( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

UNANSWERED -- DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?: Woodward reveals that in
July 2002, Bush secretly approved diverting $700 million
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml)
meant for operations in Afghanistan into war planning for Iraq. Bush kept
Congress "totally in the dark on this," which raises serious legal questions
reminiscent of Iran-Contra: Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S.
Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) vests
the power of the purse with Congress, and statutes bar the executive from
unilaterally moving money out of areas explicitly mandated by spending
bills. On CBS's Face the Nation
(http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_041804.pdf) , Rice tried to defend
the move, claiming "resources were not taken from Afghanistan." Not only did
this response contradict the fact that special forces were pulled out of
Afghanistan
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...p-shifts_x.htm) in 2002
and moved to Iraq, but it did not address legal questions. As CBS anchor Bob
Schieffer said, "Dr. Rice, you cannot take money that Congress has
appropriated for one purpose and spend it on something else. That's against
the law." One other note: In the same supplemental bill, Bush further
ignored the will of Congress
(http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0802/081502cd1.htm) , blocking a
bipartisan, House- and Senate-passed homeland security funding package.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...

UNANSWERED -- DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?: Woodward reveals that
in
July 2002, Bush secretly approved diverting $700 million
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml)
meant for operations in Afghanistan into war planning for Iraq. Bush kept
Congress "totally in the dark on this," which raises serious legal
questions
reminiscent of Iran-Contra: Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S.
Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) vests
the power of the purse with Congress, and statutes bar the executive from
unilaterally moving money out of areas explicitly mandated by spending
bills. On CBS's Face the Nation
(http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_041804.pdf) , Rice tried to defend
the move, claiming "resources were not taken from Afghanistan." Not only
did
this response contradict the fact that special forces were pulled out of
Afghanistan
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...p-shifts_x.htm) in
2002
and moved to Iraq, but it did not address legal questions. As CBS anchor
Bob
Schieffer said, "Dr. Rice, you cannot take money that Congress has
appropriated for one purpose and spend it on something else. That's
against
the law." One other note: In the same supplemental bill, Bush further
ignored the will of Congress
(http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0802/081502cd1.htm) , blocking a
bipartisan, House- and Senate-passed homeland security funding package.




Yeah, but Bush didn't lie about a blowjob, and that's what's really
important, isn't it?

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

Now this is really scary... apologies for the cut-n-paste, but perhaps
this will change the minds of a few military minded persons here who are
convinced Bush is a "strong" President and is keeping us safe from
terrorists.

The Bush Administration is giving top secret war plans to hostile
foreign powers, foreign gov't who are proven supporters of terrorism.
But hey, these particular guys are Bush business partners and promised
to cut oil prices right before the election, so that makes it OK!

DSK

***quote ***
From 60 minutes last night:

But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell (of the
decision to go to war), Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince
Bandar, the Saudi ambassador. ”Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's
permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing
office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with
a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’
No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this,” says Woodward.

“They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's
skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam
out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ‘So Saddam this time is gonna be
out, period?’ And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following:
‘Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.’"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, “I wanted him to
know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn’t enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted
confirmation from the president. “Then, two days later, Bandar is called
to meet with the president and the president says, ‘Their message is my
message,’” says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the
Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has
promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the
months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on
election day.

*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:49:50 -0400, DSK wrote:

Now this is really scary... apologies for the cut-n-paste, but perhaps
this will change the minds of a few military minded persons here who are
convinced Bush is a "strong" President and is keeping us safe from
terrorists.

The Bush Administration is giving top secret war plans to hostile
foreign powers, foreign gov't who are proven supporters of terrorism.
But hey, these particular guys are Bush business partners and promised
to cut oil prices right before the election, so that makes it OK!

DSK

***quote ***
From 60 minutes last night:

But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell (of the
decision to go to war), Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince
Bandar, the Saudi ambassador. ”Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's
permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing
office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with
a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’
No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this,” says Woodward.

“They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's
skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam
out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ‘So Saddam this time is gonna be
out, period?’ And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following:
‘Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.’"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, “I wanted him to
know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn’t enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted
confirmation from the president. “Then, two days later, Bandar is called
to meet with the president and the president says, ‘Their message is my
message,’” says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the
Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has
promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the
months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on
election day.

*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining that there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all are
posting.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...


*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining that there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all are
posting.

Did you have a couple a beers out on the boat today?

He shared the dubious plans to invade Iraq, such as they were, with a
foreign national before telling his Secretary of State of his plans.

The fact that the plans were a piece of **** notwithstanding.

jps

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

jps wrote:

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...



*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***


Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining that there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all are
posting.


Did you have a couple a beers out on the boat today?

He shared the dubious plans to invade Iraq, such as they were, with a
foreign national before telling his Secretary of State of his plans.

The fact that the plans were a piece of **** notwithstanding.

jps



Presidunce Bush and Saudi Prince Bandar also cut a deal to lower oil
prices just before our elections.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"John H" wrote
Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all are
posting.

Are you posting from a WEBTV?
Seriously, are you? LOL

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining that there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all are
posting.

John H

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was good
for national security.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting the
OTHER guy out.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're right. It
was "the same thing". :-)

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're right.
It
was "the same thing". :-)

Jethro Klintin ordered the killing of many too, or have you forgotten
already?
The point is, in case it eluded you Doug, is that the lying *******s
revealed their true character with their very first lie.
Blue dress, WMD, what the hell's the diff?
In spite of that, many people (you?) defend them anyway.
The voters get exactly the slaveholder they choose.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're
whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them
away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of
y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was
good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting
the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're
right.
It
was "the same thing". :-)

Jethro Klintin ordered the killing of many too, or have you forgotten
already?
The point is, in case it eluded you Doug, is that the lying *******s
revealed their true character with their very first lie.
Blue dress, WMD, what the hell's the diff?
In spite of that, many people (you?) defend them anyway.
The voters get exactly the slaveholder they choose.



Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't use a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're
whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them
away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of
y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was
good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of
the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own
character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting
the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're
right.
It
was "the same thing". :-)

Jethro Klintin ordered the killing of many too, or have you forgotten
already?
The point is, in case it eluded you Doug, is that the lying *******s
revealed their true character with their very first lie.
Blue dress, WMD, what the hell's the diff?
In spite of that, many people (you?) defend them anyway.
The voters get exactly the slaveholder they choose.



Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.
BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans simply
won't work right.

However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."


BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans
simply
won't work right.

Right there is where the *slippery path* starts.
I don't believe there is anything that one of the citizens employees does
that should be secret.
Let's be clear, the president and all politicians are paid by the taxpayers,
who are therefore their employers.
Employees cannot keep secrets from their employers.
The truth is, the politicians should not be fooling around with stuff that
requires secrecy, period.
And that includes clandestine manueverings with foreign entities/gov'ts.


However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's
exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and
says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."

While I dispised Clinton, it was not for his personal choices.
I couldn't care less what he does with a dumpy cow, just don't do it on
company time.
That's not what the taxpayers are paying him for.

BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

Negative, of course.
The Congress basically wrote a blank check to the president, so that he may
declare war as he deems it appropriate. This is a direct violation to the
wording of the Constitution. This action has taken the responsibility of war
off the shoulders of the congressmen whom would be accountable to their
constituents and possibly voted out of office at the next election. The
president is a 2 trick pony, will be out of office in 2 terms anyway, so
being voted out of office is not a deterrent to him.
In my opinion, all of the politicians that voted to give the president the
sole authority to wage war, in direct violation to the Constitution, should
be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in
no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton
didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard
to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans
simply
won't work right.

Right there is where the *slippery path* starts.
I don't believe there is anything that one of the citizens employees does
that should be secret.
Let's be clear, the president and all politicians are paid by the
taxpayers,
who are therefore their employers.
Employees cannot keep secrets from their employers.
The truth is, the politicians should not be fooling around with stuff that
requires secrecy, period.
And that includes clandestine manueverings with foreign entities/gov'ts.

I don't like secrets either, but I don't think the invasion of Normandy
would've gone real well if it had been published in the newspapers a week
ahead of time. The Manhattan Project might gone badly, too.


However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who
didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's
exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people
are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out
of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and
says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."

While I dispised Clinton, it was not for his personal choices.
I couldn't care less what he does with a dumpy cow, just don't do it on
company time.
That's not what the taxpayers are paying him for.

Everyone needs to relax. Is it OK with you if a president plays golf a
couple of times a month? How about a few hours of fishing? Poker? Frankly,
what a president does for fun is none of anyone's damned business, as long
as it's legal.


BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

Negative, of course.
The Congress basically wrote a blank check to the president, so that he
may
declare war as he deems it appropriate. This is a direct violation to the
wording of the Constitution. This action has taken the responsibility of
war
off the shoulders of the congressmen whom would be accountable to their
constituents and possibly voted out of office at the next election. The
president is a 2 trick pony, will be out of office in 2 terms anyway, so
being voted out of office is not a deterrent to him.
In my opinion, all of the politicians that voted to give the president the
sole authority to wage war, in direct violation to the Constitution,
should
be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen, although Nader is suggesting
exactly this type of "cleansing".

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in
no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton
didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There
is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard
to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans
simply
won't work right.

Right there is where the *slippery path* starts.
I don't believe there is anything that one of the citizens employees
does
that should be secret.
Let's be clear, the president and all politicians are paid by the
taxpayers,
who are therefore their employers.
Employees cannot keep secrets from their employers.
The truth is, the politicians should not be fooling around with stuff
that
requires secrecy, period.
And that includes clandestine manueverings with foreign entities/gov'ts.

I don't like secrets either, but I don't think the invasion of Normandy
would've gone real well if it had been published in the newspapers a week
ahead of time. The Manhattan Project might gone badly, too.

Citing examples of the past is no excuse for bad behavior in the
present/future.


However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who
didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's
exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people
are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air
out
of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and
says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."

While I dispised Clinton, it was not for his personal choices.
I couldn't care less what he does with a dumpy cow, just don't do it on
company time.
That's not what the taxpayers are paying him for.

Everyone needs to relax. Is it OK with you if a president plays golf a
couple of times a month? How about a few hours of fishing? Poker? Frankly,
what a president does for fun is none of anyone's damned business, as long
as it's legal.

I'm not gonna get down in the mud, talking about Clinton.
You know damn well that most male employees would get fired on the spot if
they had a lower female employee sucking their dick in the office on company
time.
If he and the cow were ****ing on the 11th hole, you're right, how is it
anyones business?

BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the
current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

Negative, of course.
The Congress basically wrote a blank check to the president, so that he
may
declare war as he deems it appropriate. This is a direct violation to
the
wording of the Constitution. This action has taken the responsibility of
war
off the shoulders of the congressmen whom would be accountable to their
constituents and possibly voted out of office at the next election. The
president is a 2 trick pony, will be out of office in 2 terms anyway, so
being voted out of office is not a deterrent to him.
In my opinion, all of the politicians that voted to give the president
the
sole authority to wage war, in direct violation to the Constitution,
should
be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen, although Nader is suggesting
exactly this type of "cleansing".

The best we could hope for is that the next T-attack on the US would take
out a majority of the politicians and then the rest of us could get on with
the business of being human beings towards one another.

( OT ) DID THE WHITE HOUSE VIOLATE THE LAW?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


I don't like secrets either, but I don't think the invasion of
Normandy
would've gone real well if it had been published in the newspapers a
week
ahead of time. The Manhattan Project might gone badly, too.

Citing examples of the past is no excuse for bad behavior in the
present/future.

Bad behavior? Don't you think SOME issues require secrecy? I'm not happy
with the idea that we resort to too many military solutions, but opinion
aside, how would some of these work if they were publicized beforehand?

No, employees should not keep job secrets from their employees, ever.
If something needs to be secreted from the employer (the taxpayers), it
shouldn't be done.

I'm not gonna get down in the mud, talking about Clinton.
You know damn well that most male employees would get fired on the spot
if
they had a lower female employee sucking their dick in the office on
company
time.

Well, first of all, if some people didn't have such a problem with his
wife's existence, nobody would care if SHE were sucking his dick on
company
time in the office. And second, I think the presidency is the type of job
where "company time" is 24x7.

If you or I got caught receiving head in the WH we would be brought up on
charges.
The president is not above the law.

be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen, although Nader is
suggesting
exactly this type of "cleansing".

The best we could hope for is that the next T-attack on the US would
take
out a majority of the politicians and then the rest of us could get on
with
the business of being human beings towards one another.

That would be nice, but unlikely as long as politicians depend on war for
their sexual excitement.