Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on April 10, 2003, 09:43:12 PM
-
Where does he get off with crap like this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83862,00.html
-
on this subject i agree with capital hill.
-
HELL YES...they bettr not give these countries cheaat
money grubing ho's
nice1 rc51:)
salute
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by rc51
on this subject i agree with capital hill.
So do I, but it presents a president that isn't a hothead and with perhaps a bit of wisdom.
Kinda reminds me of his response to the looting of the white house.
-
Sure does Iron...im very happy with President Bush's style and the way he handles himself. No petty bullsht.
Excellent, and a tremndously great change from the previous "president".
Salute
BiGB
xoxo
-
monkey loves robot.
monkey hates robot.
here's the message, world:
we can hate war, and yet be very very good at it.
unlike france where they hate war because they suck at it.
So, where would you rather live?
where its kewl to hate your president; and love your troops.
where it's ok to disabuse the government.. yet love the nation.
where it's ok to villify the nations that refuse to support a just war against a terror supporting mass murdering regime, and then pat 'em on the head, and give 'em a fat stipend for turning a profit on it?
***********bzzzzrrrrrttttt************
times up.
decide; world.
-
(hit's button)
The first one!
No .. the second one!
No wait .. the third one!
Can I pick more than one?
-
Unfortunately Hangtime, politics are never so straightforward.
-
Unfortunately Hangtime, politics are never so straightforward.
and thats what so buttered up about politics.
the only good days are those where our leaders dispense with the bullshiite and get down to dealing out some much needed straightforward asskickin 105 mike mike reality.
-
Prolly a good thing neither of us is president Hang, the world likely woulda ended some time ago. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Kinda reminds me of his response to the looting of the white house.
The looting of the White House?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Thx for the article Iron.
Dead, the only people I can think of that could qualify for that statement would be the clintons.
the articles about them packing and taking things that weren't theirs when they left.
but I could be mistaken.
-
Nah, you're not mistaken Kanth.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Dead, the only people I can think of that could qualify for that statement would be the clintons.
The problem is that the whole "W" key thing has long been discounted. During every presidential transition, a high ranking member of the General Accounting Office (I believe) makes a walkthrough of every office in the White House and records the state of the items there. Any documents or files related to the previous administration are removed and archived as part of the outgoing president's library.
It is this person's responsibility to record any sorts of irregularities such as missing keys on the keyboards or other vandalism. This report then becomes a matter of public record and legally binding. During this walkthrough, the GAO encountered no vandalism, at least none that it recorded.
The most likely scenario is that the incoming Bush administration expected certain files or papers or computers or whatever to remain when they took over. When they arrived, they were removed as per government regulations pertaining to presidential archival material. That unexpected event threw them for a loop, and along the way this uncertainty met embellishment and voila... we have the myth of White House vandalism.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
that or they just took stuff on their way out...
-
The "white house vandalism" stories were a crock of toejam. The press ate it up for a couple of weeks then went almost completely silent the minute they realized they were getting royally duped. Too bad, because how the press was so willing to eat it and the way the new occupants fed it, would have made for some pretty interesting stories in their own right.
But nothing much emerged afterwards. Thus plenty of people continue to think that this actually happened.
Regarding the amendment to exclude France, Russia, Germany, etc., I'm with the congress. It's not oil profit money we're talking about here. It's not from any spoils of war. It is US taxpayer money that was alotted to fight the war and aid in the reconstruction... the cost of the war, paid for by US citizens. I think the people who actually fought the war and have ponied up the money to do so should be able to spend it however they want, on whoever they want.
It's only domestically that I think it could get dicey... When company X gets excluded from bidding because Cheney (or whoever) owes company Y a favour (for example).
-
Ho often do you use that key anyay? It's not like it ould be missed much.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
that or they just took stuff on their way out...
Which would be illegal and grounds for imprisonment, and yet nobody's in prison. Any material -- documents, files, computer files, memos, whatever -- created in the White House for government business are property of the federal government. There are people whose sole job it is to archive documents as part of the public record on a daily basis. Even things as mundane as drafts of the State of the Union Address become part of the presidential record. You can't just walk off with it. Not even outgoing Lyndon Johnson was able to keep the gifts from other heads of state that he wanted to believe were his own. They were actually gifts to the American government and not Johnson personally, so he had to part with them (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth).
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
no problem with this at all. as long as we arent buying 2000 dollar screw drivers. get the idea what are the other options really isreal ? isreal and isreal. still i have no problem better to support them buying things from them i guess. with mikos paper money, of course :)
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Which would be illegal and grounds for imprisonment, and yet nobody's in prison.
Kinda my point. Bush basically told his staff to let it go, in the best interest of the country.
-
First, such measures may occasionally have political sense but rarely economic one. If we want to build something in the most efficient way possible, shouldn't we go with the best cost/quality supplier?
Second, it may be advisable politically to extend commertial cooperations with other countries even if they do not love us that much. It will reduce tensions, create groups of people in those countries interested in cooperating with us who may in the future oppose their goovernments. Economic cooperation spreads cultural values etc. In short, it may make it less necessary to "liberate" them in the future.
Anyway, if we allow free iraqi government to come to power, what's to prevent them from cooperating with whomever they choose and honoring their old contracts - russians, french, syrians, etc. Nothing we can do about it.
If we do not allow them to run their country the way they see fit, then it would make accusations of our "imperialist intentions" true - in which case why would we expect those countries to like and support our actions?
Wouldn't we rather to prove them wrong be just letting iraqi decide? Of course legally we can spend our money whichever way we see fit and attach any kind of conditions if we give it to iraqi.
Considering that their oil industry was not seriously damaged, $2.8 billion is a pittance compared to what they can readily obtain for their oil or tens of billions iraq currently has in their accounts.
P.S. Anyone really expects any more appreciation from liberated iraqis than we are getting from other countries?
miko
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Kinda my point. Bush basically told his staff to let it go, in the best interest of the country.
It's easy to be munificent when no crime has been committed.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
It's not hard for me to believe that someone who sorely abused his office as Governor, using state troopers to bring him prostitutes, wouldn't take what he could and encourage his staff to do so as well.
There were claims of defacement as well. This also is easy for me to believe, especially considering how pissed off he was over the impeachment. Believe what you like, I'll do the same.
-
BTW..Where is the Prez?..It seems like Rums is making all the announcements on TV.
-
sounds more like goodcop/badcop, bush plays good cop to congress bad cop.
everything is not always as it seems.
-
Clinton= noodle with ears.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's not hard for me to believe that someone who sorely abused his office as Governor, using state troopers to bring him prostitutes, wouldn't take what he could and encourage his staff to do so as well.
[/B]
Except that there is nothing in any legal record to indicate that this was the case... beyond Ari Fleischer and "unnamed" Bush administration staffers saying as such.
There were claims of defacement as well. This also is easy for me to believe, especially considering how pissed off he was over the impeachment. Believe what you like, I'll do the same.
And again, there was nothing in the GAO report indicating defacement of any kind during the final walkthrough on the morning before the inauguration. This fact proved irrefutable to the new Bush administration, since stating that defacement had occurred regardless of what the report stated meant at least one of two things:
(1) The non-partisan bureaucrats tasked with making the report were incompetent and missed obvious details such as vandalized keyboards and missing supplies.
(2) The non-partisan bureaucrats tasked with making the report were biased and intentionally excluded vandalism from their report.
If the first case applies, the Bush administration would be forced to terminate the government employees responsible for gross incompetence. In the second case, legal action would follow termination of the employees. Yet nobody was fired, no lawsuits were filed against bureaucrats (nevermind outgoing Clinton folks) surrounding the matter. Why? Because the Bush administration knew that firing competent and innocent government employees wasn't the way to go about gaining the trust and loyalty of the bureaucracy.
Nevermind the additional fact that officers in charge of Air Force One denied that any vandalism had taken place (despite reports of stolen china).
Honestly, AKIron, you're a smart guy. I'd hope that you wouldn't take things like this at just face value because of Clinton's untrustworthiness. Within Washington circles, the whole White House looting thing was considered a tarbaby to the incoming Bush administration, a real misstep brought about by Ari Fleischer speaking out of hand early on without realizing the implications of doing so. It's a lot different being Press Secretary to the President of the United States than it is being the spokesman for the governor of Texas.
-- Todd/Leviathn