BA>Replying to a message of Jeff Binkley to Bob Ackley:

BA> JM>>>>> Is issueing a signing statement breaking a law?

BA> BA>>>> Probably not.  But failing to properly execute the laws as
BA> BA>>>> passed by congress is or should be an impeachable offense.
BA> BA>>>> The man's obvious intent is to do what he pleases
and ignore
BA> BA>>>> the laws when they don't suit his purposes.

BA> JB>>> I thought his intent was to defend the country.  What limit
BA> JB>>> should he go  to in order to ensure we are never attacked
BA> JB>>> again?

BA> BA>> The *only* way to insure that is to incinerate the rest of the
BA> BA>> planet.  How many hundred million people are you willing to
BA> BA>> kill, Jeff?

BA> JB> Again, do you have any evidence that he has done something that
BA> JB> is not  in defense of this country ?

BA>The invasion and conquest of Iraq.  You do read the news, do you not?

Something illegal.  This was authorized by congress. It was in defense 
of the country, whether you believe it or not.



BA> JB>>>  To all those who  would bash Bush for defending this country
BA> JB>>> I say "Bring on the charges and prove anything
he is doing is
BA>not  BA>> in defense of this
BA> JB>>> country."

BA> BA>> That does depend, does it not, on how one defines 'defense of
BA> BA>> this country?'

BA> JB>>>   Queue the crickets.  OTOH the Clintons broke many privacy
BA> JB>>> laws to attack  their political enemies.  Selfish acts.   

BA> BA>> So did Nixon, Jeff.  And Johnson.  And Kennedy.

BA> JB> And you have evidence that Bush has ?

BA>The horribly misnamed USA PATRIOT Act.  His refusal to comply with
BA>the law requiring him to get warrants - rubber stamps, really -
BA>before, or even after (which the law, but not the Constitution,
BA>allows) spying on people.

Again authorized by Congress.


BA> JB> What I want is folks to provide facts that Bush has caused harm
BA> JB> to  anyone here with his protection of this country.  What I am
BA> JB> seeing is a  lot of hand waiving and 60's mentality about
BA> JB> fascism and nonsense but  little real facts.  Since Bush has
BA> JB> been in office we have been attacked  on our own soil only once.
BA> JB> We have not had a stretch this long since  Bush Sr. and Reagan.

BA>Prior to 9-11, we could, I suppose, consider the attempted bombing of
BA>the WTC towers in 1993 an attack on this country; and then there were
BA>the Japanese and their balloon bombs (which did no damage) during WW
BA>II; then you have to go back
BA>to 1812 (the Civil War doesn't count) to find an attack *on our own
BA>soil*.  And

Correct. And in each case, except 1993, we did something to prevent 
further attacks by the same advesary.


BA>you are ignoring several overseas events (the 1974 hijacking of a TWA
BA>flight in the middle east, resulting in the murder of US Navy Seaman
BA>Robert Stethem, the murder of Leon Klinghoffer during the hijacking
BA>of the Achille Lauro, the bombing
BA>of the German disco club that catered to US military personnel and
BA>PanAm 103, among others).

Not ignoring, just irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


BA>Airplanes were being hijacked in this country forty years ago; heck,
BA>the first airliner
BA>to be bombed out of the sky (to collect grandma's insurance) happened
BA>in about 1953.
BA>The only difference between those hijackings and 9-11 was the
BA>intended destination
BA>of the hijackers and the scale of death and destruction.

BA>Terrorism - all terrorism - is practiced in order to force
BA>governments (or societies)
BA>to give those practicing terrorism what they want.  This is not a new
BA>phenomenon,
BA>it didn't start on 9-11, even in this country.  The goal of
BA>terrorists is to get publicity
BA>so they can frighten people.

BA>Europe has been dealing with terrorists for the better part of half a
BA>century - longer
BA>in some parts of it.  Europe has managed to - generally successfully
BA>- deal with the
BA>problem, which includes Islamic militants, without resorting to large
BA>military operations, armor, artillery and massive bombing campaigns.

Europe is doing a terrible job of dealing with it.  France will explode 
one day. We fought a war in the 90's because of it.  Europe continues to  
look the other way on terrorism.  


BA>IMO the best way to deal with terrorists is to ignore the b*st*rds.
BA>That means NO
BA>publicity outside of newspaper obituary columns.  But it doesn't mean
BA>that we don't
BA>try to eliminate them.

Worst way to deal with them. The 90's proved this.


BA>My preferred method is to catch them, make d*mn sure what we've
BA>caught is in fact
BA>a terrorist, and then let him/her go.  With a few physical
BA>modifications first, that

A police action. Let me know how this works out.


BA>is:  no arms, no legs, no genitals, no tongue, no teeth, no hair and
BA>about 30 pounds
BA>of sterile pork fat added.  No announcements, no chest pounding, no
BA>nothing, they just
BA>appear back at their bases or homes in that condition, knowing that
BA>those surgically
BA>removed parts have been ground up and fed to hogs.  If somebody wants
BA>to feed them
BA>and otherwise care for them, fine, if not they die in a week or so -
BA>but since they
BA>would be dead of natural causes they wouldn't get their ticket
BA>straight to paradise and
BA>they wouldn't get their 72 virgins.

BA>Suicide bombers should be treated thusly:  the most gory picture
BA>possible of the
BA>bomber him/herself, with all other details - i.e. damage done, other
BA>people hurt, etc. -
BA>cropped out of the picture.  Said picture then reproduced with a
BA>caption to the effect

The last parts are the parts I can agree with.


Jeff


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10