Jane Fonda, Kerry, Prescott & GHW Bush,& Reagan Traitors?=Bush & Nixon War Criminals?
 

For a change.....let's try keeping this in one place instead of
hijacking other threads with sidetrack discussions of is she (he) or isn't she (he), a traitor or a war criminal.
Jane Fonda, traitor ?

John Kerry, traitor ?

Prescott Bush, traitor ?

Ronald Reagan, traitor ?

GHW Bush, traitor ?

Richard Nixon, war criminal ?

George W Bush, war criminal ?

I'm going to take a quick stab at this.

Fonda, Yes.
Kerry, Yes.
Prescott Bush, dunno, if he was still selling to Hitler after we declared war yes, if not no.

Dubya, no. Regardless of the pretenses of war, until anything binding establishes that Bush knowingly lied, he is allowed something called "Good Faith". Most of the facts put fourth by Mr. Ramsey are bull, in that they are twisted and not truthful. Nuremburg be damned because State Sovereignity trumps any flimsy International order or law, especially since Bush sought and recieved congressional approval, in good faith, Bush is beholden to America and it's laws, nothing and nobody else. I would respond in more detail buts it late, I just wanted to take a quick stab at this. Perhaps tomorrow.

Oh aslong as you have Nixon and Reagen up there, might want to throw LBJ and Kennedy.

Should be careful with that since thats what Saddam was doing. Trying to keep his state's sovereignty, fuck the rest of the world, and all that kinda stuff like that there. The rest of the world wants you to stop making nuclear/chemical/biological weapons? Fuck 'em! The rest of the world wants you to not invade another nation based on flimsy and (in some cases) blatantly false evidence? Fuck 'em!

Its like the food chain cartoon with the bigger fish eating the smaller fish in a chain;

kuwait <=== Iraq <=== USA

I'm really glad you brought this up. The penalty for treason is death by firing squad correct? The Bush crime family does go clear back to WWII.

“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents

Here's a couple quotes from the article

Fox News also picked up on this story and did indeed admit John Buchanan found the documents and reported on it. Of course they picked up on the AP article that spins to truth insteed of Buchanans actual findings. Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler
The reason I'm linking this article is because it gives credibility to his story, and also shows how the news media spins to truth to protect the Bush crime family.

John Buchanan is now receiving death threatsfor his uncoverning of the truth
A Letter from John Buchanan... Buchanan has received hundreds of credible death threats and is now living under 24-hour police protection. Funny how anyone who exposes the truth gets threatened. Finally, here's a video interview of John Buchanan discussing his findings at the National Security Archive: 9/11 Martial Law: Rise of the Police State: Buchanan Interview

Here's where you can watch the full movie if you care to

i find it interesting in the above posts that take the ridiculous accusations of treason seriously that "treason" seems to be reserved in rightwingland for those who opposed particular wars, and vietnam above all others. funny how that works, isnt it?

funnier still that this is associated with the reactionary claim that state sovereignty trumps international law, particularly when that law pertains to questions of war crimes.

put the two together and you get a glimpse into the conventional "wisdom" of the right: so long as the actor is a "real american" (read conservative) anything goes: step out of line and oppose what the conservatives decide to be the Best Interest of Real Americans like themselves and it is treason.

it seems to me that if there is a problem, it lay with the ridiculous viewpoint developed by the conservative apparatus on this. it is like they are practicing for a total clampdown on dissent from moderates and the left by obsessing about vietnam, about those who opposed it, by rewriting the past and casting those who exercized their freedom of speech in opposition to a an obviously foul colonial war in the role of enemies of the state.

it seems like the idea is simple: get the brownshirts used to this kind of thing by practicing on signifiers framed by revisionist understandings of vietnam: when the shoe drops in real time, these same people will cheerlead the "purification" of the "real america" by the "elmination" of "traitors"--who knows, maybe some of these "traitors" will get to visit the system of outsourced torture the americans have set up already. one thing for sure, if this type of logic is followed, you can be sure the right will say nothing critical about it, will not care.

There is nothing funny about it, and I never said it was reserved to people in "rightwingland", it just happens when cowards from "leftwingland" testify and lie before congress and America GI's suffer and die from it I get pissed.

Maybe you don't know this, but it does. That's how the rules set up for one, countries are only beholden to treaties they sign, we haven't signed any ICC treaty. Secondly International law only has authority were it is conceded. There is nothing reactionary about this, it is merely political fact.

I don't know where you got this from, I agreed that Prescott Bush was guilty of Treason contigent on the information Samcol put fourth, I couldn't comment on the Reagen/Nixon claims, Nixon I'm assuming being involved with Vietnam; so that is why I suggested Kennedy and LBJ, the two that started the war, be thrown in with the first two.

Maybe you can't grasp this concept, but there is dissent, and then there is treason. Dissent is alright and it is protected speech, when you go beyond that by doing things like meeting the enemy and garnering them support by the blood of America troops you are committing treason.

You getting pissed is hardly justification for a determination of treason.

I'll quote my response, from another thread, to your claim that Kerry is a traitor:

Manx, as I've stated before, Bush is allowed good faith, it is only speculation on your part that he knowingly lied.

Ann Clouter may be a nutjob, but she is not a traitor, even if you would like to label her as one it is just simply not true.

Kerry admitted to the fact that he lied to congress in his testimony about American soldiers committing war crimes.

Sorry, but your determinations are not mine.

I don't believe Bush or Ann Coulter ARE traitors, for much the same reason I don't believe Kerry is a traitor. I was simply pointing out that your methodology of determining treason is equally applicable to Bush and Coulter as you believe it is applicable to Kerry.

Even if you would like to deny it is so, it is simply true.

Kerry lying to Congress (and again, I'm going to let that claim slide for expediency even though I do not accept it as fact) does not make him a traitor. Much like Bush lying to the American people does not make him a traitor.

I wish conservatives would be consistent on the reading of this law--adhering to "original intent."

of course, then aid and comfort to the enemy would be limited to actually providing aid and comfort--as in, providing food, shelter, and physical/tangible assistance to people who were on our soil fighting against us.

(along with the two witness requirement which was tossed not too long ago by "activist" judges)

Your Ramsey Clark quote should have included either "nutjob" or "Saddam Hussein's attorney" depending on where you wanted to go with it.

Ramsey Clark=TRAITOR.

Correct. The entire hierarchy of the anti-war movement during Vietnam were guilty of treason. You don't have to take my word on it, though, simply read Giap's autobiography. In it, he states that they had lost the war militarily, but used the anti-war movement in the US as a front to reach a political victory. Given the level of support the anti-war movement received clandestinely from the KGB, there is no doubt that they are, in fact, traitors.

It's a shame you didn't mention Joe Kennedy in your little rant...why is that?

Correct. It was Kerry's actions in Paris in 1972 that made him a traitor and got him a "less than honorable" discharge, which he then had to wait 5 years to get upgraded. Ever wonder why he didn't sue the shit out of the Swifties? It's because if he did, his military records would have been subject to discovery, and then he'd have been fucked.

That's perjury, not treason. The treason came later.

I'd say it's treasonous because of what it precipitated(sp). He knowingly falsified testimony to garner support for the anti-war movement. As a result of it many American GI's were tortured, held longer in captivity, or executed because of the "war crimes" they committed.

isn't treason a crime?
isnt someone presumed innocent until a charge has been brought, a trail carried out, and the accused found guilty?

but there wasnt any trial for jane fonda or the other folk that have the right's panties in such a retrospective twist.
there was no due process.
there were no charges.
so there is no treason.

you, mojo (or anyone else who believes this nonsense) might have the opinion that x is guilty of treason--and i might (well i do) view that opinion as crackpot. you might find it therapeutic to wage symbolic warfare against jane fonda for whatever bizarre psychological reason--i doubt somehow that you were alive during the vietnam war, mojo---and it is your right to do that. yes it is. and it my right to view you, on this and the kerry matters, as a crackpot. period. but nowhere in any of this is there the slightest question of guilt.

unless of course you really are true to the legal "logic" of bushworld and are trying at some level to blur what you imagine fonda did into the category "terrorist" or an equivalent--in which case, like for your boy in the white house, there is only the need for suspicion--for bushworld, suspicion is enough to send many folk into either the domestic or international legal black hole circuit, shuttled place to place on private jets accompanied by cia operatives and delivered to the secret service of egypt, syria, pakistan for torture--ooops, i meant "interrogation"---with no hope of coming to trial...for background, listen to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme..._4/4246089.stm

or read this (a transcript)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...renditions.pdf

or if you read french, check out the lead article in this month's le monde diplomatique on the american outsourcing of torture--lots of documentation behind it--check the sources, mojo--be critical and look into the matter.

funny how this works--on the one hand, conservatives like yourself are interested in doing away with due process at all and effectively convicting someone who was never charged with anything of treason--on the other hand, your conservative buddies in power are interested in doing away with due process altogether by interpreting human rights law (like the cia said once: human rights are very simple) in the narrowest possible sense and not ever bringing charges against suspects. you could combine this stuff with the recent far right assaults on the judiciary in general and see that everything converges on the justification of what amounts to vigilante pseudo-justice--which i am sure you would endorse, so long as people you agree with politically were carrying it out. why not, really--it is very john wayne.

what a great bunch of folks there in bushworld.
real champions of individual rights.

Nope. She was practicing free speech, and was anti-war. Nothing illegal about that.
Same as Jane. Kerry was a hero for what he did.
Of course. He should have been prosecuted for aiding a state at war with America.
We're still not 100% sure about his election (the POWs release being possibly heald longer until after the election for weapons). What he did to Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras were beyond horrific, but a traitor he was not for those. His work at the EPA was astounding (see "trees cause more polution than cars...). I don't recall him being a traitor.
Nothing I can prove, yet. Plenty of adding facts, but no proof.
Nixon, as a private citizen during the 1968 presidential race, sought to delay and disrupt the Paris peace talks, thereby prolonging the war in Vietnam and leading to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. Did someone say traitor?
Hahahaha. Of course. He is guilty of being an accomplice to over 3000 U.S. murders. I don't know if I have time to list all the ways, so I figure one is enough.

Sincerest apologies for the threadjack in the other thread. I meant no disrespect.

So you're saying that OJ really DIDN'T kill Nicole? After all, he WAS found not guilty...

If the measure of criminality is a conviction, then for the most part there is no crime.

If a drug dealer hasn't yet been convicted of dealing drugs, does that mean he's law-abiding?

Murder is murder, regardless of if there has been a conviction so far. Same with bank robbery, rape, and treason.

Heh. The Anti-war movement was financed by the KGB in an effort to destabilize the "main enemy". She acted as a propaganda agent of the enemies of America. Giap, the military leader of the North Vietnamese, stated in his autobiography that his entire strategy depended upon the actions of the anti-war movement...the movemement which was financed by the Soviet Union in an effort to destabilize the US. So, you've got the US in a world-wide war with Communism...the North Vietnamese communists saying that they counted on the anti-war movement as a huge part of their strategy, and the entire thing being financed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, you've got Jane Fonda, as a leader of the anti-war movement, publicly saying "If you understood what Communism was, you would hope and pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist."

Nope, no treason there...

You say that as if everyone was lining up to get into uniform and kill some asians. If thats the case what's with the draft? Why have a draft if everyone's ready to kill some vietnamese? Whats with folks fleeing into canada to avoid being drafted? Could it be that they don't want to die? Or kill someone? Or facilitate the killing of someone (enlisted noncombatant)? It's all a commie plot though?

As for the North Vietnamese being glad that folks dont want to wage war against them i dont blame them. I'd be glad if folks didnt want to go to war against me too.

I am so very tempted to move this thread to Paranoia


Following this logic.....if Osama has a plan, which involves manipulation of American society through Subtle, if indirect means. And I unknowingly take part in it, I am a traitor. Heres a hypothetical for you:

Osama has decided the best way to destroy America is to garner Hatred in the world for it. To create this hatred he decides to get us all to pit Christianity, against Islam. In twenty years....we will need to place a traitor label on quite a few Americans...now wont we.

If they are flying to Afghanistan and holding meetings with him, facilitating his cause in the same manner as Fonda, then yes you would label them traitors.

You know, this just is nothing more than another thread for right and left to bash each other over past issues that just don't amount to shit.

Prescot Bush, Jane Fonda, blah blah blah ....... the problem is we are not learning from the past both sides pick and choose what they want to discredit and hurt the other side.

Talking about this crap is mental masterbation trying to prove that you are right and the other side is wrong over something that will not change anything.

You want to better the US, take both sides equally, weigh what we have tried and what worked. Take what has worked and make it better and take what didn't work and find out why.

Stop playing finger pointing bullshit and just work together to build a better future... because the future is passing us by and we're standing with our dicks in our hands having pissing contests to see what morals law we can pass, or who has a better moral history. We have let religion and morals become our prime targets and we have let financial growth, developing a better infrastructure and educational system be legislated by fucking big business lobbyists who pay both sides to keep our attention diverted on other things than what truly matters.

WAKE UP and stop the fucking piss games and fight to better America, get us strong again. Cause we're dying and all we can focus on is who was or wasn't a traitor 40 years ago, and why gays should or should not be married, how bad Howard Stern is, abortion, blah blah blah.....

Are any of those going to affect the betterment and health of America? Do those issues truly matter to you? Do those issues truly matter more to you than making sure your kids and grandkids can compete in a world economy and make decent livings?

Maybe if we stop the finger pointing and having to blindly accept our party lines and follow a disgrace of a president or a party catering to extreme whackos.... (BOTH SIDES FAL INTO THIS) and we all worked to better society we'd see all our leaders have sold us out to big business, ultra rich lobbyists..... That both sides have not the true interests in the common working class American to better himself. And it's not just GOP, DEMS, it is LIB, GREEN, whatever party. The leaders in all parties have been bought and paid for by lobbyists because the people are blindly following minutia issues and not focussing on what truly is wrong.

Wake up.

if you start "working for a better tomorrow" within a discursive context that leans well into the realm of fascism, if you do it without thinking--with great focus--about that frame, the "tomorrow" that will result for may not be what you hoped for at all.

calls for a busby berkeley moment without regard for context might make you feel better in the short term, like you are "doing something" and not engaging in the Bummer of Critique.

"waking up" in a context unexamined is worse than remaining asleep.

Agreed.

And it gets old.

IMO this whole thread is walking the edge.

"Walking on the edge", of what ???

There will be no agreement among us who the traitors are or aren't.
Some members may be influenced to further examine if their own opinions are well reasoned, and may become more curious and then, better informed.
Becoming better informed could lead to increased admiration for some of the people named in the thread titles, and decreased admiration for others.
Voters with more balanced views could move the U.S. away from "the edge".

This is not going to go away, IMO. Read through the links to past TFP posts with
Jane Fonda references..........

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post438171
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post809122
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post925861
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post961026
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post974202
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=14
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post976701
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1005957
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1009268
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1016048
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1023603
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1026496
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1230018
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1368903
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1375652
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1376544
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1402905
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1424373
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1424913
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1425025
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1425063

You may not be favorably disposed towards this thread and it's subject matter, but the controversy as to whether each of the individuals named in the thread title (add Ramsey Clark to the list, since he was susequently criticized in a post or two....) is a patriot or a traitor, a great American president or a war criminal, is the stuff that "politics" has always been about.

"Moderate" it away, and what are you left with ?

From my point of you, there is very little in American politics that can be distilled to either black or white, or good or bad. I do have to endure posts like the one linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=13

I responded to the post linked above, with the following two posts, hoping
to add some "gray" to the "black or white".
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=17
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=20

As you can see, my posts and the information that they contained, had no
effect on this poster's opinion, for just two days ago, this was posted:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=64

I read the argument in the media and in posts here, that the U.S., even in the absence of WMD, was justified in invading Iraq, because Saddam was
a "brutal dictator", and "he gassed his own people".

I counter this "black or white", with more gray:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=15

The response is that the U.S. aided Saddam in the 80's because he was fighting against our enemy, Iran......

I responded to this by posting references that show that the former president who the U.S. recently afforded a state funeral that shut the business of the capital down for a week and monopolized most of the media for the same period, was found by a special prosecutor to have concealed from his investigation that he (the president) was fully aware that his administration was selling weapons to Iran while it was aiding Saddam, and negotiating with terrorists against the president's proclaimed public policy statements.

The special prosecutor also made similar determinations about the vice president, who then succeeded that president when he left office.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=31

tecoyah, do not allow the followups to what I believe is a very relevant, timely, and necessary thread subject to persuade you that this is not a political subject. Much money and effort was spent in last years election to isoil Kerry by linking him to "Hanoi Jane" and by equating his activist protest against the war, with "treason". It was a largely successful effort.

pan6467, I disagree with you, because ignoring this will not make it go away.
An argument can be made that it needs to be talked to death before that can or will happen. The talk show hosts and the architects of presidential campaigns and their spin machines still heavily use this subject to their advantage.

Every day, more info comes out to further erode what the American people were told were the justifications for invading another country. We seem now
to be left with arguments that the "brutal dicatator", who our government sponsored, because he fought against our mutual enemy, while we also were
secretly selling arms to that enemy, still deserved to be attacked and deposed, even though he only fooled our government into believing that he
possessed massive, menancing stockpiles of WMD, or the means to "whip them up" in the wink of an eye>

Can't you see that until we as a nation see the "gray" that blurs the "black or white" of these life and death issues, to the point that we stop shutting our capital and media down for a massive state funeral to "honor" a great,
(but disingenuous and double dealing) past president, and possible examine whether our government invaded Iraq at the expense of it's own long and oft stated repudiation of wars of aggression, that this nation will not move on.
This is a problem, no less than banning photos of flag draped coffins of our
military casualties is a problem.

It gets old, Lebell, but what can you offer that is superior to this, to possibly fix it. Influencing people to be more curious and to seek out the "gray" in the issues is important enough to put up with messy and sometimes emotional exchanges. To me, religious services "get old", in their repitition. It seems that the reason for this is so everyone, from the dullest to the brightest, might have a chance to understand the message and it's lessons.

My hope is that in the next national election, more people will be more curious about who the statesmen and who the criminals are, who the patriots and who the traitors are. If we don't continue to talk about it on a political thread, or at all, how can that happen ?

You remind me of someone I know.

He also claims that the world is full of greys but then he goes on to present it in his own version of black and white.

Take this example that you use to bolster your argument:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=87571

I read through the entire article and from what I read, nothing changed my mind as to rightness of our actions in the 80's and 90's.

Yet to you, it is clear evidence that we were lied to by Bush.

What I suggest is that you have your version of the "truth", but it is really just your own perception colored by your experiences.

Once we realize this about ourselves, then we can truly move forward with reasonable debate.

Until then, I decline being drug into a useless argument where we cannot even read the same article and get the same information.

As to "walking the line", what I meant was that the thread is/was degenerating as usual with partisan politics, sniping, etc. and that if it continues, the usual warnings, bannings, blah blah blah.

If people are taking paychecks and marching orders from OBL, you're right, they're committing treason.

Case in point: Ramsey Clark. He's not, to the best of my knowledge, taking a paycheck from OBL, but he sure as hell was taking a paycheck from Saddam...

Another example is the female lawyer in NY, IIRC, who was acting as an information conduit for her client, a convicted terrorist, and other terrorists that were on the outside, under the guise of "attorney-client privilege." IIRC, she's currently in a PMITA prison.

BTW, which part of my statement is paranoia? Please keep in mind that Fonda's comments vis a vis communism are a matter of public record. Giap's statements regarding his use of the anti-war movement were published not on WorldNetDaily or FreeRepublic, but in his autobiography. And the Soviet Union's use of the anti-war movement and their funding for same stems not from some Right-wing think-tank, but from the KGB's own files which were released under Glasnost/Gorbachev. Do you think the "Armand Hammer was a communist" thing was just made up?

How can you be paranoid when they really ARE out to get you? We're not talking tin foil hats here, we're talking stuff released from the proverbial "horse's mouth". Just out of curiosity, do you think the Rosenbergs were framed?

lebell:

i have in the main stayed out of this thread but i have been reading it--and i have to say that i cannot understand how you could derive a rationale for american actions from the material presented above.

i really dont--unless for you politics in general, and support for american actions vis-a-vis iraq in particular, are simple functions of prior disposition, not related to any evidences---politics in this case is deductive, in that you have a prior set of sommitments that you use to filter out dissonant information, as opposed to a more inductive relation that would test and retest general positions on the basis of evidence/data.
a deductive politics is not really a political position at all. rather it is a variant of faith, of belief in the protestant sense, masquerading as politics.

if you want to speak about rational debate, perhaps it would make sense to establish ground rules--like you need to route arguments through evidence--otherwise it might have the external form of rational debate, but is not rational. it is not deliberative. it is not about the exercize of power. it is not about anything.

it is good to practice this kind of debate, even here, because were the united states a democracy such debate would be central to its functioning. if the united states were to become a democracy--perhaps after the implosion of the current order--it would be central.

you could take from the simple fact that folk can elaborate political positions without any reference to evidence at all a good indication of the distance that seperates the american situation from a democracy....

it is pretty clear that the american system is best understood as a type of oligarchy
that legitimates itself through the disourse of democracy. this discourse is central to its modes of opinion management---the public is dominated by setting them against each other across sometimes meaningful but more often trivial matters, deploying types of strategies in debates that are not the result of any prior agreement about rules, which devolve quickly and often into trivial pissing matches that operate to distract--the people who find themselves so dividewd confuse this with being free, with operating inside a democratic polity, because they get to use the words freedom and democracy alot. worrying about whether they refer to anything is nowhere near as much fun as using them alot. these words, in the united states, are like any other toy.

meanwhile, of course, the folk in power do and say what they like---with impunity--because they know that even arguments presented with considerable evidence will not persuade anyone to even consider their politics, which are routed through disposition, are not falsifiable, etc.

Host,

Nowhere in my post did I say ignore these issues. In fact I stated examine the past find out what worked use it, what didn't work and find out why.

Look, I wasn't around in the 1930's and 40's, but if Prescott Bush dealt with the Nazis then he dealt with the Nazis, I refuse to hold the crimes of the father against the son. Not to mention we would also have to bust Ford, Chrysler (as they are part of Mercedes and they were Nazis), and so on. My guess is a lot of American companies did business with Hitler at first because Germany was the first country to bust out of the Depression that was hitting the world, and thus Germany was the place to sell your product and make profit. To point fingers at people wanting to do business with the only country that could truly afford to do business is pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA and self righteous BS and serves no other purpose.

As for Fonda and Kerry, they did what many in that era did or would have done had they had the platform. Look at all the marches, riots, draft card burnings, draft dodging.... to yip about what Fonda and Kerry did is POLITICAL FINGERPOINTING and serves no other purpose than to try to be self righteous and push your own agenda. It's BS.

As for Iran-Contra, I don't know. Our government has done many bad and illegal things in it's history to promote one party over another. What happened happened.... fingerpointing bullshit is not going to get anyone anywhere. LEARNING from the past however, can and will.

Perhaps, IF Iran-Contra is all fact based we can learn that because of this, Saddam had issues with us, the Central American nations could feel used and we can learn that interfering with other nations politics and sovereignity leads to bad things.

I"m sorry, I just honestly don't see a positive from finger pointing, rehashing old wounds and not looking for solutions but using past issues solely as an excuse to hurt another. There's nothing to learn there, except hatred and passing blame.

:confused:
How are we supposed to learn from the past if everytime it's brought up you claim it is useless "finger pointing"?

Manx,

We've had this discussion before, you can learn from history without political fingerpointing.

We can very look at the past say it happened and find out why and learn from it. You cannot keep hate alive for past events like Iran-Contra, it serves no purpose. But you can look to see what truly happened and make laws and make sure they are enforced to prevent it happening again.

It's just my opinion, I just don't see what screaming and finger pointing about the past does if that is all you do.

It was a different time and different administration.

Same as the bombing of the Maine.

No country's government is 100% pure and righteous, every country has a history of mistakes and being self serving while hurting another country. All you can do is learn what they did, and why they felt they had to do what they did and if enough deem it bad enough pass laws to make sure it never again happens..... but to just yell and try to create problems is doing nothing but dividng people and taking your eyes of problems that need attention today.

Leave Pappa Bush out of this, or I'll have to educate (lay the smack down) on all of ya'll.

Amen, Brother Lebell!

Oh I'm so scared!

What is it that you are "Amen-ing", MoonDog, unsubstantiated assertions, such as the one linked here?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=13

or..... information that has the potential to influence some of us to form an opinion, time after time, that there is much we don't know, and probably will never know to the extent that we can reach a conclusion in regards to the integrity and veracity of our elected officials.

To counter Lebell's effort to shoot the messenger instead of posting arguments that challenge specific points I (and others) posted related to the people headlined here, the extent of my "black or white" opinions is to identify conclusions about a controversial individual's character, reputation, and accomplisment, that can only be reached by excluding information that, if considered using similar criteria to that applied to included information used in reaching a conclusion, would cloud the thinking process and preempt the arrival of a conclusion.

My opinion is that the "Hanoi Jane is a traitor" opinion, linked above, is arguable because it fails to consider the events and political climate of the
times when "Jane's" treason allegedly took place. I posted my documented argument in a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1736252&postcount=20">link</a> in my last post here.

What would I have had to ignore or give less consideration to in order to align my thinking with those who accorded Ronald Reagan the accolades and the pageantry directed in his honor during the days after his death last june ?

I cannot conclude that Reagan was a traitor because he secretly authorized the trading of arms to a declared U.S. enemy, but when given accurate weight in the process of assessing Reagan's place, in comparison to other presidents, the findings of the special prosector serve to seriously diminish his reputation. I would have to ignore Reagan's own admission and Lawrence Walsh's findings in order to make a "white" conclusion about Reagan.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=31

Host,

I quoted 33 words from Lebell's post regarding his assessment of you; one that I happened to agree with. I felt that it was quite clear.

Tell you what - let's get down to brass tacks. What do you want - in plain, 9th grade English - from us Republicans regarding this thread? An admission that the people you listed in your first post are or are not traitors and/or war criminals? A vindication for Jane Fonda and Senator Kerry, along with condemnations of all the others on your list? Truthfully, would you accept any argument contrary to that to which you are predisposed? If so, what sources would you accept as "valid"?

You were very selective in who made that list...I wonder why? There were certainly other presidents who were in office in that span of years...why weren't they included? I suspect that Presidents Johnson or Kennedy might have some interesting skeletons in their closets that wouldn't enjoy close scrutiny.

But that is another issue. If you want answers, I'll give you a "no" to every one except Prescott Bush. For aiding the enemy in wartime, he should've hanged. Odd that only assets were seized, however, and yet no trials were ordered. Seems like there was a pretty cut and dried case there.

In all honesty, my opinion is the GOP loves to bash the Left and the Left bashes the GOP and both sides do not want to admit that people make mistakes in youth or the sins of the father SHOULD NEVER CARRY to the son.

This is just mental masterbation and bullshit. Better the fucking country TODAY. You put a foot in yesterday and a foot in tomorrow you piss and shit all over today.

It's not just here it's in politics in general, everyone wants to look at the past or the future and we are in desperate need of looking at today and preparing better for a future, but we need to fix today first, by learning from the past and not condemning or bringing up old wounds and hatreds.

My father once told me, "Presidents don't get to be presidents by being nice guys, they step on people and they do whatever is necessary to attain power."

The only possible saint we have had as president in my lifetime is Carter, and even then I'm sure he has skeletons. Every president from Washington to G.W. has done what they thought best for the country (no matter how warped or wrong the thinking was, they did what they felt was right.)

Can any of you or can Limbaugh or O'Reilly or whomever say the same, that you are bettering the country to the best of your abilities or are you spreading hatred, anger, prejudice and bitterness?

As for Vietnam........... GODDAMN IT PEOPLE GET THE FUCK OVER IT, HALF OF YOU CRYING ABOUT HOW EVIL AND TREASONOUS KERRY AND FONDA AND SUCH WERE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TRULY HAPPENED IN THAT ERA (BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T BORN OR TOO YOUNG TO KNOW), AND YOU MAY AT THE TIME HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS BRINGING UP OLD WOUNDS TO FURTHER YOUR OWN FUCKING POLITICAL AGENDAS.

Vietnam was wrong, the reason we were there, the way the government treated the troops, the lies the government fed the people, and so on. It wasn't the soldier's fault they did what they thought best, just as the protesters believed they did what was best........ GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND LET THE DAMN ISSUE DIE.

Learn from the past so that we may not repeat it, but do not EVER condemn a man for doing what he thought was best for his country. Goddamn you people want to make some of these people mentioned worse than Hitler.... something is fucking wrong.

Well, how many people did Hitler kill? 20 million plus? How many people did the Communists kill? 100 million plus?

Uncle Joe and the other assorted Communists made Hitler look like a Cubscout in comparison. And that's the kind of people Jane Fonda was supporting and working on their behalf....

Hitler BAD.
Communists FAR WORSE.

pan6467, as the exchange the past few days between China and Japan demonstrate, there is a continuing need to discuss the issues of the past political crimes.

The statement above is in a class, all by itself, IMO, since it was posted in a forum where information exists to compare it to documented opinions.

How many did America kill (I know already, but feel free to venture a guess)? Is the number of how many we have killed itself a measure of who is better or worse?

America killed people in an armed conflict, doesn't really stack up to genocide. Actually, there was that whole thing with the Indians. My bad.

There is a new report from Murray Waas, an award winning investigative reporter who I find to be consistantly reliable, that indicates that the Bush administration knew that there was not enough justification to go to war against Saddam and Iraq, but they did it anyway, and then they lied to the world about what they knew, and when they knew it, that would make their justification for war much less certain, or.... legal, before the March 2003 was even ordered to commence.

Is it over reaching to consider what they did, if Murray Waas and numerous other disclosures are correct....that they "fixed the facts" to "match the policy".....was to conduct a secret and illegal policy of <b>agressive war</b>? If these reports are correct, with past U.S. facilitation of Saddam, detailed by me in another thread here as recently as earlier today, how would you characterize the U.S. policy of war in Iraq, vs. what they told the world to justify it, beforehand, if it is not aggressive war?

How far lower can the current domestic approval rating for Bush of 34 percent, drop to.....before he is compelled to board Air Force One for the last time....for a one way trip to Crawford? For Nixon, that number was 24 percent. If this report is true, and you still support this administration and believe, for the most part....what they tell us, what would it take for you to disapprove of their performance? Does it matter to you if they are truthful, especially on the reasons that they give you for going to war?

According to Chief Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor, SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson.......

In Jackson's own words...at the Nuremberg trials:

I have to agree with this. meeting the enemy and sitting on their weapons is NOT aid and comfort nor is it in any way 'war' against american troops.

When did lying to congress make one a hero?

I agree with this as well.

Are you inferring that he somehow rigged the election?
agreed


let me know when you can prove that.

This does not make one a traitor. One would actually have to do something that aided the enemy over america. All this did was prolong a war already in progress but aided neither side.

He is guilty of being CinC and ordering an invasion to enforce multiple resolutions from a cease fire agreement from 12 years before. Troops died because it's war. Last I looked, that was not treasonous nor traitorous. When you can throw some proof up here that he knowingly sent americans over there with absolutely no intention of winning the objectives, i'll reconsider.

Being used for propaganda purposes of your own free will by the enemy doesn't equal aid?

Not lying to congress, fighting in a war and risking his life for what he thought was freedom. Trying to raise awareness of the reality of the war made him a hero. I don't condone lying to congress.
Not rigged, like George W., but he used influence to undermine his opponent that happened to be aiding an enemy of America and a group that was holding American hostages. The latter part is what pisses me off.
I will, but don't count on it too soon. I'm still stuck knee deep in the 9/11 stuff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html good article from guardian.
I'd say that he is responsible for the needless deaths of American soldiers. That's treason in my eyes. When you choose to be loyal to Saudi money and corporate interests over the good of his own country, you are a traitor.

People are used for propoganda purpouses every day. Jack Bauer is walking propoganda. George Cloony, Ralph Fines, Steven Speildburg....being an entertainer means being a tool for propoganda, and it's not always American. If someone was fundamentally effected by Jane Fonda sitting on a gun, they're probably already brainwashed over a dozen times.

I give aid to Cuba by smoking their cigars!

Apples in my oranges.

I dare you to be more vague.

The fact is that we were never at war (Vietnam was a conflict). The fact is that she never took ana ctive role against our government. All she did was say things like "don't bomb Vietnam". Had I been alive at that time, I would have been saying the same thing.

This has what to do with nixon? thats where my comment was directed.

and I, again, say they were not needless. Hussein was not abiding by the terms of the cease fire nor was he adhering to the numerous resolutions applied to him and his government.

Until they make 'stupidity' and 'ignorance' illegal, no.

One of my favorite stories is how recently Jane Fonda was on some tour, possibly for a book, at any rate some GI from Nam threw a dip in and proceeded to wait in line for hours, not once relinquishing his saliva, once his turn was up he spat 4 hours worth of wad on her. Served the bitch right.

Hope its a true story and not an ubran legend. I'd pay to see that.

I really admire Jackson.

and there's this:

Sorry, I misread the quote of a quote of a quote. Nixon, as a private citizen during the 1968 presidential race, sought to delay and disrupt the Paris peace talks, thereby prolonging the war in Vietnam and leading to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. His actions proved tbhat he was willing to sell out his country for his political career. I consider that being a traitor.
We have solved nothing in Iraq, therfore the deaths were needless.

Vietnam wasn't lost during Nixons term, to my knowledge, and there is no overt evidence to suggest that nixon made efforts to cause americas loss, therefore, traitor would not be correct terminology. Inept, incompetent, maybe even unethically opportunistic....but not traitor.

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and the new Iraqi government does not have WMD's. Two things alone that were solved. UN resolution 1441 can now be disposed of and the cease fire from 91 is no longer in effect. Two more things solved. There is no more government sanctioned oppression of a certain sect of people due to a government that is representative of its people. Thats the biggest thing resolved.

The WMDs have been gone since the early 90s, and Saddam Husain's power was failing before the Iraqi war (thanks, ironically, to places like FALLUJAH, where Hussain resistence was growing). I suspect that we interfered with a building revolution. We all know that revolution from within is better in bringing about change than outside interferance, soooo....no to those first two (At least in my mind). In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for UN resolution 1441. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents. We went in and they had none of the chemical and biological weapons that the UN and US suggested. Iraq complied completly back in November of 2002. Wikipedia has a really grea article on 1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441).

It's pretty hilarious when people talk in some overtly legal, completely affirmative sense, like they are not wrong. But as reality would have it, it could not be further from the truth.

Excuse the unnecessary bludgeoning of a dead horse, but people here seem to have little concept of constitutional law (that little document that is the ultimate, and final legal authority of the country) or sovereign/ real politic(k).

Bush had the authority of congress to act in Iraq. As the Executive, read Commander-in-Chief, he is allowed to act in good faith the execution of all laws passed by congress. Further more your conspiracies would never hold up to legal scrutiny, regardless of how good/bad the current post Iraq War conflict is going, he was allowed to act by congress the legislative body; can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted contrary to good faith? Don't lie to yourself or me, becuase the answer is no.

To many people here carry a burdening and debilatating sense of idealism, especially in their political application. This is clearly seen in their view of American common/domestic/statuatory law. But it is further seen in their incessant attempt to somehow assert that the Iraqi conflict is illegal on some "international" scale.

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the President affirms an oath to? Is it the UN? Maybe could someone direct as to what legal authority the UN operates under? Is there some innate legal authority? Perhaps conceded? When did America as a sovereign nation ever concede any legal authority to the UN in some capacity that would limit its own action in Iraq? To further, under what statutes would any American actors equate to war criminals? Is America treaty to the ICC?

Interesting, no?

Bush could do a lot of stuff legally...who cares? Does the fact that it's legal make it right? Of course not. The decision to go to war with Iraq, though legal under US law, was stupid and unnecessary.

First off, a leader under the American system, can only operate under a legal capacity, that again is the constitution. I care for one.

And not to thread jack, and not to mudsling, I'm sorry it comes down to it, but, several members here on the "left" often apply to some relative subjective approach to reality, what makes your moral compass so right? I find abortion completely abhorrent, yet it is legal.

A true leader, and please don't even equate Bush to this mold, is as moral as a hurricane to quote a pretentious and fabeled fictious TV character. America has it's needs, it is completely stupid to ignore Iraq as a matter of policy, and lineated necessity for our policy needs. At best it is extremely short sighted, but by and large is ignorant of the real world political scheme. As such it is neither stupid, nor unnecessary.

The legality of the Iraq war, at least the legality under US law, was never an issue, right or left. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Because US law was never an issue in the Iraq war, why are you mentioning it?
The argument I am making is that the Iraqi war has yielded no positive results. If I can prove this is true, then the moral compas becomes moot, as logic becomes a primary argument against the war. If, legistically, the war had no positive results for either the US or iraq, then Bushco was clearly not justified in starting it.
A true leader works with allies and subordinates in order to benifit all parties, does not work from a throne, is open to all the options, finishes the job he or she starts, knows that leadership skills come from learning, and can accept credit for his or her failings, and responsibility for his or her failures.

The Iraq War was not and is not one of America's needs. I am not suggesting that we completly ignored Iraq, but to accuse them of having weapons and links to an attack on US soil, only to find both are totally wrong....well that's bad policy.

First Will, I don't appreciate you saying the legality under US law has never been an issue. In the context of this board that isn't true, as seen in this thread on several accounts Bush is labeled as a war criminal for his actions, the conflict is labeled as illegal. That's why I mention it. Again I reassert the FACT that international law holds no weight, no muster, and at best in the context of this issue is a matter of politicking by other foreign sovereign states.

I can't really argue against this comment so much. Hell we might even agree, perhaps maybe wholly if you would concede that a moral compass is completely moot, but I doubt you would. Logic cannot factor in, again I would attest this to short sightedness, no disrespect intended, but I feel compelled to quote old treebeard and say "don't be hasty" at least in how it applies to political capital; hindsight is always going to be 20-20. For me the end will always justify the means, my end is different then yours, so perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

You will are an Idealist, can't knock you for that. Others like myself would argue that a true leader should follow a Machiavellian mold, probably more of a realist mold. A true leader serves no master but their ambition; they never lend their power in such a way that would hinder their own; hell in a historical sense, dating back to Washington one of America's precepts has been to steer clear of allies, as they hinder our interests in a means to serve their own. I agree you finish what you start, I hope Shrub and America after him can do that, and do it right.

The war in Iraq was one of America's needs, again it comes down to policy, and it is an issue that time will reveal. I guess all this gab is a matter of perspective.

The thing is that when the question of legality is applied to the Iraq war, it is usually international law, which is absurdly fuzzy on preemptive wars and even more fuzzy about situations as complicated as the one we're in. We are in a situation where the intelligence leading up to the war was either incorrectr (no ones fault), or a lie (big prolem). Until we can make a determination about the nature of the intelligence, we cannot determine if the war was wholely preemptive and unwarranted. I think this is where I remember the legal issue beig debated, which I can understand. That conversation will have to wait for more proof, though. For now, it's going to have to remain unsolved and on the back burner. I will say though that forging and distorting federal intillegence is a serious crime, and IF there are people responsible for pushing a war though by changing and distorting intelligence gathered then we could have US law take action in this eventually. But again, We'll have to wait and see.
I can never discout morality completly and more than I can remove and arm or an eye ball. It's a part of me. I do realize that my morality is not always the same as those who I am communicating with, and I've learned to live with that. Luckly, there is something that is universal: fact. You really believe the ends justify the means? That's usually a situational, or case by case type of statement. Does an omlett justify breaking eggs? Absolutely. Does better technology and stability justify WWII? Probably not.
What use is a selfish leader?
Well at it's coore the whole big mess we calll Tilted Politics is about perspective. Its important that everyone understand that. I know that social programs like universal healthcare or libraries, schools, colleges, and adult education would have been a better investment from that $500b than rebuilding a country that we are trearing apart. At the same time there are a million other opinions all with equal merrit about the very same thing. It's all based on the sensation and perception, or that makes us who we are: individuals. We aren't the Borg (or one minded automotans with one opinion and one goal).

aceventura3, Mojo_PeiPei, and Ustwo, et al, should consider themselves very fortunate that <b>their position that Bush is not a war criminal</b> , requires no arguments that are anchored by facts, because, if Murray Waas has reported reliably, the October 3, 2004 NY Times reporting linked below, meshes so well with Waas's new disclosures, if we lived in a <b>republic with functioning representative government</b>, Bush would be facing an impeachment trial in the senate....in a heartbeat:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
<h4>Important Notice !!! The link above points to a page where an enitre NY Times, Oct. 3, 2004 News Article is displayed, under the "fair use" doctrine. The article contents have no relationship to "truthout . org. Any attempt to denigrate or distract from the information in the article by linking it's contents to truthout .org, is a cheap, "troll like" tactic intentionally posted by folks here who should know better!! Challenge: post another link that displays the article at another site, and I'll change the link to the article in this post.</h4>

(The following describes the article that I posted on this thread yesterday..)
To refresh your memories about the article that I posted here yesterday, here's the "intro":

How is anything I have stated not anchored with fact? For someone who seems so intelligent host, you really don't get it. Hell Will might not be sold on what I've said, but I'm sure he at least grasps the argument.

My whole argument is based off of factual law , the constitution, not some op-ed with accusations, agendas, and half truths skewed to make a subjective case.

Link

Even Clinton was right at times. Could you post any information you possess that contradicts the above, or that makes you a more reliable source than Kagan, Blix, or Clinton?

I'm betting, what were the words Host, "an attempt to denigrate" the source is going to pop up.

<b>[1]</b>
<b>[2]</b>
<b>[3]</b>
<b>[1]</b>
Responding to to Mojo_PeiPei:
<h5>The irony is rich because, after your inaccurate insinuation that I had posted an "op-ed", Marvelous Marv posted an "op-ed" to serve (so far) as the entire rebuttal intended to counter the best researched MSM REPORTING of the specifics of the Bush admin. pre-war lie campaign, narrowed to one issue...aluminum tubes, that I have come across, made particulalry more damning when coupled with the March 2, 2006 report by Murray Waas.

Then.... you followed up with your "taunt"...daring me to "denigrate" Marv's "offering" !</h5>

<b>None of the three items that I posted are "op-ed"....I made that quite clear already.

I changed the NY Times Sunday 03 October 2004 (below) article link to a link where you cannot read the body of the article unless you purchase it. Would you prefer that the article be blocked from view, than available on the truthout .org site?</b>
The article above is a "hard news" report from Oct. 3, 2004 that details all references by the Bush admin. members to aluminum tubes linked to Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program.
The article above is a "hard news" report, by an investigative journalist, just as the NY Times piece preceding it, is. When you read the NY Times report, in the new context of Murray Waas's report on what Bush and Rice and Cheney, et al, knew when they made the statements that are quoted in the Oct. 3, 2004 article, they seem to have knowingly and deliberately lied the U.S. into an unnecessary, unjustified, and thus, illegal war. At the very least, this "news" should bring calls for immediate attention to completion of the Senate Intel Committee's Phase II report, delayed since July 8, 2004!
No "op-ed" in the above piece either....just a description of Murray Waas's background from his peers. I thought that it might be helpful, since the MSM is not "liberal" enough to <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=murray+waas&btnG=Search+News">pick up</a> his report too quickly. But they will...give them time. Here's the <b>"Mouse's" News Network, mentioning Waas (and Bush's deception)...now:
<b>So....no "op-ed", Mojo!</b>

<b>[2]</b> Marvelous Marv....Clinton's CIA director, just months after Clinton left office, makes it quite clear in the quote box below that Saddam (Tenet remarks on 07 February 2001)<i>"his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions."</i>

Marvelous Marv, you asked,
I answered the "Clinton" portion of your question by offering a quote from his appointee, CIA Director George Tenet, spoken by him just 18 days after Clinton's term as POTUS ended.

Ah...yes....your "op-ed" is rife with the opinions of PNAC board member, Robert Kagan, co-author of PNAC's "one-note song"....pre-9/11 justifications for imperialistic power projection looked even better on 9-12. Kagan....correct less frequently than a broken clock:
In march, 2003, Blix asked for more time for UN weapons inspectors to complete their inspections in Iraq. Bush rattled his sword and, in the rush to war, the inspectors had no choice but to end the inspections that would have resulted in conclusions that would have avoided war, spared countless numbers from death or shattered lives. Give it up, guys. If Foxnews likely voter pollling results reported on March 3, hold or build, voters will vote for democrats to replace the House majority by a 48 percent to 34 percent margin, and the question of whether Bush launched a war of aggression will be examined to the same detail that will rival "blue dress stain" in 1998.

You may have negelcted to read or overlooked my "evidence", posted a number of times before on TFP, and re-posted below, that Powell, Rice, and even Wolfowitz agreed or expanded on Tenet's assessment that Saddam posed no signifigant threat, and that the "no fly zone" policy of ten years was working to contain Saddam. There is also a "Time" report that Rumsfeld believed similarly, even in 2002. Read my "challenge" below, and consider that Scott McClellan, speaking for the POTUS, conceded that there were no WMD in Iraq, and that there was no evidence that WMD had been moved out of Iraq. What more do you require, Marvelous Marv? Tell me, and if you promise to read it and fairly digest it, I'll endeavor to provide it!

<b>[3]</b>It's not necessary to "denigrate" Marvelous Marv's link and excerpt from the same link, Mojo_PeiPei. I request that you and Marv consider that what he posted and you apparently support was a July 20, 2003 response to my post of a 03 Oct 2004 investigative news report by three NY Times reporters that detailed three years of Bush administration efforts to exaggerate the threat to the U.S. of Saddam's nuclear weapons development program, coupled with Murray Waas's report from March 2, 2005. I'll leave it to the tow or three other readers who might be interested enough to skim through all this, to decide if Marv's "offering" is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight?
How does a July 20, 2003 article, written when no determination was made as to whether the WMD that Rumsfeld "knew were there, east, west, north, and south of Baghdad", actually....were....there,
....contribute to furthering the discussion I initiated?
<h4>Scott McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 admission has been enough to destroy arguments very similar to the one Marv linked to, but "there you go again!</h4>

I Posted <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1941627&postcount=88">this</a> on a TFP thread on Nov. 18, 2005. Here's an excerpt.....a question that no one who takes your "side" of the "argument", has ever been able to answer.
If anyone has answered with an organized rebuttal, please point me to a link!

My comments in the preceding quote box referred to the following example of my <b>post Clinton, pre-9/11</b> quotes of Bush administration "heavyweights":

I posted the following, on Nov. 15, 2005:
....and I posted the following three reports on <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1695374&highlight=mcclellan+weapons+thought#post1695374">a TFP thread</a> on March 2, 2005

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1620839&postcount=74">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1620839&postcount=74</a>

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1674786&postcount=49">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1674786&postcount=49</a>