed by terrorists.
Back at ya....

Not flip-flops by one person...but several:


1. 


WASHINGTON - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to prove that she is willing to say or do just about anything in attempts to gain traction for Democrats. Now, Pelosi is even warming up her rhetoric for summer using the tried-and-failed, Democrat style of flip-flopping.

According to Roll Call, writing in February to members of the Democrat caucus, Pelosi andthe four elected leaders of theDemocratic Caucus ... urged Members to continue a drumbeat of criticism of theprogram, which went into effect on Jan. 1. 'We ask you to use the upcoming February District Work Period and the following weeks to hold town meetings, visits to senior centers, and other public events to drive this message home,' the leaders wrote. (Roll Call, 2/13/06)

Yesterday in a massive course alteration and in the face of positive polling, Pelosi said that Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th. (Pelosi Statement, 5/9/06)

If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Medicare prescription drug program should be criticized in February, why is she saying in May that Democrats are encouraging seniors to sign up for the program, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti asked.

Nancy Pelosi is flailing in her attempts to call the prescription drug benefit a program that is 'borne of corruption,' because she knows millions of Americans are in fact saving money, so instead she s taken to her tired routine of playing politics with America s seniors, Forti added, in reference to Pelosi s Sunday appearance on NBC s Meet the Press.

 

2. 
Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations


Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...


Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.

REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.


PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all.

They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?

 

3. 
Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol



Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections.  She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.  

She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel.  She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025. 

This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections.  In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access.  Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session.


4. 


Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration



Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off.  Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps. 

In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:

I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.

Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story 

She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”.  In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
 

This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal.  She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling.  Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband. 


 


5.  Reid Ticket Flip-Flop


The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.


In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.


The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.


According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.


 


6.  Pelosi - Murtha


Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.


(SNIP)


Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.


Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.

Murtha on Homeland Security:

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!

Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.


A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.

What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)

And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.

This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.

We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.


Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.

Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.

Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated

On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.

I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.

During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.


 


7. 







Pelosi Flip-Flops on Porter Goss
Nancy

( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.


8.


Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters.

In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views.

Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.

Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come.

The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.

Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers.

Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video

During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.

We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video

Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.

Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.


9.   noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times:



On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.


“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”


“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”


Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.


Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.


“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.


The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.


Indeed.


And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes:



Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”


The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.


But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.


“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.


[…]


When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”


[…]


Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.


But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”


Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07:



President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region.


Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself.


“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.”


Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.


I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today:



They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous.


10.  Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ


A little light listening and watching.



11. 






Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon.


The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.)


Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson:



In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now.


This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports.


Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers.


As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe:



Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.


12.  Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop


Thursday, June 15, 2006



Democratic Flip Flops on Iraq & Al Qaeda Connection




Today's lesson on How to Beat the Liberals with Facts about Iraq and Al Qaeda focuses on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Bush Administration was not the only politicos to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. But to listen to these very same Dems today, you would think otherwise. **Keep in mind that there is quite a difference in claiming ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda versus Iraq in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. The ties between the two terrorist organizations is the issue in question.**

How many times have we heard the KOS kissing former presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark, claim no connection to Iraq and Al Qaeda? But what did Wesley say in 2002???

Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
NY Times ^ Jan. 12, 2004 EDWARD WYATT

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.
Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said in 2002. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?


SNIP
In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

********************
President Bush was not the first President to claim ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The slick one from Arkansas was numero uno...

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements...

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan...

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists...

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

*************************
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
NewsMax ^ 7/12/04 Jon E. Dougherty

...The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 commission the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.

Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other -- sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.
Within several months, al-Qaeda bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.


On Aug. 24, 1998, a senior intelligence official was made available by the administration and cited strong ties between the plant and Iraq as the basis for the attack.

SNIP

A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaeda) connection: We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case.


Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted the administration had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity.
Other products were made at al Shifa, he continued. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.


Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999 interview the U.S. was sure Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.


*****************************
Dems connected Iraq, al-Qaida
By Charles D. Ganske 7/5/04

Yet, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, insisted that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program. For the Iraqis not to have known bin Laden was a major investor in the El Shifa plant seems to be quite a stretch.

*******************************
The final nail in the coffin was signed by many of the Lefties that now claim voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake... You know, people like John Kerry, John Murtha...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]] Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<>

...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;...

My my my... how things change when a Republican is President. It was completely believable and promoted by Democrats when Clinton was in office. Yet the only action Clinton took was bombing the pharmaceutical factory at Al Shifa. President Bush's actions have deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His only mistake - he is a Republican.


13.


BEN NELSON:
Immigration Hardliner? Or Lobbyist for Meatpackers?

NEGOP Questions Democrat Ben Nelson’s Immigration Flip-Flop
***


Lincoln, Neb. – The Nebraska GOP called on Democrat Senator Ben Nelson today to come clean on his apparent flip-flop on federal immigration policy. Nelson announced plans to introduce legislation addressing illegal immigration.

In 1999, former Governor and soon to be candidate for United States Senate Ben Nelson acted as a lobbyist for the meatpacking industry in a dispute with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). INS was subpoenaing employee records at meatpacking plants across the state, investigating document discrepancies.



  • “Former Gov. Ben Nelson says the crackdown on undocumented workers in Nebraska meatpacking plants is detrimental to Nebraska.” (Nelson critical of Operation Vanguard, Calls it Detrimental; Grand Island Independent; Thursday, June 3, 1999)

  • Nelson said he thinks the INS should start a separate program that would allow temporary visas for undocumented workers. (Associated Press, “Nelson says INS operation draining state’s labor pool”; 6/4/99)

  • [Nelson] said he has been approached by several meatpacking companies, asking for his help in developing a pilot program that would make temporary visas available to undocumented employees. “We need to find more ways to employ people rather than limit them,” Nelson said. (The Grand Island Independent, 6/3/99).

“The issue in this instance is consistency and leadership. In 1999, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson lobbied for meatpackers – advocating for programs to permit the importation of foreign workers into permanent US jobs. In 2005, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson feigns concern about border security,” said Executive Director Jessica Moenning. “Ben Nelson changes what he thinks from one term to the next based on who he’s lobbying for or what a poll says - that is NOT leadership.”

“Nebraska needs a leader who will say what he means and mean what he says, not someone who changes his position if a focus group says so. Ben Nelson owes the voters of Nebraska an explanation for his flip-flop.”