The "I" word is in the air - (Impeachment)

[PCGS65]

by Drew, There is no war... If you think it's a war that can be won you have clearly been snowballed by the spinmeisters...

Last time I checked tanks,artillery,air craft carriers,destroyers,coordinated air attacks and hundreds of thousands of troops is not law enforcement IT'S WAR.
And no Drew I do not think it can be won. But we must pursue them to disrupt their operations.

 

[The Drew]

Drew we tried to handle the terrorist issue as a Law Enforcement issue for over 20 years and look what that got us. The US has gone longer without an attack on our soil than we did under the Law Enforcement program. Please tell me you're not suggesting another failed policy be resurrected from the dead.

I still can't believe you feel the people in the WTC should have known!?! That's a sad my friend. Very, Very Sad.

What we got??? We got 2... count them 2, foreign terrorist attacks on our soil during that time... We haven't gone longer under this system without an attack... The airline security was a failure... That is where we failed, not in pursuing terrorism as law enforcement. I don't advocate airline security going back to the way it was. I believe we've come quite a ways since 9/11, But in too many other aspects, we're just barking up the wrong trees.

As for the people in the WTC, They should've known they were taking a risk. Any time you live or work in such a monument to our system, it is a potential target. Besides that, it was proven over and over to be a target of islamic terrorists. (not only the bombing, but other plots that were either canceled or foiled) So anyone choosing to work in such a place should've known the danger.

 

[RealGun]

What we got??? We got 2... count them 2, foreign terrorist attacks on our soil during that time... We haven't gone longer under this system without an attack... The airline security was a failure... That is where we failed, not in pursuing terrorism as law enforcement. I don't advocate airline security going back to the way it was. I believe we've come quite a ways since 9/11, But in too many other aspects, we're just barking up the wrong trees.

As for the people in the WTC, They should've known they were taking a risk. Any time you live or work in such a monument to our system, it is a potential target. Besides that, it was proven over and over to be a target of islamic terrorists. (not only the bombing, but other plots that were either canceled or foiled) So anyone choosing to work in such a place should've known the danger.

Maybe their fears had been assuaged. Ground security was probably adequate after the '93 bombing, but someone failed to envision a need for missiles on the roof.

My nephew worked in one of the towers until 10 months before 9/11. He was still in sight from his office window. He moved to London shortly after that but is back now.

 

[NorthernExtreme]

Drew,

The terrorists became stronger, better financed, larger in numbers, more technologically advanced, more organized, and a bigger threat under our Law Enforcement strategy. Like I said, it was a failed policy.

But I know there is nothing that can be said to change your mind. The terrorists (home Brewed and International) have learned to play this game better than many are willing to give them credit for, and have a much better understanding of what is at stake than most Americans. And if you ask them which approach we should take in going after them I'm sure you will find many more who agree with you.

That is not to say there is not a place for Law Enforcement in the fight. But American Law Enforcement cannot reach into the living quarters of a terrorist in Afghanistan and put a bullet (or a smart bomb) where it needs to be. The military can. I'm for going after them over there and not here.

Nobody is going to argue with you that there is no way to eliminate the terrorists, but we can dismantle their support, numbers, finances, logistical assets and leadership to a point where it will be harder for them to live and breath out in the open as they did just a few years ago. It's hard to commit a terrorist attack in the US when bullets and bombs are flying at you every time you stick your head out of the ground in Iraq. When the terrorists no longer have the ability to butcher, burn, and crush thousands of Americans I will consider that a win. Until then, as long as they breath and grow I'm all for fighting them with bullets and leaving the Law Books at home.

 

[GoRon]

You're not stupid, you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. You see these things as a WAR, rather than a law enforcement problem. Terrorists are criminals, and they need to be brought to justice. However saying that they are a great threat to the american people is overblowing the issue.

The problem is the whole middle east. It is the festering pool that breeds the terrorists.

The dictators and mullahs that run the region are the fount from which the extremists come forth. You couldn't arrest the bad guys as fast as they recruit them.

Now with the threat of regime change and turning the reigns of government over to the citizens the despots have something to worry about. Many in the despots own countries wouldn't mind a "liberal" democracy in place of the ruling party.

Treating the terrorism problem as a law enforcement issue is right out of the leftist playbook. It brings scorn and further attacks from our enemies. It puts innocent citizens in harms way instead of the men and women we have trained to take the fight to the "evil doers".

Wake up, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia cannot be dealt with by law enforcement.

 

[Flyboy]

As for saying, "Hey! I'll vote my conscience" all I'll say is this:

If Ross Perot had not run, Clinton would NEVER had been in office. Think hard about it.

No Assault Weapons Ban.

No S&W agreement.

Those are the two things I can remember. I'm sure there are many more examples.

So think about it, before someone votes for a candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning an election.

One. More. Time.

The Republicans lost to Clinton as a result of conservative Republicans deciding that Perot was more conservative than Bush. This caused them to lose the 1992 election.

Shortly thereafter, the Republicans acquired Clue. Remember the "Contract with America," and other conservative pushes? Remember our budget surplus? The one that resulted from (in addition to a strong economy) responsible (...ish) spending? Guess where spending bills come from. Yeah, Congress--you know, the bit that was Republican-dominated in the late nineties?

The President is powerful, but he's not all-powerful. It's an understandable mistake, really, given our current example, but he's kind of an anomaly. If the Republicans start losing at the polls, they'll start looking at why. It's a self-preservation thing. So we lose the Presidency; big deal. A Republican Congress can wield more power than the President can, if they want; they can override a veto, but I haven't yet met the President who can pass a law without help from Congress (and even Executive Orders--which our current specimen seems to like a bunch--can be overriden by Congress).

The Democrats taking the Oval Office isn't the end of the world. In fact, it might be for the best in the long term, if it reminds the Republicans of what we want from them.

 

[Waitone]

So we lose the Presidency; big deal. A Republican Congress can wield more power than the President can, if they want; they can override a veto, but I haven't yet met the President who can pass a law without help from Congress (and even Executive Orders--which our current specimen seems to like a bunch--can be overriden by Congress).

I remind the court of opinion here on THR that it was a republican controlled house that filed articles of impeachment against a Democrat president in a senate controlled by republicans. It was the republican senate majority leader that decided there would be no trial of the Democrat president. Put it this way: it was a republican congress that pulled a Democrat president's bacon out of the fire.

Neither party is worth a cup of warm spit.

 

[Biker]

I remind the court of opinion here on THR that it was a republican controlled house that filed articles of impeachment against a Democrat president in a senate controlled by republicans. It was the republican senate majority leader that decided there would be no trial of the Democrat president. Put it this way: it was a republican congress that pulled a Democrat president's bacon out of the fire.

Neither party is worth a cup of warm spit.

Other than the fact that you misspelled the word 'spit', you couldn't be more right.

Biker

 

[ceetee]

...Some of these people would change their tune if their family members were lost to terrorist attacks.
I prefer not to wait till that happens even though it has.

You're absolutely right. It has happpened, here... more than once. All I have to say about it, is this:

If any of my family were killed by terrorists, I'd darn sure NOT want the soldiers and Marines off invading Kenya, or Taiwan... I'd want them catching or killing the SOB's. And if there were any caught alive, I'd want to personally wield the blowtorch as I sent them off to Allah with no equipment left to satisy the virgins.

It's just wrong to allow our current administration to break the law, no matter what the reason. Especially when they could have stayed within the law so easily.

 

[cbsbyte]

What I don't understand is why so many people on this site are willing to put up with Republicans in office. They complain daily on the abuses of this adminstration but instead of voting for change they vote third party. If you want to make a change today the only party that will reverse the evils of the Bush adminstration today is the Democrat party. I believe it is easier to change the Democrats from within than try to vote a third party into office in the near future, especially when the third parties beliefs are alien to most american voters. At least that is my rant.

 

[Art Eatman]

cbsbyte, the way you change any party is the method used by the socialisticc types to take over the national-level Democratic elite: You take small steps over a period of a decade or two. You get activists to actually go to work: Stuffing envelopes, manning phone banks, and packing local precincts to get "your" people in office. Not just at the national level, but at local and state levels as well.

The large-city areas proved the easiest to suborn.

We've gone from the Democratic Party of JFK with his "Pay any price, go anywhere, to expand freedom and democracy" to some sort of "Don't do much of anything for anybody if they won't vote for me." It started with LBJ and culminated with Clinton when Hippies and Vietnam War protesters moved into the White House.

You want change? First think "Grassroots" like the Republicans did in Texas or pro-CHL folks did in many states; then, get off the duff and go to work.

Dunno any other way...

Art

 

[RealGun]

What I don't understand is why so many people on this site are willing to put up with Republicans in office.

Because they are Republicans who did what they could to keep a Democrat, especially Gore and Kerry, from being President.

They complain daily on the abuses of this adminstration but instead of voting for change they vote third party.

That's a different group. THR includes some libertarians who have the support of list management.

If you want to make a change today the only party that will reverse the evils of the Bush adminstration today is the Democrat party.

What evils? The issues trumpeted by those who never have anything good to say, who love to dig the dirt, the wannabees, or the issues that make the party faithful squirm? No one gets their perfect President. Actually this is a productive presidency with strong leadership, a dang sight better than one would expect from Kerry.

I believe it is easier to change the Democrats from within than try to vote a third party into office in the near future, especially when the third parties beliefs are alien to most american voters.

The Democrats are actually champions of some of my causes, since I guess I qualify as "moderate", not one of the church-in-government people or extreme conservative. In any case, if you want votes, you can't be extreme one way or the other. The problem with Democrats is that some of their positions are deal breakers. You can't just pick the candidate that makes the best impression. You have to look at what the party supports in contrast to its opponent. You vote for the party unless their candidate is just awful. I think that's what happened to the Democrats, enhancing Bush's position as incumbent.

I think the Democrats have plenty of support for nanny government to regain their position. The time is actually quite good for Hillary to really harp on relief from health care costs. A vast number of WWII babies and Vietnam era politicos will be right at retirement age during the next election. Hillary will have their full attention. The new drug plans taking effect in a few days may be costly but they steal some of Hillary's thunder. To do that, the GOP cannot be totally unlike the Democrats. You gotta play the middle.

 

[LAK]

GoRon

... The problem is the whole middle east ...

If the whole Middle east was turned into a sheet of glass; you would still have your "war on terror".

Forever, and with no tangible progress.

Because "terrorism" is interwoven worldwide with organized crime; arms dealing and smuggling, the drug trade, and every other major criminal racket in existance. Historically it is also the persuasive tool of people in and around governments.

Attempting to catalogue "terrorism" as some unique affliction is absurd.
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you want to make a change today the only party that will reverse the evils of the Bush adminstration today is the Democrat party.

No doubt the Democrats have an entirely different list of evils in mind than the Bush Administration...