Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011109.html

Try typing the words "Bush" and "Executive Order" and "secrecy" into
Google. Here, I've made it easy:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...+Order+secrecy

The results startled me. I knew of Pesident Bush's initial secrecy
order, the constitutionality of which has not yet been testes, but he's
done it 3 times!

Oh and one more thing... I believe the Bible has some words of wisdom on
the subject... something about who it is that "hateth the light"... let
me see, is it honorable upstanding Christians? No, that doesn't sound
right... hmmm who can help me out here...

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.


or pre-Sept 11th briefings about terrorists flying airplanes
into buildings.

Ask Sandy Berger for the memos to those. He was caught stuffing them into
his socks.

You've been listening to Hannity and Rush too much. It wasn't like
that at all, and has been proven such.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the
Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.


or pre-Sept 11th briefings about terrorists flying airplanes
into buildings.

Ask Sandy Berger for the memos to those. He was caught stuffing them
into
his socks.

You've been listening to Hannity and Rush too much. It wasn't like
that at all, and has been proven such.

Nothing has been proven. There's still an active investigation into the
theft at the Justice Department.

DSK wrote in message ...

They make Nixon look like a blabbermouth.

How hard could that be. Nixon was a blabbermouth that recorded a lot
of his balbbering.

So, therefor, it
behooves all Bush supporters to demand that everybody else release all
documents publicly, right?

Nope. I don't think that all documents should be released.

All of Bush's miltary records? OK - though Bush is not holding up his
military experience as a reason to elect him.

Kerry's miltary records? Kerry is claiming to be a war hero. It is
being disputed. He is using his war hero status as a qaulification to
be president. The most definitely his records should be released.

Kerry would have been a lot better off if he had not taken the war
hero route. 4 months in Vietnam on a fifty foot boat does not bestow
and magical qualifications to be commander-in-chief. But by basing
his using it as the foundation of his candidacy, he has invited the
scrutiny of his miltary record.


NOYB wrote:
"A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records
produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel
Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full
file, which consists of at least a hundred pages."

Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A01

Curtis CCR wrote:

DSK wrote in message ...

They make Nixon look like a blabbermouth.

How hard could that be. Nixon was a blabbermouth that recorded a lot
of his balbbering.

So was LBJ. There seem to be lifetimes of his recorded conversations
with folks in his office and on the phones...they go on and on and on...



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

They make Nixon look like a blabbermouth.


Curtis CCR wrote:
How hard could that be. Nixon was a blabbermouth that recorded a lot
of his balbbering.

Nixon also kept a lot of things secret... a deeply ingrained policy.
Among other things, he would relay partial (or in some cases falsified)
info to the military in order to keep them from knowing his real plans.


So, therefor, it
behooves all Bush supporters to demand that everybody else release all
documents publicly, right?


Nope. I don't think that all documents should be released.

OK which ones?



All of Bush's miltary records? OK - though Bush is not holding up his
military experience as a reason to elect him.

Really? He seems to make some use of it. About as much as Kerry,
actually. I have seen far more Republicans going on and on and on about
Kerry's war record than Democrats.


Kerry's miltary records? Kerry is claiming to be a war hero.

No, he's not. The Bush-Cheney campaign is claiming that he claims to be one.


.... But by basing
his using it as the foundation of his candidacy, he has invited the
scrutiny of his miltary record.

Really? It seems more reasonable to me that the records of Bush and
Kerry should be parked side by side for public inspection.

The argument that Kerry has made himself a legitimate target for this
kind of slander is too close to Rush Limbaugh's claims that Chelsea
Clinton is a legitimate target.

There is no "legitmate target" for abusive slander & character
assassination. If this is the kind of campaign that Bush & Cheney want
to run, what does that say about 1- their performance on the job and 2-
their own moral qualifications to be leaders?

Regards
Doug King