Could the Press Grow a Spine?

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message ,
Steve Hix writes
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
the late '60s and early '70s.

That's got to be one sore knife arm he's got there. Even if it seems
most of his victims survived.

Did he personally stab _everyone_ in _every_ military? [snip]

I didn't think that a clearly non-literal statement needed to be
qualified to make sure nobody assumed that non-American servicepeople
were included.

Just in case it still isn't clear, he knifed them figuratively by
claiming that war crimes against civilians were the normal course of
business, and that officers knew about it and approved of it.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.

Arthur Kramer

OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?

The Constitution remains intact.

I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
day, he became my President.

Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.

The Consitution remained intact.

Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
to counsel and to the courts.

It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
in over 150 years.

Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.

--

FF

Steve Hix wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..


How about if you lay out a chronology of GWB's ANG service for
us, or refer us to an accurate one posted elsewhere.

Beats the hell outta "Your making that up." "No, you'r making
that up."

Google News is your friend.

Indeed. Then again, if you have already done the research why not
share? Could you post some URL's? or perhaps UseNet message IDs
with the information laid out succintly? Or perhaps Ed will.


Or, anyway, would be if you bothered to check the multiple complete
expositions answering your question that have appeared in this newsgroup
during the past year.


or perhaps UseNet message IDs?

Here's one you can check out:



Just in case you're not familiar with the concept of 'equivalent duty'
as the term is used in the National Guard.

Once you've done that, you will likely have a chance to apologize to Ed.

Like, for what? It's not like someone asked Ed a question and I butted in
and pretended to answer for him.

--

FF

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

No, you don't know that, you believe that. There is a difference.

I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This is
the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?


Got a mesage ID you can share with us?

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The Constitution remains intact.

I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
day, he became my President.

Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.

The Consitution remained intact.

Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
to counsel and to the courts.

It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
in over 150 years.

Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.


How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy.

Bush 41 *did* have an exit strategy. Bush 41 was interested in providing U.S.
forces for the protection of food supplies. Once the threat of famine had
passed, U.N. forces would slowly begin replacing U.S. forces. It was at this
transfer stage that Clinton changed the mission from humanitarian relief to
"nation building". Neither the U.N. forces nor the U.S. forces were prepared
for that new mission.

Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation

Not surprisingly, your partisan view of the world makes things less clear.
"Clearly" Bush 41 did have an exit strategy and it was in the process of of
being executed when the new President changed the mission.

and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

What a joke. The minute after Clinton was innaugurated he had the power to
withdraw every U.S. solider from Mogadishu. Trying to claim Bush somehow put
Clinton in a position to screw up in Somalia is, once again, ridiculous
partisan crap. All Clinton had to do was stick with the Bush draw down plan in
Somalia and everything would have been fine. Yes, Adid was getting more
agressive, but the worst of the famine was behind them and there was nothing
anyone could do to build any kind of government in Somalia.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Which was all Bush 41 was planning to do.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This
is
the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?


Got a mesage ID you can share with us?

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.


Since Bush 41 was asked for at least a year to send troops to Somalia, you
-have to wonder why he did it as a lame duck president.

I think it very a very fair question to ask: Did he do it to set the Clinton
admministration up for failure?



Walt

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...

(Snip)

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

George Z.

Subject: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
Date: 7/5/2004 10:57 PM Pacifi

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.


That was settled in 1865 in Milligan v, U.S. Chief Justice Taney writing for
the majority Guantanamo was used to go around this decision and avoid the law.
Bush thinks he is the law because god told him so. A very dangerous man.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.


Exit strategy? Wasn't the exit strategy "do the job, then leave"? Clinton
changed the job and didn't give the troops the tools for the new one. GHWB
has no responsibility for the Somalia fiasco.