Election Comments

[Ozzy]

Some historical facts.........

For all you "the Republicans are war mongers" guys... I've compiled a list of all the major American military campaigns during the 20th century...... Of the 7 major conflicts (wars) entered into by the United States during the 20th Century, The only Republican to authorize the initial use of US military force was George Bush during the first Iraqi conflict (dessert storm) in 1989. Every other military engagement entered into by the United States has been initiated by a Democratic President (That includes both the Korean and Viet Nam wars, which both saw US military involvement end during the reign of Republican Presidents (Eisenhower and Nixon).

btw.... Along the way... A Democratic President by the name of Harry S Truman became the only man to ever authorize the use of an atomic weapon against a civilian target (and he did it twice).


1) April 1917….. Pres. Woodrow Wilson (a DEMOCRAT) declares war on Germany and officially enters the US into WWI.

2) December 1941….. Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt (a DEMOCRAT) declares war on Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, officially entering the US into WWII.

3) August 6, 1945….. Pres. Harry S Truman (a DEMOCRAT) becomes the first man ever authorize the military use of a nuclear weapon when he orders the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima (a civilian target). Three days later on August 9th he orders a second atomic bomb be dropped on the city of Nagasaki (a civilian target).

4) July 1950….. Pres. Harry S Truman (a DEMOCRAT) Orders the first US troops into South Korea.

4a) July 27 1953….. The United States under then Pres. Dwight D Eisenhower (a REPUBLICAN) agrees to a cease-fire agreement, and orders the withdrawal of all US troops from South Korea.

5) 1960….. Pres. John F Kennedy (a DEMOCRAT) orders the first armed troops into Viet Nam. Following JFK's assassination, Pres. Lyndon B Johnson (a DEMOCRAT) would continue to escalate the conflict by sending nearly a million more troops into Viet Nam.

5a) 1973….. The United States under then Pres. Richard Nixon (a REPUBLICAN) agrees to a cease-fire during The Paris Peace Agreement and orders the withdrawal of all US military and civilians from Saigon, Viet Nam.

6) 1989….. Pres. George Bush (a REPUBLICAN) orders troops into Iraq.

7) 1998….. Pres William J Clinton (a DEMOCRAT) orders troops into Iraq.



So WHO exactly between the Democrats and Republicans are the "war mongers"?

 

[howardnotstern]

so, does this mean you are changing parties, oz?

 

[Ozzy]

HNS....

I can't stand listening to democrats bitch about how the Republicans only want to go to war all the time. Opinions and assumptions are a dime a dozen, But documented history is irrefutable. The policies and decisions of past Democratic administrations have led this country into every military conflict over the last 100 years except one (Dessert Storm ‘89). I just needed to point that out because, if there's one thing I can't stand... it's hypocrites.

Now I'm not saying I disagreed with any of those decisions, or that they were wrong (well maybe Korea and Nam), But I'm not the pot calling the kettle black.


No political parties for Oz.... He follows no ones agenda's, because he's an independent thinker.

 

[James1701]

Re: Some historical facts.........

Originally posted by Ozzy
For all you "the Republicans are war mongers" guys... I've compiled a list of all the major American military campaigns during the 20th century...... Of the 7 major conflicts (wars) entered into by the United States during the 20th Century, The only Republican to authorize the initial use of US military force was George Bush during the first Iraqi conflict (dessert storm) in 1989. Every other military engagement entered into by the United States has been initiated by a Democratic President (That includes both the Korean and Viet Nam wars, which both saw US military involvement end during the reign of Republican Presidents (Eisenhower and Nixon).

btw.... Along the way... A Democratic President by the name of Harry S Truman became the only man to ever authorize the use of an atomic weapon against a civilian target (and he did it twice).


1) April 1917….. Pres. Woodrow Wilson (a DEMOCRAT) declares war on Germany and officially enters the US into WWI.

2) December 1941….. Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt (a DEMOCRAT) declares war on Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, officially entering the US into WWII.

3) August 6, 1945….. Pres. Harry S Truman (a DEMOCRAT) becomes the first man ever authorize the military use of a nuclear weapon when he orders the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima (a civilian target). Three days later on August 9th he orders a second atomic bomb be dropped on the city of Nagasaki (a civilian target).

4) July 1950….. Pres. Harry S Truman (a DEMOCRAT) Orders the first US troops into South Korea.

4a) July 27 1953….. The United States under then Pres. Dwight D Eisenhower (a REPUBLICAN) agrees to a cease-fire agreement, and orders the withdrawal of all US troops from South Korea.

5) 1960….. Pres. John F Kennedy (a DEMOCRAT) orders the first armed troops into Viet Nam. Following JFK's assassination, Pres. Lyndon B Johnson (a DEMOCRAT) would continue to escalate the conflict by sending nearly a million more troops into Viet Nam.

5a) 1973….. The United States under then Pres. Richard Nixon (a REPUBLICAN) agrees to a cease-fire during The Paris Peace Agreement and orders the withdrawal of all US military and civilians from Saigon, Viet Nam.

6) 1989….. Pres. George Bush (a REPUBLICAN) orders troops into Iraq.

7) 1998….. Pres William J Clinton (a DEMOCRAT) orders troops into Iraq.



So WHO exactly between the Democrats and Republicans are the "war mongers"?

Great post. So are you admitting that the GOP claim that they are better at protecting the country is a fallicy?

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by SkellyChamp
And sometimes "war" is a dirty business and individual freedoms sometimes be subordinated to other concerns and issues. If you feel comfortable sitting in your chair and judging when that is, that's good for you. I am not in a position to do so on an individual, case by case basis. I just know that at times it is necessary.

"Anyone who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty or security."
- Benjamin Franklin

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by Ozzy
I don't think there's a single Dem in the ranks who can knock off Bush and Co. in two years. They're all followers... They have No leaders. They're going do be in worse trouble when Guliani runs. The republicans have Rudy, Pataki and ChristineWhitman, who all have more "star power" than anything the Dems can serve up right now or in the immediate future.

Assuming the mood of the country in 2004 is exactly the same as it is today. But if the economy isn't any better (or is worse) or if there is another terrorist attack on US soil that may not be true.

 

[jseah]

Re: Some historical facts.........

Originally posted by Ozzy
7) 1998….. Pres William J Clinton (a DEMOCRAT) orders troops into Iraq.

Oz, I think you meant that Clinton orders troops into Somalia.....

and also Bosnia....

and if we are also talking about the general use of US troops, then you also forgot

Reagan - ordered troops into Grenada

Bush - ordered troops into Panama

 

[SkellyChamp]

Originally posted by James1701



"Anyone who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty or security."
- Benjamin Franklin

Essential and temporary being the key words. I'm not planning on temporary.

 

[Ozzy]

Jseah..

I left out Somalia, Grenada, Panama and Bosnia because they were never considered major US conflicts or wars.

Greneda last only a few hours, and our weapon of choice in Panama was playing disco records. Somalia was a Clinton disaster and I don't think we used ground troops in Bosnia.


James... Today (which is what's important), the Republicans are much more concerned with protecting the country and it's citizens.

And for all you guys who keep quoting Benjamin Franklin, I offer a couple from two of the most respected Democratic presidents...

"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt "


"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it.
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy"

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
--John F. Kennedy"




And although not some past American orator, it does equate to this specific issue.....

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by Ozzy

James... Today (which is what's important), the Republicans are much more concerned with protecting the country and it's citizens.

Now you're just believing GOP propaganda.
Let's look at the record before 9/11:

On or about Jan. 20th, 2001, as the Clinton administration transitioned to the Bush, NSC chief Sandy Berger briefed Condi Rice extensively on the terrorism threat posed by bin Laden, telling her she would be spending more time on this threat than she ever imagined. At the Dept. of Defense, William Cohen was performing the same courtesy for Don Rumsfeld, again with a sharp reminder of the terrorist threat in the form of a hand-written letter to Rumsfeld containing the phone numbers of people in the Pentagon Rumsfeld needed to speak to directly on the subject. On Jan. 26th, the CIA confirmed to the new Bush administration that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole which killed 17 American sailors.


The response of the Bush administration was to cut $64Million from the antiterrorism budget and cease Predator drone surveillance flights to track bin Laden, reassign the cruise-missile equipped submarine stationed in the Indian Ocean with the specific mission of targeting bin Laden, reassign the AC-130 gunships on scramble alert that could be on top of bin Laden after a six hour flight, suspend the special forces operations targeting bin Laden already based in Uzbekistan for the purpose (a treaty that was crafted and signed by Bill Clinton).

In May, June and July, the sole remaining Clinton appointee, CIA Director Tenet, was frantic with concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge terrorist attack on American soil. Vice-President Dick Cheney was head of a new counter-terrorism task force, yet held no meetings. Attorney General John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for hundreds of new agents to be assigned to counter-terrorism; his concerns were drugs and pornography, yet in late July he stopped flying commercial airliners due to a "threat assessment." The general threat assessment was considered to be the most severe in decades according to CIA's Tenet; members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were briefed on the situation on July 5th.

Also in July, an Arizona FBI agent wrote the 'Phoenix Memo,' expressing concern about possible Al Qaeda members taking flying lessons in this country towards the end of terrorist attacks. One of the two FBI officials to see it before the attacks was New York counter-terrorism chief John O'Neill; contemporaneous with the timing of this memo was O'Neill's remarks to the authors of 'Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth,' wherein O'Neill expressed his outrage with the Bush administration's thwarting of counter-terrorist efforts in the interests of protecting its Saudi sponsors. John O'Neill would soon quit the FBI in disgust, only to die at his new job as chief of security at the WTC.

Or perhaps you're refering to the service records of top Democrats vs. top Republicans:

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform,
1965-71

House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72

Former Vice President Al Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71;
recipient of Vietnam Service Medal

Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, Vietnam

Daniel Inouye... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, World War Two

John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam

Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea

Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam

Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.


Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying
Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal.
http://www.afji.com/mags/1997/Jan/VietVets.html

Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman,
Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star
and the Legion of Merit http://www.af.mil/news/Apr1997/n19970414_970430.html


Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staff
sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded and
received a Purple Heart. http://www.house*****/mthompson/bio.html



CURRENT PROMINENT REPUBLICANS

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. his explanation
in his own words "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was
literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four
years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?

VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had
other priorities than military service")

Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW
Missouri State

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve

Former President Ronald Reagan - served in a noncombat role. He later seems
to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real
thing.

"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college
acting classes (Orange County Register article)

Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments

Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze
Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Why did
the Bush campaign smear him so? At least Senators Cleland (D-GA), Kerry
(D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Robb (D-VA) and Hagel (R-NE) defended him.

Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man.
http://www.bobdole.org/bio/wwII.html

Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
http://www.senate*****/~hagel/Information/bio.htm
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross,
two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other
decorations http://www.house*****/cunningham/about_duke.htm#Biography

 

[Ozzy]

For 8 fucking years the administration under president William Jefferson Clinton did absolutely NOTHING to curb terrorism. His administration left their troops in Somalia to get dragged thru the streets without retribution, allowed two US embassy's and a navy destroyer to fall under attack and only lobbed a few rockets into Afghanistan in return.

But you're going to blame an administration that was in office for 6 months for 9/11. how pathetic.

btw... Your list of Democrats who served in the military is impressive but flawed... Am I to assume that other than the few old timers (Dole, McCain etc) you listed that NO Republicans served in the US military... or did you just decide not to post their names. Same could be said about the draft dodging Republicans you listed. Are you sure that NO democrats avoided the draft..... Because I can think of one notable person who dodged the draft....President Bill Clinton!


PS.... this is the only one on your list that I bothered to check (I will the rest when Ihave time)...

Al Gore enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1968. After basic training at Fort Lee, New Jersey, later transferred to Fort Rucker, Alabama where he would be stationed for 18 months and where on May 19, 1970, while stationed in Alabama, Gore married Mary Elizabeth “Tipper” Aitcheson. Shortly there after he was sent oversea's where he served for four months in South Vietnam as a journalist. Gore was honorably discharged from the Army in Jan 1971.

My what an impressive military record he has. I seriously doubt he ever saw combat nor ever carried a side arm (let alone fire a shot).... And they gave him a medal for what?

 

[Phantom]

And why did Clinton, when offered Bin Laden by a third country during his administration, decline the offer?

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by Ozzy
For 8 fucking years the administration under president William Jefferson Clinton did absolutely NOTHING to curb terrorism. His administration left their troops in Somalia to get dragged thru the streets without retribution, allowed two US embassy's and a navy destroyer to fall under attack and only lobbed a few rockets into Afghanistan in return.

But you're going to blame an administration that was in office for 6 months for 9/11. how pathetic.

I'm not blaming anyone I'm just stating the record which also shows that in the 8 years under Clinton the anti-terrorism budget of both the CIA & FBI was rasied more than under all of previous administrations combined. Those budgets were then slashed by the Bush administration. This is further comfirmed by Lt. Gen. Don Kerrick, who served both President Clinton and President Bush, noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the [U.S.S.] Cole attack in 2000, had met 'nearly weekly' to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, 'candidly speaking, I didn't detect that kind of focus,' General Kerrick says.

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by Phantom
And why did Clinton, when offered Bin Laden by a third country during his administration, decline the offer?

They never offered to send bin Laden here but to Saudi but the Saudis refused to take him. This offer was also made in the early 90s before the Embassy bombings when we had no evidence against him.

 

[Ozzy]

Actions speak louder than words (and so do bombs). The Clinton administration did nothing... The Bush administration is trying but the Dems won't let them. That's what *I* see and have heard for the past 14 months. Tom Dashale should be ashamed of himself for playing partisan politics and being the hypocrite he is (he backed Clintons use of force in Iraq but not Bush's) and he and others like him are the down fall of the Democratic party.

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by Ozzy
Actions speak louder than words (and so do bombs). The Clinton administration did nothing... The Bush administration is trying but the Dems won't let them. That's what *I* see and have heard for the past 14 months. Tom Dashale should be ashamed of himself for playing partisan politics and being the hypocrite he is (he backed Clintons use of force in Iraq but not Bush's) and he and others like him are the down fall of the Democratic party.

Tom Dashle voted in favor of Bush's resolution. Get your facts straight.
And as far as the Clinton administration here's some more of what they tried to do:

House Passes Anti-Terrorism Bill on Anniversary of Oklahoma Bombing
By Helen Dewar
The Washington Post

The House Thursday gave final approval to a compromise bill aimed at fighting terrorism and crime, sending the measure to President Clinton in time to mark Friday's first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Clinton plans to sign the bill early next week even though it does not include some of the most stringent anti-terrorism proposals he sought, according to senior White House adviser George Stephanopoulos, who said Clinton will push for their passage in separate legislation.

The legislation includes unprecedented curbs on federal appeals by death-row inmates as well as tougher penalties for terrorist crimes and strengthened governmental powers to exclude suspected foreign terrorists from the United States.

The bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 293 to 133 in the climax of a yearlong struggle during which it almost fell victim to an unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives who found common cause in opposition to expansion of government law enforcement powers.

The final compromise "maintains the delicate balance between freedom and order" in enhancing the government's ability to fight crime and terrorism within limits decreed by the Constitution, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill.

But critics argued it tips the scales too far toward government-enforced order, sacrificing constitutional principles to "political expediency" prompted by the public clamor for action against crime and the nation's horror over terrorist acts. "We cannot sacrifice our constitutional principles because we are angry at people who are bombing," said Rep. Melvin L. Watt, D-N.C., in arguing against the limitations on death-row appeals.

The Senate approved the measure Wednesday by a vote of 91 to 8 after Democrats failed in a series of efforts to toughen the measure. In the House, Democrats tried to restore one key Clinton proposal, but failed, 274 to 148.


------------------------------
Anti-terrorism bill gutted in House
March 13, 1996
From Correspondent Jeanne Meserve
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing is next month, and Congress has yet to enact anti-terrorism legislation urgently proposed by the president. The House Wednesday voted to amend the bill to take out some of the it's toughest and most controversial provisions.
The House of Representatives ripped the guts out of pending anti-terrorism legislation with a single vote Wednesday. Passing 246-171, the amendment deletes provisions which would:
Allow the government to label certain groups as "terrorist."
Streamline the deportation of terrorists.
Allow the use of wiretap evidence obtained without a warrant.
Permit disclosure of certain consumer reports to the FBI.
"We have just eviscerated the heart and soul of the anti-terrorist bill," Rep. John Conyers, D Michigan, said from the House floor.
The amendment was backed by an unusual alliance of groups on the right and left who felt the original bill gave the federal government too much power.
"What price are we willing to pay in terms of our individual rights and freedoms? What price are we willing to pay as citizens of this country?" Rep. Melvin Watt, D-North Carolina, said from the floor.
Adoption of the amendment could hardly have come at a more embarrassing time for President Clinton, who was co-hosting an international anti-terrorism summit in Egypt Wednesday.
Attorney General Janet Reno criticized the changes to the bill. "Congress' action keeps too many Americans vulnerable to terrorists and madmen by stripping away provisions that might have helped save law enforcement from killer bullets and help trace explosives."
The anti-terrorism legislation was introduced at the president's urging in the aftermath of the April 19 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 men, women, and children.
Bit some anti-terrorism experts said that before the legislation was amended, it wouldn't have done much to combat terrorism.
"It is, at best, a Christmas tree. A Christmas tree is designed to do what? It was designed to reassure the American public that the government is doing something," said terrorism expert Larry Johnson.
Last June, the Senate passed anti-terrorism legislation that included many of the provisions deleted by the House. The White House will be lobbying to have those measures re-inserted when congressional conferences produce a final version of the legislation.

----------------------------------------
Clinton presses for anti-terrorism tools

Congress agrees tougher measures needed
July 29, 1996
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton asked Congress Monday to put more teeth in a tough new anti-terrorism law, and won broad agreement but no specific commitments from Republican lawmakers.
Clinton and the Congressional bipartisan leadership met for about an hour at the White House to discuss what steps can be taken to further combat terrorism at home and abroad. Both sides agreed to meet again Tuesday and Chief of Staff Leon Panetta planned to go to Capitol Hill to continue the discussions.
Flanked by Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, President Clinton opened the meeting by saying, "You can see that when we are attacked, whether it's from within or without, we come together and that's what we're doing here.
In a month that has seen an attack on military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta and the possible sinister downing of TWA Flight 800, leaders of both parties were rallying behind efforts to eradicate terrorism.
During a photo opportunity before the meeting, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, told Clinton, "We look forward to having a serious discussion here about how we can work with you to continue to strengthen our ability to deal with these kind of people.
Seizing on a signal that Congress might relent on anti-terrorist tools that were denied him earlier this year, Clinton is asking Gingrich and other legislative leaders "to provide these additional protections."
"He'd like to give the FBI more tools so there will be no more bombing like at the Olympics," White House spokeswoman Mary Ellen Glynn said Monday.
Clinton told a veterans convention in New Orleans Sunday that he was encouraged by televised remarks by Gingrich that indicated a softening of resistance to expanding wiretapping and to requiring chemical markers in black powder explosives.
He spoke a day after a pipe bomb exploded at an after-hours Olympics celebration in Atlanta, killing one person and injuring more than 100, and 11 days after a suspected bomb downed a TWA jumbo jet at a cost of 230 lives.

Clinton planned to press his request at the meeting Monday with Gingrich, Lott, Daschle, House minority leaders Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri and FBI Director Louis Freeh.
The aim, he said to applause, is "to help to agree on a package that will provide these additional protections against terrorism and any other measures we need to take to increase the protection of the American people.
Daschle said Monday it was possible an amendment might be offered in the Senate this week to approve Clinton's new proposals but said nothing had been decided.
"It may put Republicans in an awkward position," he said, in a reference to the watering down of the anti-terrorism bill last spring before it reached Clinton's desk. "They have to decide between the NRA and the FBI. I hope they choose the FBI."
Speaking of terrorism at home and abroad, Clinton told the Disabled American Veterans: "This is a challenge we can and will meet. It may well be the most significant security challenge of the 21st century to the people of the United States and to civilized people everywhere."
Meanwhile, it was announced that Attorney General Janet Reno will lead the U.S. delegation to a multinational conference on terrorism in Paris on Tuesday.
The anti-terrorism bill that Clinton signed earlier this year applied the death penalty to convicted terrorists and provided $1 billion in special assistance for law enforcement.
But a provision to allow the FBI to wiretap all telephones used by a suspected terrorist was dropped and one requiring explosives manufacturers to insert chemical tracers in their products was weakened to cover only plastic explosives.
A rare grouping of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats succeeded in killing the wiretap provision on the grounds that it would encroach further on personal liberties.
Clinton said he wanted increased wiretap authority "for terrorists who are moving from place to place," adding: "Where they are flexible, so must we be."
The Associated Press contributed to this report

 

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by James1701
I'm not blaming anyone I'm just stating the record which also shows that in the 8 years under Clinton the anti-terrorism budget of both the CIA & FBI was rasied more than under all of previous administrations combined.

The level of government spending does not imply either efficiency or effectiveness. (More often, the reverse.) If it did, the post office would be kicking the shit out of Federal Express

 

[TheNextBigThing]

I have my facts straight... Dashale spent 10 months bickering with Bush until he bent under peer pressure and changed his vote at the last minute.

Shall I go and find every interview and sound bite from him over the past year and throw it in your face?

France China and Russia all voted to approve the final UN Iraq resolution (proposed by the US).... does that mean they never were against it?

 

[James1701]

Originally posted by pjorourke
The level of government spending does not imply either efficiency or effectiveness. (More often, the reverse.) If it did, the post office would be kicking the shit out of Federal Express

Actually the Post Office is one of the few Government departments that is supported solely by its own revenue. Federal Express charges far more than the Post Office for its services, thus it is able to provide a higher quality of service. However, the Post Office still carries the bulk of mail. A single letter still costs only $.37, a price Federal Express can't match.

 

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by James1701
Actually the Post Office is one of the few Government departments that is supported solely by its own revenue. Federal Express charges far more than the Post Office for its services, thus it is able to provide a higher quality of service. However, the Post Office still carries the bulk of mail. A single letter still costs only $.37, a price Federal Express can't match.

I'll tell you what James. I'll send you a check for $25,000. Would you rather get it sent by Fedex or PO?