IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
- Feb 18, 2013
- 11,059
- 2,055
Being an unindicted co-conspirator is not sufficient justification to incarcerate a foreign national oN foreign soil.
Capturing an enemy in time of war is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Being an unindicted co-conspirator is not sufficient justification to incarcerate a foreign national oN foreign soil.
Being an unindicted co-conspirator is not sufficient justification to incarcerate a foreign national oN foreign soil.
Capturing an enemy in time of war is.
Being an unindicted co-conspirator is not sufficient justification to incarcerate a foreign national oN foreign soil.
Capturing an enemy in time of war is.
Shit, in 1996 the GOP would have had a Fauxreagous Hay-Day if President Clinton had arrested bin Laden.
Capturing an enemy in time of war is.
Shit, in 1996 the GOP would have had a Fauxreagous Hay-Day if President Clinton had arrested bin Laden.
Nonsense.
Shit, in 1996 the GOP would have had a Fauxreagous Hay-Day if President Clinton had arrested bin Laden.
Nonsense.
They'd have been howling like wolves.
Nonsense.
They'd have been howling like wolves.
Nonsense.
They'd have been howling like wolves.
Nonsense.
Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.
The Clinton administrations attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged further study. (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)
While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.
Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage would amount to a cost per life saved of well over $300 million. The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: [T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didnt have to pay for this and didnt have to charge passengers for it. Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.
If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clintons adversaries on Capitol Hill.
Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as totalitarian.
The typical partisan reaction to Clintons counterterror proposals was enunciated in 1996 by Rep. David McIntosh, who insisted on steering the debate back to a phony White House scandal. We find it very troubling that youre asking us for additional authority to wiretap innocent Americans, declared McIntosh, when you have failed to explain to the American people why you abuse their civil liberties by having FBI files brought into the White House.
Harassing the White House was the overriding aim of congressional Republicans throughout the Clinton era, and not only after January 1998
Don?t blame Clinton - Salon.com
Nonsense.
Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.
The Clinton administrations attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged further study. (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)
While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.
Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage would amount to a cost per life saved of well over $300 million. The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: [T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didnt have to pay for this and didnt have to charge passengers for it. Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.
If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clintons adversaries on Capitol Hill.
Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as totalitarian.
The typical partisan reaction to Clintons counterterror proposals was enunciated in 1996 by Rep. David McIntosh, who insisted on steering the debate back to a phony White House scandal. We find it very troubling that youre asking us for additional authority to wiretap innocent Americans, declared McIntosh, when you have failed to explain to the American people why you abuse their civil liberties by having FBI files brought into the White House.
Harassing the White House was the overriding aim of congressional Republicans throughout the Clinton era, and not only after January 1998
Don?t blame Clinton - Salon.com
Sure.
THAT was the only reason.
Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.
The Clinton administrations attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged further study. (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)
While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.
Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage would amount to a cost per life saved of well over $300 million. The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: [T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didnt have to pay for this and didnt have to charge passengers for it. Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.
If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clintons adversaries on Capitol Hill.
Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as totalitarian.
The typical partisan reaction to Clintons counterterror proposals was enunciated in 1996 by Rep. David McIntosh, who insisted on steering the debate back to a phony White House scandal. We find it very troubling that youre asking us for additional authority to wiretap innocent Americans, declared McIntosh, when you have failed to explain to the American people why you abuse their civil liberties by having FBI files brought into the White House.
Harassing the White House was the overriding aim of congressional Republicans throughout the Clinton era, and not only after January 1998
Don?t blame Clinton - Salon.com
Sure.
THAT was the only reason.
Becauses it always has to be one extreme or the other?
Sure.
THAT was the only reason.
Becauses it always has to be one extreme or the other?
Wrong yet again.
In fact, what I was suggesting with that sarcastic "sure" was that there are lots of reasons to oppose some legislation BEYOND just hating on Bubba Clinton.
President Bush could not "admit" any such thing. He COULD and did make a statement about what he understood the situation to be.
But so what?
He was not the only one who firmly "knew" (believed) that Saddam had WMD.
Haven't you been keeping up? Pretty much the entire Democratic Party thought so too before President Bush even took office. IF you want the same litany of prominent Democrats who made that case based on what the U.S. intelligence had found before President Bush took office, it won't be hard to find. Several such posts were offered just yesterday.
No one is being excused, both parties are guilty. Two wrongs don't make it right