 |
   |
|
|
March 17th, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
March 17th, 2006
|
|
|
MarinerRhodes
I dont think so. I differentiate between the actually OFFICE (and the symbol and power it represents) and the actual person who unfortunatly own the title as President. They are two very different things. My point zas Clinton was honorable enough to allow the proceeding against him to proceed. Wheras Bush as routinely attempted to Stall anything that might just be slightly embarrassing to him. There was no Bill. You cannot pass a bill without a Congressional session. They were merely 'briefed'. Who were they? I could only find the list of Democrats who knew. They are Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, Tom Dachale, Nancy Pelosi, and 2 years later Harry Reid who replaced Dachale. I'll keeping looking for a reference about the Republicans. The wheels of congress are not that well greased. Congressional proceedings can either be extremely laborious. There is so much Red Tape to cut through in getting something through is the reason why most actions, bills etc never make it to an actual vote. Your right that the Republicans were trying to embarrass the President. But that was always their Plan B. Do you honest think that if the Republicans had a smokingun they wouldnt have used it? The GOP is still miffed about what happened to Nixon, they were looking for an opportunity for payback. The GOP knew they had neither the evidence, the public support, or the votes to get a conviction. They opted for plan B. Yes Clinton commited purjury. But the charges against him stemed from a political witchhunt. He was merely trying to CYA and save his family alot of public embarrassement. But even though he lied, his lies had no bearing on the country whatsoever. Court proceeding are supposed to be neutral, and this one was most certainly wasnt. The independent prosecutor being a GOP bloodhound. It was a farce of justice. Bush strategy is much more effective, he refuses at all to testify under oath about Iraq, 9/11 and most likely Katrina as well. http://www.tortureisnotus.org/what_it_does.php As for the anti-torture bill this is a pretty good summery. Keep in Mind that it is out of Date, and that Bush relented and signed the bill into law in January 2006. |
|
March 17th, 2006
|
||
|
Quote:
From what I have read, our opinions differ in how we view the office and the respect that should or should not be given to it, regardless of who presently resides in that office. Make no mistake, I would never standby and let anyone desecrate our flag. I too believe as you do about the flag and what it represents. There are certain other things that I view and hold with the highest respect, the same respect I would give the flag and all it represents. MMarsh: I would like to point out that there is nothing that can not be done if the will is strong enough to see it through. Stalling is just that, delaying something. It is not stopping it, it is not dismissing it. So apparently someone(s) did not have enough conviction to see to it that their wish was made true. Red Tape is there for a reason. It can be tedious to make it through all of it but it can be done. People probably just don't want to get it done. Edited in response to phoenix80's PM |
 --
|
|
|
|
|
March 17th, 2006
|
|
|
|
Marine
Check your private email inbox here plz |
|
March 18th, 2006
|
|
|
I agree with Marininerhodes ... we view the office slightly differently ... it has never been an icon to me ... that's probably where the difference comes in.
When the man in the office has a great respect for the office, even if I have a problem with the man ... I DO RESPECT THE OFFICE. So ... I guess we do differ in one small point. nuff said |
 |
believe that I would standby while our flag was disrespected (or) desecrated... I didn't spend 20+ years of my life to allow that. I also believe that has earned me the RIGHT to decide that if the man holding the office doesn't appear to respect that office ... 
