He should and he does.

'The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.'

Maximus

It seems that's what most of the National Political blogs turn into. Who shot Luke?..said eleventy billion ways.

I don't read or answer them anymore.
A couple on here give you enough information to look up and read to fill a small town library.
They haven't read or understood it but expect you to do so!
Reminds me of someone pitching 625 books on your desk and saying my answer is in there somewhere. Whose answer? Who said they were correct?
I guess they haven't formed an opinion in their own words from experience, just know how to quote.

Who is Luke?? Anyway, your point is well-taken. Anytime the thread goes past the first page, it's probably time to start a new thread. Some of these posts are almost a whole page by themselves. Now I've gone and done it--somebody will take this as a challenge to post something that takes up a whole page all by itself.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.(and LOOONG!!)

Interesting bait and switch post about Congressman Jefferson. The legal process is in motion for Jefferson. The legal process WAS in motion for Scooter Libby before the President who has much at stake in the Libby case derailed the legal process in an ONGOING case which HIS PERSONNEL were involved in. President Bush, never having gone to law school, knew better than the Republican Judge, the Republican prosecutor, and an entire jury. The president knew that the sentence, which was in line with federal guidelines he formerly espoused, was SEVERE and EXCESSIVE. So now, Denise, the unfortunate rule of Stare decisis takes over. The new legal precedent, a gift from George Bush, will allow defense attornies all over the nation to ask judges to consider their poor felon's family, past accomplishments, and emotional well being. Conservatives are the new bleeding heart liberals I guess. And never mind any damage done to victims and their career. No talk of sorrow for what Valerie Plame has been dragged through. No apologies to the CIA who requested the investigation of the OUTING OF A CIA AGENT. No worries on the damage done to intelligence sources or the diminished respect within the CIA for this party before country administration.
Denise, you can post on this subject until troops are out of Iraq, but I doubt you will even convince Chuck Hagel, let alone 80% of Americans, that a president should pardon a man before the appellate process has drawn to a close. Conservatives have curiously called this investigation and prosecution of Republican by, by and large, republicans political. How did that force a man to perjur himself. Could there possibly be SOMETHING TO HIDE, Denise?
I remember you telling Gump you thought he was a Democrat because he saw government as the solution (implying he was a big government hand out type of democrat). My dearest Denise, most of us non-Bushies see the current government as the PROBLEM; the largest, most expensive, most secretive, least accountable government this nation has ever seen. That isn't Hack talking, that's national opinion and economic fact. You are supporting an administration that has created a leviathan more imense than your longest post. As support (even from the GOP) crumbles from this administration, you may find a time where you have to fundamentally realign your sense of how governments and the executive branch specifically, should function. I suspect we will see Congress begin to push for oversight through legal means since all other avenues have been exhausted.

History, Denise, will not be kind to your positions on Iraq, Plamegate, or this latest pardon.

Kevin "Hack" King

"....most of us non-Bushies see the current government as the PROBLEM; the largest, most expensive, most secretive, least accountable government this nation has ever seen. That isn't Hack talking, that's national opinion and economic fact."

Hack- quantify your statement with hard data and facts. Otherwise please put your foil hat back on and go sit in the corner..

Could you quantify how that murder in Texas affects us here? I asked you this before, you declined to answer.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Nice hip check on Mr. "I re-use my lines too much." Hope all is well. I'm busy running from my age, but today is one of those days that it caught me (working out with 25 year olds is not always enjoyable.) Take care, and have a great week.

Kevin "Hack" King

You might want to check in the the Marc Rich case.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

I think if some pundit on TV was right..Marc Rich's attorney was the Scooter-man. To think Scooter had a life as a low life defense attorney. I guess he was covering all his bases, the same way the PAC's do when they spread ALL that money around for THEIR special interest(s)....not necessarily OURS.

The attorney that represented him should be in prison

Kevin "Hack" King

Who SHOULD be in prison? Marc Rich or just his attorney?

Marc Rich or the recipients of his generous "donations"?

"Should" is just a matter of opinion. How you or I "feel" about it has no bearing on its legality. The law (the Constitution) says that the president can issue pardons. There is no exclusion for attorneys named Libby or criminals named Rich.

Whether any LAWS were broken with the "donations," I don't think that the incompetent Attorney General's office will investigate. Maybe more attorneys should be fired.

Should Congress investigate? I'm not sure of the extent of their authority. But they're probably hesitant considering all of the quid pro quo that goes on there.

I have read that Hil's brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, are being investigated about receiving money for access to the Partners in Crime.

I wonder how much Hil will sell pardons for? She seems like a tougher negotiator than affable Bill.

If John Edwards loses, he should consider expanding his "legal" practice to pardon-buying -- I mean, advising. It's even more lucrative than speeches on poverty!

Made me smile and laugh a little too. G'Day to you.

Kevin "Hack" King

Laughing is good for you!

I think what we both know is that almost everyone in Washington is "ethically challenged." If you knew me, you'd NEVER believe that I'd say one word in defense of a defense attorney.

Aren't most politicians lawyers too?

I'm glad I didn't make you mad. Not my intention . . . usually!

Libby couldn't remember when he met with a reporter while testifying in a case that brought no prosecutions and found no crime was committed. Okay, do you also feel that Bill Clinton, who was found guilty of the same crime, should serve jail time?

Are you just mad because it was a 'political favor'?

Do you REALLY want to look at Presidential Pardons and compare the last few Presidents?

What about the FALN bombers (they bombed a New York restaurant and killed a couple of innocent civilian types) or the dozen or so child molesters Clinton pardoned?

How about this for a 'political favor'?:

Mel Reynolds -- ex-congressman and child molester extraordinaire. Likening a prospective threesome with an underage Catholic schoolgirl to hitting the Lotto, he now works for Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH advising kids. Why did Clinton pardon Reynolds? Because the Rev. Jesse asked him to.

or this:

Carlos Vignali -- a drug kingpin and one of the largest cocaine dealers in U.S. history. The Los Angeles Times detailed Vignali's career as "the central player in a cocaine ring that stretched from California to Minnesota," delivering more than 800 pounds of cocaine. Why did Clinton pardon Vignali, who served only six years of a 15-year sentence for convictions on three counts of federal narcotics violations? Maybe because his father, rich Los Angeles entrepreneur Horacio Vignali, a la Denise Rich, donated over $160,000 to mostly Democrat politicians who wrote to Clinton and then-Attorney General Janet Reno, asking for clemency for Vignali. This coke kingpin drew a "get out of jail free" card, while his 30 co-defendants -- many of them poor blacks -- are rotting away in the federal penal system. One of them, Todd Hopson, was described as "an uneducated Black kid with a noticeable stutter" whose mid-level role in a Minneapolis drug ring "was nothing compared to Vignali." But don't expect to hear the NAACP and other civil-rights businesses attack their hero Clinton over his racially-profiled pardons.

Or this:

In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. He ran, he took the money, his papers and fled.

Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon.

Don't you want to know if Denise's contributions led to a direct quid pro quo exchange for her ex-husband's pardon?

Of course, Clinton has denied any connection, saying he relied solely on the information provided by Jack Quinn (former White House counsel and Rich's current lawyer) when he was weighing the pardon request.

I do not understand why you feel Jack Quinn should be in jail though.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

Excuse me, Mixer, but you are mistaken.

Bill Clinton was NOT found guilty of the same crime as convicted perjurer Scooter Libby. You can look it up!

To be convicted of perjury, you have to make MATERIAL misrepresentations under oath.

Let me give you an example. {{{{{{{{{{{{EDITED and BANNED}}}}}}}}}}}

As far as Clinton goes, the judge in his case (Susan Webber, I think) ruled that the entire fishing expedition into Clinton's sex life was NOT MATERIAL to the original Whitewater charges, and therefore any misstatements...EVEN THOSE UNDER OATH....were not subject to Perjury statutes. (You remember Whitewater, right? That 8 year attempt by Republican extremists to undo a valid Presidential Election?)

Clinton's misstatements (or lies, if you will) were still subject to "contempt of court" charges, which President Clinton pleaded guilty to (being as Democrats are real men who show responsibility when they are wrong, unlike the current White House occupant).

So, despite what Denise and the extremist hyena choir would have you believe, President William Jefferson Clinton, our last REAL president, was never charged with nor convicted of Perjury in a court of law.

He WAS charged with "perjury" during the Kangaroo Impeachment debacle, but you'll recall he beat that charge 55-45....along with all the other charges.

So please don't try to equate the two cases. Thank you!

Clinton didn't beat any charge, he was in fact "IMPEACHED" by the house of represenatives but the Senate failed to remove him from office by a vote of 45-55.

He was impeached for 'lying under oath' and 'suborning justice' neither of which characterize my version of a REAL man.

Basmati has a conversation with a sixth grade girl that is rather bizarre. The county DA hears about it and decides to prosecute bas as a sexual predator. At the beginning of the investigation he decides that although quite weird, there were no laws broken.

But since this particular DA doesn’t like bas (no surprise) he decides to proceed with the investigation anyway. During his investigation bas tells the DA that the conversation occurred on Feb 2. A witness testifies that it happened on Jan 22. The DA then proceeds to prosecute bas for lying to investigators and gets a conviction.

__

And btw, bas, Clinton wasn’t just charged with perjury, he was impeached.

The following is a censure resolution proposed by House Judiciary Committee Democrats as an alternative to articles of impeachment.
Be it resolved that:
1. The President made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;
2. The President took steps to delay discovery of the truth;
3. No person is above the law, and the President remains subject to criminal and civil penalties;
4. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this Joint Resolution, the President acknowledges this censure.

In their own words.

Maximus

That is a quite clear explanation of perjury vs obstruction. Quite clever, in an "I need a bath now" kind of way.

Kevin "Hack" King

I am afraid the blogs have reached a low that I am unwilling to participate in or support.

The personal attacks and level of intolerance are a long time pattern of unnecessary rhetoric directed toward the conservatives that is so distasteful that I will withdraw from these boards.

When the discussions are primarily centered around fecal matter, bestiality, personal attacks and baseless accusations it is no longer a community board to discuss ideas but rather a proxy for public humiliation behind a cloak of anonymity.

I have been accused of "attacking a person" who was arrested for drunk driving when I attempted to protect the anonymity of those who spoke to me about the drunken assistant principal's personal experiences with her. At one point, "Gump" after numerous personal attacks in defense of the drunken school administrator brought my deceased mother in to the discussion during one of his attempts to defend 'Ms.Pena', the former 'Ms. Valesco', who's promotion in class and condoning of partying to her students at McIntosh High School, allowing under aged drinking of her own daughter, drinking in the presence of her students or former students and her adultery were substantiated by at least three other users. Rather than an admission of being wrong and an apology, I was accused of 'posing' as one of the former students, 'eggbeater'. This lie was challenged and Gump refused to take the challenge - which was a bet for cash or house titles that I was not now, or ever 'eggbeater'. Yet, this same defender of a DUI 'educator' sits idly by while Max was used in a bestiality scenario, Denise was called every name in the book, and the other conservatives bold enough to speak out are often belittled, berated, and accused of being every derogatory thing under the sun. I even saw insults to Tug13 if you can believe that. This is the type of hypocrisy that I will no longer be in the 'mix' of. I promise you that some of my best friends are liberal democrats; however, none of them would stoop to this level of hypocrisy, guttural pablum, or "character assassination" of someone who has NOT been arrested or committed any crime.

I want to leave you with a few answers:

Why Mixer, Mixer?

My nickname,Mixer, which through twisted logic was somehow tied to 'eggbeater' is actually a military nickname I got while in Asia, Korea specifically. The KL7 and KG13 cryptographic equipment was a favorite of mine at the time and I was regarded as one of the best at repairing the equipment. While on deployment in the Philippines, I was summoned to a new installation site, in a mountain, because they were having problems at Osan Air Base in Korea. I was asked to fix the 'Mixer' (lay term for cryptographic equipment by some of the troops) that was used to encode and decode messages from the hub in Korea to the United States and back (full duplex).

While there, it was discovered that I had a pretty solid spinning back kick, (dweel chagi - pronounced doo - yo - cha - gi). Between the two incidents the 'nick' was cemented and I departed Korea as the 'Mixer'. Enough about the military or 'Hack' will call me on reminiscing.

Why Quit?

Well, I have seen what happened to RetArmyMaj (he was banned), Denise, Max, Enigma, Myword_Mark, and a few others. I have seen old blogs with right on the money, oldschoolfootball, and a host of one or two time bloggers who were threatened, equated with pedophiles, insulted, called liars, berated, called tawdry names and frankly, this is just not what I want to read about or do with my time. Enigma and I were in Ohio this weekend to finalize some details from my mother's estate and he read the blogs, and then deleted his account. He was right and he says doesn't miss it. Life is too short to roll in the gutter. Besides, I really need to start another business anyway, it's therapeutic for me.

I haven't seen any evidence of any minds ever being changed.

Despite occasional arguments being made pro and con on point between the guttural sludge, and personal attacks, no one has had an 'epiphany' and changed their mind. It is really just a 'cheer and insult board' and not a free exchange of ideas that merits my time.

Constructive Criticisms:

Bas, stop being so cruel, crass and crude.
Denise, read Walter Williams column this week (everyone is NOT your friend).
Kevin, stop encouraging bas, call him on it when you need to, and be more tolerant of conservatives.
Gump - learn to apologize and stop your knee jerk reaction to defend bad teachers and administrators - they are among you- they are few, but they are there.
Max, you and I are very similar, but you have to learn to ignore bas when he includes you in his rants - remove the reaction and you will remove the attacks - he is the most predictable and consistent liberal here - you can use that to understand liberals and get your point across to him without taking Denise's thunder. Do NOT get emotive with an emotive thinker (do as I say not as I do- I know)
Hutch - stop trying to make sense of dollar and speak up more about what YOU think about some of these points on here.
Tug13- read, but find another blog that's more friendly and positive to participate in. You are better than this.
beaver - stop with the one trick pony - forget race and blog on something else. Read` Walter Williams and Larry Elder - they are black and argue that race should be irrelevant. Get to know Justice Clarance Thomas and read his background. Encourage positive behavior and model tolerance. Race, like height, should not figure in to anything. Would you fixate on the height of individuals?

Okay - there is my self righteous rant. I apologize to anyone who was offended. My intent was never to offend anyone in my comments - except in retaliation for being attacked and for that I too was wrong and apologize.

It's time to go. Take care all.

Mixer

Mixer, would you please consider staying especially since a certain someone was just banned? Please? Pretty please? While I don't have as much time to participate as others, I do enjoy reading your well thought out posts especially in this topic. I sure hope you will at least stop in now and then. It will be a shame to lose fine military folks like you and Enigma.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

I like your long posts.

You know a lot and your contributions have been appreciated.

Already read Walter Williams, and I learned a long time ago that not everyone is my friend and some "friends" aren't either.

WW's style reminds me a little of Herman Cain -- down-to-earth. I like Thomas Sowell also. There surely are some smart people in this world!

Hutch's comments to $ -- hilarious

Your advice to Maximus: "Remove the reaction and you will remove the attacks." -- Afraid not -- I've tried.

Basmati's latest attack on Maximus -- Maximus was not even blogging when attacked by the crudest attack that I've seen here (surprised that I wasn't in it). Maximus had dared to respond to Bestial Bas the day before; so BB vented his bitter rage the next day. Typical BB. I choose not to let him get to me.

Mixer, you and Enigma and Git Real have added a lot here, especially with your military backgrounds. Hopefully "y'all" will reconsider.

________________________

SIGN IN A STORE WINDOW:

"WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000
AL - QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE AMERICAN"

________________________

This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business in Philadelphia. You are probably outraged at the thought of such an inflammatory statement. However, we are a society which holds Freedom of Speech as perhaps our greatest liberty.

And after all, it is just a sign...

You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign?

Answer: A Funeral Home

(Who said morticians had no sense of humor?)

-- From a friend in the military

I'm sorry that you feel you have to leave. I get tired of all the "nasty" comments too. I stopped reading them.

Tell Enigma and "mark" hello. I wish the best for all of you.
Thanks for the kind words.
(just between me and you, I think you might be part French, like me)

God Bless
Tug

have added, Mixer, that most of the gumps on here don't have a clue of what they are talking about.

Have a good life man, to tell the truth, most of these points on here aren't worth the time everyone puts in to them, I don't take myself serious enough to argue if scooter is guilty or not, I think he was fool for putting himself in that position. I think you can argue abortion till the end of time, and no one will change their minds untill it affects them one way or another in real life. Most of the other subjects on here are of the same value. I've always been the voice from the back of the room with a one liner and I'm content with that. I don't have the energy to do all the research and typing and cutting and pasteing that you hardcore bloggers do. So moving right along, you have a good life and maybe we'll meet some other way or time and kill a few beers and tell a few war stories, although the only people we fought when I was in was the officers.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Will miss you. I'm right on your heels though. I've only posted once or twice in the past couple of weeks myself. Everytime I look in and get ready to respond I ask myself: Why? Truth nor fact matters here at all. I used to research and post lengthy and well thought out blogs and arguements on various subjects from my Conservative perspective. But, the scenario always plays out the same. First someone rebuts what is written (nothing wrong with that). Next it gets a little testy and finally both sides wind up in a full blown......... oh never mind.

I'm pretty much out of here too. To some folks delight I'm sure.

Perhaps I won't wind up like Hack and keep falling off the Citizen wagon.

Thanks for the good postings brother.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Oh no this is awful! Enigma, Mixer, and now you are leaving?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

It was easier for me to quit smoking years ago.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

As far as quitting goes, I think the smokes would be harder, I'm 34 days short of a year and without a doubt it is the hardest thing I have ever done, but yet not as hard as I thought it would be.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Don't cave in to the temptations Bro. Seriously... smoking was the toughest thing I ever had to conquer. Even after several years I would have one of those cold, wet nights when someone would fire one up and I'd almost kill for one. Don't cave in.

Now if I can just give up my "urge for a little lovin" desires my lovely bride would no longer be able to control me and I COULD BE A FREE MAN. First the nicotine and then the......
________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Git: "Now if I can just give up my "urge for a little lovin" desires my lovely bride would no longer be able to control me and I COULD BE A FREE MAN."

Git, I think that God made us that way so we would have to be better gentlemen than we would otherwise be. It's the proverbial carrot dangled in front of us to keep us motivated. Like Henry Higgins at the end of "My Fair Lady". I suspect the divorce rate would be much higher without that "glue" to hold couples together. Talk about "infinite wisdom"!
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

As they say down under, no worries mate, I am so through with them, I can even drink a few beers now without worrying about falling off that wagon, plus I'm too cheap to smoke now, I took the money I would have spent on the smokes and a week ago I bought a 76 f-100 pickup to restore.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

You are one of the conservative bloggers who I can count on to give a well-thought out AND thoughtful post. The tone of this website has definitely gone downhill, but perhaps we can all start taking the high road again. At least hang around as a "lurker" to see if it improves, then I hope you'll reconsider.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Don't leave, your humor is needed on here! You make me laugh on my worst day!
(you're smart too)

God Bless
Tug

A quick question, any of your grandkids in the school band?

I yam what I yam...Popeye

No, they are in rec sports, and one has just started working part-time.
My grand-daughter played softball in middle school.

A great great great big DITTO, you state my exact feelings. There are certain folks that just do not need to go. I miss Muddle too.

I'm out-a-here. I quit. A gonner. No more Git Real to laugh at. You guys think I'm funny? How offensive. I'm serious as a heart attack and what do you do? Laugh at me. How are they going to take me serious when I run against Scott Ballard???? You'll be laughing at me. Will you also laugh at him with all that make-up on as he poses in front of the cameras? No..... probably not.

BTW.... I miss Muddle too!

_______

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Agreed!

Git, you may make more of a difference than you realize.

Also, you're the one that helped The Citizen win recognition for its blogs! If you and all of the others quit, The Citizen might fold.

It is ironic how much we love hate this forum. I was always at peace when away from the blogs, but the "big" story would bring me to the online paper while out of town, and then you see the blogs, and thenn......

Anywho, I'd love to see that spinning back kick of yours. If you want to come by LA Boxing, in PTC off of Kelly drive, you will find some world class gentlemen. King06@aol.com and I'll work my schedule out with you. Hope you can bury the hatchet with Gump, because you guys are team mates.

Cheers and God's Speed

Kevin "Hack" King

Glad you came back. I might have to yell for help with my car!

Blogging can make you think and laugh (the best response to some people).

Thinking Fast On Your Feet

An old man in Louisiana owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back. It was properly shaped for swimming, so he fixed it up nice -- picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some apple and peach trees.

One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn't been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.

As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond. He made the women aware of his presence [being the gentleman that he was], and they all went to the deep end.

One of the women shouted to him, "We're not coming out until you leave!"

The old man frowned, "I didn't come down here to watch you ladies swim naked. Or make you get out of the pond naked."

Holding the bucket up he said, "I'm here to feed the alligator."

Moral: Some old men can still think fast!

(Sent by a friend of a friend)

This story is especially funny to me because I had a friend in South Georgia who had a pond and a "pet" gator Charlie. I liked watching and feeding Charlie while he was small but was glad that he left when he was older, looking for a bigger pond and the ladies (with 4 legs).

I wish we had taken Hack up on his "drinking buddies" suggestion. We could have settled our differences a lot quicker and with a much better understanding, outside the glare of a public website. And we could have told some pretty good war stories. Sorry I pi$$ed you off so much.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Mixer,

I hope we meet someday. I think I’m only a couple of years younger than you, 46, but if I mature as much in the next few years as I have in the last few I may find it easier to ignore people like bas. It’s a waste of time replying to anything he says. But the entertainment value…

Good luck on your next business venture! I’ll take your advice to heart.

Vr,
Maximus

"Maximus sodomizing a dog in public" = "a somewhat common example" ?!?!?

Maybe where you hang out but not for the rest of us!

While zoophilia (zooerasty) is the Newspeak word, I think that BEASTIALITY is much more descriptive of such a vile act.

(Yes, I know that bestiality is the correct spelling, but BEASTiality is the more common pronunciation of the word. Bestial = brutish; beastly; brutal; carnal; vile; low; depraved; sensual; filthy)

Do you think that bestiality is best since you don't think that it's beastly?

Zoophilia is a sexual perversion, a "crime against nature." "Paraphilia" is the Newspeak word used to avoid the stigmatization of perverse acts.

So, you're obsessed with feces (coprophagia and coprophilia are other paraphilias) and think that it's ordinary to watch someone "sodomizing a dog in public"???

I suppose that if you're watching perversion "in public," then you're not a voyeur.

Let's not forget your "creepy" conversation with an 11-year-old girl.

You do reveal more and more, Basmati.
___________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

I defer to your superior knowledge of "crimes against nature", Denise.

Particularly in regard to humans having sex with animals.

Look at the post above. Please delete it.

Hi All - Bye All.

How about cleaning up the mess that Bas left in his post. I'm sure he'd be the first to agree that this type of filth is worthy of having someone banned. Unless, of course, your name is Basmati and you you're on his side.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

It is commendable that you want to show deference to anyone.

Since you're the one watching bestiality, I'll defer to your prior experience.

Back to doing what you do best, Bestial Bas!

{{{{{{{{{{{{EDITED and BANNED}}}}}}}}}}}}

Please edit the feces out of Mr. Ban Many's posts. Is this type of behavior going to keep our beloved Citizen an award winning forum?

Basmati.... You need help dude.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

I have lurked for a while and dislike the insults and foul language Basmati hurls.

Appropriate editorial action should be taken.

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

Not to long ago ArmyMAJretired got banned for a very similar offense. Basmati danced and sang gleefully at the banning. He burst a blood vessel when a very similar screen name registered, He attacked their honor and talked about following the rules. It will be interesting to see if he can take what he dishes out.

His nastiness will NOT be missed.

P.S.

When ArmyMAJretired was banned, there were MANY supporting messages. It will e intersting to see how well Bannedmasti is supported, or NOT.

"You can't add anything more to the conversation, but you'll be damned if you'll let anyone other than yourself get the last word in on any topic, right, Denise ?

Pathetic." The pathetic bas right after adding nothing to the conversation and trying to get the last word in.

Maximus

You're alright man. Regardless of what Hate Boy says about you. I'm out of here. Or rather I'm going to try real hard to be. I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to post in regards to that thread on that so called DA we have. Oooooooh..... it's so tempting watching him capitalize on the Benoit fiasco. Kind of reminds you of Nifong don't you think?

Scott Ballard's 04 campaign slogan: READY FOR TRIAL

Scott Ballard's 08 campaign slogan: READY FOR MAKE-UP

Lights, Camera, Action..... Where's the press?

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Every one’s bailing out, you, Mixer, Enigma. Your humor will be missed. You’ll have to swing by and drop a bomb every once in a while. Take care.

Vr,
Maximus

He has 2.6 million reasons to come home to Ohio.

I have read all the blogs this last year.

Maximus, he like you the most. You are a lot like Emigma and Mixer.

Cal should have banned basmati long ago.

Tug - I see you girl

God's speed to all.

Hey old friend! How are you? I've missed you.
I hope you will consider posting on here again.

God Bless

Tug

Well I see myword_mark is here. I've heard good things about you from my friends Mixer and Enigma. Hope you will check in now and then. Nice to finally see you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

You are correct bas, in my haste I misstated that Clinton was convicted of perjury and that is incorrect. I apologize. It is never my intent to play 'fast and lose' with the facts.

Please allow me to clarify what I was referring to:

Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign.

Whereas Libby was found guilty of making false statements to the FBI, lying to a grand jury and obstructing a probe into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. (The jury acquitted him of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with a Time magazine reporter.)

Libby was not charged with the leak but with lying repeatedly to the FBI and a grand jury about how he learned about Plame's identity, and what he told reporters about her that spring and summer.

Libby has said that he forgot he learned about Plame from Cheney in June 2003, and that he believed he heard of her for the first time a month later from NBC's Tim Russert. He said he then shared the information with other reporters.

Again, Clinton was NOT found guilty of committing perjury.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

A deposition, since it is given under oath, is as legally binding as testimony in court and "intentionally false" is perjury.

Perjury: Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

Clinton is a known liar (as is his "wife"), and his typical behavior manifested itself when he gave his deposition.

Psychopathic . . . I think that's what it's called.

"thanks for the short post" -- Now you've really hurt my feelings!

As far as "diminished respect," I doubt that anything short of publicly hanging Rove and Cheney (maybe Bush, too) will appease some people. I wonder why "diminished respect" is so seldom used by Democrats for fellow Democrats.

Your seeing "the current government as the PROBLEM" is the trouble: I see ALL government as the problem, but some a lot more so than others! "Hate" crimes & "hate" speech legislation and the "Fairness" Doctrine are two that come to mind.

So, I guess that you're for lowering taxes and cutting the federal budget and the line-item veto?

"what Valerie Plame has been dragged through" --

I've heard there's a movie deal in the works and a book deal and . . .

I'm sure you were even more outraged at all of Clinton's pardons and commutations and all of the money and votes and ... that went along with Pardongate.

Since I'm just so "ignorant" on this subject, I'll let libertarian J.P. Freire say it for me.

"Commutation Rubbish"

The idea that Mr. Fitzgerald has somehow served justice in the execution of his duties is discredited quickly with a simple analogy. If a man goes hunting for bear and comes back with a squirrel, he hasn't had a successful hunt. He has only found a snack.

My last boss, New York Times columnist John Tierney, referred to the entire Plame affair as "nada-gate." If you're in Washington, you care about this mostly unimportant court case because you can't order a sandwich without overhearing more about it. It was the OJ trial of the city, but let's be clear here. The absence of two dead bodies, mounds of evidence, and a high-profile car chase only gives insight as to just how bored people are in this town, and how desperate the media is to entertain us. This was not the trial of the century. It was far less interesting than the Simpson trial, and it makes you wish someone had died.

The story was on its way to being Watergate, as long as everyone respectfully played along and pretended that Secret Agent Joseph Wilson and Secret Agent Valerie Plame were involved in super-double-secret covert operations. If this couple had been singularly responsible for finding evidence to invade Iraq (which, thankfully, they were not), the eventual trial would have ended with a flourish. Instead it just squeaked like some small animal dying.

At least a reporter went to jail. That was fun.

President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence was derided by Democrats who were shocked, shocked to find that such political camaraderie outweighed justice. Of course, that "justice" was the product of a prosecution just as political. If the Democrats had their way, Libby would have been the political prisoner of Congress, crucified for the sins of the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq War. The presidential pardon is a political tool, just as independent prosecutors are political tools. Or just tools.

Speaking of which. It takes a special level of zeal to consider 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine to be fair judgment for a perjury charge that didn't have widespread effects. "Justice," here, is defined by the deranged people who'd rather prosecute an aide to the Vice President than consider that this was a costly prosecution that would have been worthwhile if it had gotten anything done. Mr. Fitzgerald is, after all, a government employee.

The response of those on the right that the President's decision is "APPROPRIATE" is equally, if not more, bizarre. That was the line from National Review's editors, written in all caps with a contradictory bravado. All caps for "NOT GUILTY" or "PARDON HIM," maybe, but "APPROPRIATE" sounds as empty as it looks. There is nothing appropriate about letting a man sit in limbo with gargantuan legal expenses over his head and his reputation sullied by a criminal conviction.

The President's statement on clemency seemed like an apology -- but to the people who least deserved it. The President "respect[s] the jury's verdict," but finds the sentence "excessive." This is a strange distinction if only because the negative implication is quite an indictment (no pun intended). If commuting a sentence is a sign of respecting a jury's verdict, does that mean that every presidential pardon is a slap to the jury system? Would it have been possible for the President to pardon Libby while still respecting the verdict? Was the sentencing the only bad part?

The founding fathers allowed the executive to grant clemency so that the government would err on the side of being more merciful. As a matter of discretion, a president may apply that in both inappropriate and appropriate ways. Inappropriate: Bill Clinton's pardon spree which was either a low moment in American history or a high watermark for Clinton's fundraising (take Marc Rich, whose ex-wife gave $400,000 to the Clinton Library). Appropriate: George Washington pardoning participants in the Whiskey Rebellion and Lincoln doing the same for the confederates in the Civil War. No one is concerned that there will be a Scooter Libby room in the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas.

One can argue that the President's commutation is so appropriate because Libby may eventually be exonerated through the appeals process [and not go to jail in the meantime (to be raped to Basmati's delight or brutualized by "a 6-foot, 350-pound, bunk mate named 'Sweet Tiny'" as SWMBO wished)], something that a simple pardon supposedly would never allow. But this is a ridiculous pander because it assumes that anyone whose mind needs to be changed can be changed by the appeals process. If the trial which just concluded was based entirely on shoddy memories and bad prosecution, the only promise held by an appeal is a different prosecutor. Meanwhile, more taxpayer and private money will be spent on a trial that ultimately means nothing to the public, but everything to a man so bogged down he can't do anything else.

Bush should forget about his "respect for the jury's verdict," and just pardon the guy.

_______________________

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." ~ Winston Churchill

If one lies before a grand jury under oath for any reason, they are guilty of a crime. Period. Keep beating the "but Clinton" drum, Denise, but it will not erase Scooter Libby's felonious behavior. When will conservatives such as yourself get back to the principle of personal accountability? The TRIAL did not ruin Scooter's reputation. His deciding to LIE and OBSTRUCT justice ruined his reputation. And please don't tell me that you think our country can no longer afford the cost of legal investigations. You believe we can afford 2 billion a day in Iraq, and the cost of housing Gitmo types for perpetuity, but not the cost of a perjury case?
This "non-story" was started by the CENRTAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY of the UNITED STATES requesting an investigation into the OUTING OF AGENT VALERIE PLAME. You can't spin that, Denise. That is the origin of this case. At this point, I imagine "but Clinton did it too" is all you have left. I understand.

Kevin "Hack" King

You're right -- a commutation "will not erase Scooter Libby's felonious behavior." But a pardon would.

J.P. Freire: "Even if you accept that Scooter Libby perjured himself, it's a presidential prerogative to grant clemency."

I lack "the principle of personal accountability"? That's personally insulting, and, in the words of Mrs. Edwards, I ask you to stop.

I find it incongruous that you seem to be saying that the terrorists at Gitmo should be freed (without even the legality of a pardon or commutation) and that the terrorists in Iraq should not be killed but should be left to behead and/or detonate another day.

Surely you don't believe that the CIA has no partisan Democrats employed there? If I recall correctly, very early on in the investigation, Fitzgerald learned that the initial "leak" was from Armitage. "Crime" solved; so, pack up briefs -- Was Sandy "Burglar" there? -- and go home.

I ask once again: Where is your moral outrage for anything that the Democrats do?

I believe that you also want Genarlow Wilson out of jail CONTRARY to the law. He's convicted; so he has to remain in jail unless he is paroled or receives a pardon or commutation. He can't just stay with Mama AFTER his conviction and sentencing. The sentencing doesn't provide for house arrest. The irreverend Al Sharpton can't change the law no matter how much he huffs and puffs.

I don't understand your and your fellow Democrats' inconsistency and seeming hypocrisy.

border on a dishonest representation of my words.
1: Where did I say free all Gitmo detainees? I call them "detainees" because it is not accurate to call them all terrorists. If I call you a terrorist, Denise, does that make you one? no. Should we have evidence or hearings of some type, any type in this lifetime? I believe we should.

2: Who are the terrorists in Iraq Denise? If you figure it out, please call Washington so they can isolate the "terrorists" and exterminate them. From what I have seen and read, it is a bit more complex (spelled sectarian violence).

3: Sooo, the partisan democrats in George Tennets CIA caused this hullabaloo? That, Denise, is a classic.

Where is my outrage for anything dems do? We're talking Scooter Libby. We're talking run up to Iraq. This is a GOP monster. Give me some current day Dem dish, and we can blog on it. I suggest you stay away from the DC prostitute story though. Too many GOPers wrapped up in that to make a case against dems.

Kevin "Hack" King

Here's a bit of satire for your early morning enjoyment:

"Sen. Vitter Outed As Heterosexual: Heterophobia Feared"

A conservative site using satire by saying the world is shocked that a married GOP representative that visited prostituets is Heterosexual. The bar has not been lowered, it has been placed on the floor. This was actually a "thank God he wasn't with a gay prostitute" story. I found it hard to believe what I was reading. They failed to mention that openly gay Barney Frank did not have a wife to cheat on. That was quite an interesting read.

Kevin "Hack" King

What is it with liberals? Do you not take literature classes, or do you all fail the satire section? And I won’t even mention analogies!

Do you all wear "See No Hypocrisy if It's a Democrat" glasses?

My dearest Denise, this is not about me being blind to democratic hypocrisy. You brought the article to me, remember? And it was an article minimizing the fact that a Representative with a wife; a state representative that fervantly argued about the need to protect the sanctity of marraige, was sleeping with prostitutes Denise. It brought up "but, but Barney Franks" like "but Clinton." Think of me as a Libertarian. I am a live and let live kind of guy. I don't care if gays get married. I don't care if Hugh Grant or James Worthy employ prostitutes. I would that the government stayed out of their business. I don't care who Barney Franks cavorts with providing they are of age. But, Denise, the Ted Haggards of the world go before us encouraging the Government to define marraige and legislate moral behavior, all while they do some pretty interesting things in their own lives. It amazes me that a conservative outlet will then, using the defense of satire, say "oh my, the liberals are outraged at heterosexual behavior." Yeah, that's the issue. And comming from the "Clinton disgraced the White House" crowd. I am more amazed every day Denise. But, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the read.

Kona tomorrow morning? 4am? I'll wear my silk robe if you wear those fuzzy pink house slippers

Kevin "Hack" King

I won't be wearing "fuzzy pink house slippers"! See my new and improved avatar.

_________________________

Denise, get your guns!!!

Notice that I actually said, “You seem to be saying.” Therefore, I am free of your charge of “dishonest representation.”

Hack, I brought Gitmo into the Libby discussion since we were talking about someone going free. I assumed that you meant freeing the "detainee" terrorists, especially if the captives get lawyers like the ones that O.J. had (except the taxpayers would foot the bill).

Just who do you think is “detained” (I like that verb so much better than “imprisoned”) at Gitmo? Where did they come from? Why would our government continue to hold them if they are harmless goat-herders?

I do not know all of the ins and outs of military prisons and prisoners-of-war law; however, I’m hesitant to put any trust in San Fransicko Pelosi and “This was is lost” Reid and Abscam Murky Murtha. If Democrats were to have someone like Sam Nunn, then they would have more credibility.

“Should we have evidence or hearings of some type, any type in this lifetime?” – “In this lifetime,” perhaps. With the Democratic animosity towards Bush and political bias so strong, how could it be non-partisan? Perhaps Zell Miller could lead the investigations?

“The closing-down of the Guantánamo Prison has been requested by Amnesty International (May 2005), the United Nations (February 2006) and the European Union (May 2006).” –- Prime reasons to keep it, in my opinion.

A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him. ~ Winston Churchill

_________________________

“Who are the terrorists in Iraq?” – The ones shooting and setting off IED’s? And exploding the car bombs, too.

(You can call me a “terror” & I’d take it as a compliment. )

Who warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals"? "Predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

It was Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon on Feb. 17, 1998.

And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Seems clear to me.

_________________________

Tenet was appointed by Clinton. Are you saying that the CIA isn't political? Something about Watergate seems to come to mind.

Yes, where is your outrage for anything that Dems do?

"We're talking Scooter Libby." -- So, back to the Clinton pardons . . . (I LUV analogies )

_________________________

Edited to add “Do Not Shut Down Guantanamo Bay” by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (7/16/07)

What do you think? Sensenbrenner has been there and investigated; therefore, he has credibility in this area, in my opinion.

Clinton would never have outed a spy or lied about one, just sex.
Wait until Bush is done to add up pardons. Many may need one, yet.

Your postings of factual articles that back up the reasoning of the actions of this administration are educational. The actions have been taken for the reasons you have pointed out. The ‘fact’ that I included in my contribution (just one) is the perception of the correctness of these actions by the American people. The success of any action is judged by the measured results of that action. In a democracy - the success of an administration/policy is measured by the number of people who vote for that administration/policy in the next election. The American people are not pleased with the results of this administrations action. This includes Democrats and Republicans; red states and blue states, etc. If nothing else - the actions of this administration have been successful in bringing this country back together. . .and against this administrations policies.

As I read carefully your responses to my question, I see more agreement in your answers than disagreement. The main point of disagreement in our discussion is the acceptance of the ‘idea’ of remaining in Iraq for possibly 25 years until the ‘democracy’ of Iraq is realized.

I too read the report of the Iraq Study Group. . and am disappointed that it was totally ignored in the past. It appears that the 'diplomacy' portion is being attempted now - but I fear it is too little too late. History teaches us that at the time many critical events were occurring - the general public had no idea what was being discussed or planned 'behind the scenes'. There is a part in the Quran (without the Islamic diacritical markings) that states that if the 'infidel' occupies your land - kill him. The 'fundamentalists' have used this successfully to recruit more and more 'terrorists'. This may be one of the reasons for the inclusion of the 'professionals' who have joined the 'fundamentalists' in implementing terror on the perceived 'infidels’. I have 'watched' the activities of the terrorists in this world for a long, long time. . . and wondered if our government was doing anything about the apparent rise in their activities throughout the world. Naturally, when they attacked/kidnapped our citizens/property - we became publicly involved. (The general American media started giving terrorists activities front page - above the line - coverage.) The Philippines has suffered terrorist activity for years - but according to the media - that was a 'local' problem. Much of what you suggest Hack was found in the study that has been ignored. I have always wondered how we could accuse Saddam of 9/11 - when the majority of those who caused 9/11 were Saudis. I did however see him as a ‘sick’ dictator who needed removal (like Hitler, Amin, and others). I have been watching closely how the Arab neighbors of Iran and Iraq are reacting to our diplomacy. At the present time, I feel our national will is to just bring our troops home! . . and let the Middle East solve their own problems - not realizing that their problems are our problems now. One of the posters said if he knew the answer to my question - he wouldn't be sitting in Fayetteville! How true!! When I step back - and try to look at the total world picture - if I were an enemy of this country, I would hope that the US would send more troops to the Middle East - and then wait and attack the US and bring the US down - i.e., break the will of the people, exhaust military resources, etc. The American people in the past have supported US war efforts because it was clear that we were in the right - just in our cause - protecting our own as well as others. Most Americans cannot differentiate between the Sunnis and Shiites - and most of our politicians seem to have the same problem. We are impressed with the Jordanians, and those Saudis that we see visiting the White House. But the Arabs are no different from Americans - blood is thicker than water - and they will be loyal to their Arab brothers and their Arab neighbors. Our diplomatic core has been trying to convey this to our current and past leaders - but obviously to no avail. I hope that our diplomats and statesmen are developing strategies that will get us out of this mess. Truman had a hard decision to make when he ordered the use of the Atom bomb on our enemy, Japan. We no longer have that type of alternative. . . you probably disagree with this Mixer; but we didn’t do it right the first time. And the opportunity has past. (Going in with enough strength to secure the region and having a plan to immediately follow up with rebuilding infrastructure, etc. – via the Marshall Plan)
I just wonder if there are Generals that are being replaced that have a strategy that we could use to leave the region as perceived occupiers – but remain as perceived advisors. Would that get us more cooperation from our allies? What do you think?

I just don’t think we alone have the manpower or equipment at this time to continue this war scenario with Iraq, Iran and North Korea,possibly China – and continue to protect ourselves at home. I know that we don’t have the ‘will’ of the American people to continue to lose lives in Iraq.

I do believe that there are cells in this country that are capable of doing us great harm. It is a new day - and a new type of warfare.
I was sickened to hear of the carnage in the city north of Baghdad. (And this after more troops are in the region.) We don’t have enough troops to cover the entire region!

I’m afraid that the possible cell here and other cells in Europe are capable of the same thing. Are we ready to deploy tanks to our cities? Is there another answer? Will a change in leadership insure a change in direction and diplomacy? Is the Muslim world capable of joining the western world in the war on terror? What do you think?

I agree with most of what you are saying. Thank you; however, please don't get caught up in the thought that we are being attacked soley because we are occupying Muslim land. When we eventually leave Iraq, this global jihad will not end. We may stop being proactive but the Islamists will not.

Al-Qaeda has adopted a broader interpretation of the religious command concerning the killing of infidels. It is considered an absolute command that does not depend on political circumstances, the need or will to take revenge, or a wish to liberate Muslim lands from infidel rule. Saif al-Din al-Ansari, in an article in al-Qaeda's official periodical, presented the new, comprehensive concept of total extermination of Islam's enemies based on the Quranic verse: "And that He may purge those who believe and deprive the unbelievers of blessings" (Al-Imran, 142). According to al-Ansari, this is the way Allah deals with infidels, who are doomed throughout history to total extermination through various types of death, as was the fate of the people of Noah, Hod, Saleh, Lot, Midian, and Pharaoh. Al-Ansari asserted that the extermination of infidels is a permanent Islamic law and unchangeable fate for infidels that is as relevant today as it was in past generations. According to al-Ansari, "Just as the law of extermination was applied to the infidel forces among the nations in previous days and no one could escape it, so it will be applied to the infidel forces in our day and no one will escape it. Namely, similar to the fate of the Thamoud and 'Ad peoples [two pagan Arab peoples which, according to Islamic tradition, were exterminated due to their rejection of the words of the Prophet], so the American state, the Jewish state, and all other infidel countries will certainly be destroyed."

Do you recall September 11 when we were NOT in Iraq? The Wahabis and Madrasis of the Radical Clereks may use us in Iraq as a tool but it is not the source of their hatred.

Do you recall September 12, and the celebrations in the streets by the Palestinians?

The Islamic victory over the USSR in Afghanistan, the creation of the al-Qaeda global network, and the spread of Islam in many Western countries are seen as signs of an Islamic awakening that from the radical Islamist perspective may lead to the restoration of Islam as the world's most dominant power.

In this emerging world order, Christians and Jews are no longer protected minorities under Islam. As a result, there is a dangerous trend among militant Islamist clerical authorities, especially from Saudi Arabia, justifying not only acts of terrorism against individuals, but also mass murder against whole groups of people regarded as infidels. Their call for the complete extermination of peoples means they have moved ideologically toward the justification of genocide.

Jihad against America is the realization of "the right of self-defense" in retaliation for the terrorist war waged by the United States against the nation of Islam. Based on the Islamic principle, one al-Qaeda leader argues that Muslims have the right to kill four million Americans, while a Saudi scholar argues for killing ten million.

The citizens in democratic Western countries become full participants in governmental decision-making by voting in elections and therefore they are no longer considered "non-combatants." Democracy is a prohibited innovation that contradicts Islamic values and embodies a new heretical religion.

An official al-Qaeda publication presents a new, comprehensive concept of total extermination of Islam's enemies. Al-Qaeda's Saudi clerics are also having a growing influence on other militant groups, from Hamas to Chechen groups to the mujahideen in western Iraq: their legal rulings appear on the websites of these organizations in Arabic.

There has only been a partial moderation of these trends as a byproduct of Saudi Arabia's internal struggle with al-Qaeda since May 12, 2003; some clerics have called for discontinuing the practice of takfir - branding Muslims as infidels worthy of destruction. But they have not altered their harsh doctrine against Christians and Jews.

Fox news aired a documentary that was commissioned by PBS but they refused to air on the topic of moderate Muslims being under attack (and frequently killed) by the radical Islamists. There is a new 'Uncle Tom' in town and he is being murdered.

The prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatari-based spiritual authority for the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood, issued an Islamic ruling that, despite the pessimism among Muslims, Islam will definitely prevail and eventually become master of the entire world. One of the signs of Islamic victory will be the conquest of the Italian capital, Rome, by the Muslims. Occupying Europe and defeating Christianity will become possible, according to al- Qaradawi, with the spread of Islam inside Europe until it becomes strong enough to take over the whole continent. Al-Qaradawi asserts that "the signs of salvation are absolute, numerous, and as plain as day, indicating that the future belongs to Islam and that Allah's religion will defeat all other religions." He relies on ancient Islamic traditions quoting the Prophet Muhammad, who allegedly argued that the conquest of Constantinople (Istanbul) and then Romia (Rome) are considered signs of the victory of Islam.

Al-Qaradawi's influence, it should be stressed, is widespread. His religious rulings not only appear on the websites of Muslim Brotherhood subsidiaries, like Hamas, but also on the websites of Saudi-inspired groups fighting the U.S. in western Iraq and on the websites of Chechen Islamists.

Another Saudi scholar, Salman bin Fahed al-'Auda, in his book The End of History, asserts that the solution to Islamic distress - that may bring about the fall of America and the Western world - "exists in one word which is Jihad" (emphasis in original). According to al-'Auda, the meaning of jihad is much broader than fighting with a sword (the Islamic symbol of jihad). Appealing to Muslims throughout the world, he wrote: "We should not simplify this issue and narrow its meaning to a restricted military battle in one of the Islamic regions or even to an all-out war against the West, which is possible and predicted and we assume is arriving [emphasis added]." He continues: "Life as a whole is a battlefield. The weapons are not only the rifle, the bullet, the airplane, the tank, and the cannon. Not at all! Thinking is a weapon, the economy is a weapon, money is a weapon, water is a weapon, planning is a weapon, unity is a weapon, and so there are many types of weapons." During the 1990s, he was regarded as the most influential preacher in Saudi Arabia.

ON April 2002, Sheikh Hamed al-Ali, a lecturer on Islamic culture in Kuwait and one of the leaders of the radical Salafi stream, clarified in a religious ruling the circumstances in which it is permitted to kill civilians in the cause of jihad without violating the Prophet Muhammad's command prohibiting the murder of women and children:

"When Muslims are forced to launch an all-out attack on enemies or bomb them from a distance and this may cause the death of women, children, and other civilians, if they are killed during such attacks, killing them does not constitute a sin."

Sheikh Suliman bin Nasser al-Ulwan, a Saudi scholar, issued a ruling on May 18, 2001, which defined the suicide attacks against the "exploitive Jews" in "Palestine" and against the "aggressive Christians" in Chechnya as "acts of self-sacrifice according to the way of Allah," and are therefore legitimate means of warfare from a religious perspective." He is cited in a December 2001, al-Qaeda videotape when a visiting Saudi tells Osama bin Laden that he is bringing "a beautiful fatwa" from al-Ulwan.

Sheikh al-Ulwan argued that it is not prohibited to kill children as a consequence of suicide actions if the perpetrator of such an action had no premeditative intent to kill them. Nevertheless, al-Ulwan includes "all the Jews in Palestine" in his definition of "combatants," adding that, "If jihad fighters are not able to kill combatants [only] without [also] killing children [who are with them], there is no problem in such cases if they [the children] are killed."

All those involved in fighting Muslims, both Christians and Jews, are regarded as "combatants" in Muslim eyes. However, a particularly negative status is reserved for Jews, who are regarded as the source of all evil not only in the context of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict but due to their "inherent characteristics" and the "danger they embody to mankind." In a statement issued in December 2002 to "enlighten young Muslims," the Hamas movement describes Jews in wholly anti-Semitic terms in a way that divests them of any vestige of humanity. Jews are described as a nation of "despicable lowlifes," "traitors," and "liars" who are "arrogant," "corrupt," and "cursed," who include other gods in their beliefs and distort the Holy Scriptures."

One of al-Qaeda's leaders, identified by his nickname, Abu Ayman al-Hilali, in an article published in the periodical Al-Ansar, defined the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany, and Australia as "enemies," while praising the mass-murder attacks committed by al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S., Tunisia, Yemen, Bali, Moscow, and elsewhere. He justified killing Western civilians in these attacks for the following reasons:

1.The citizens in democratic Western countries become full participants in governmental decision-making by voting in elections and therefore they are no longer considered "non-combatants" as in past wars.
2. The citizens in Western countries are full participants in the war their governments are waging against Islam. Their designation by al-Qaeda as "targets" was a reaction to the aggressive policies of their governments. Al-Hilali asserted that even those in the West who oppose their governments' policies have no immunity from al-Qaeda's jihad since they are a small minority without real influence and cannot be distinguished during the commission of attacks.

Yes, because you vote - you can be killed.

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, leader of the Bayat al-Imam extremist group whose operatives were arrested in Jordan in 1995, takes a further step in his book Democracy is a Religion in denying the traditional protection given by Islam to Jews and Christians. They become "combatants" and infidels and lose their status of ahl al-dhimma not only because of their participation in elections, but as a result of their endorsement of democracy and its values. For al-Maqdisi, democracy is a prohibited innovation that contradicts Islamic values and embodies a new heretical religion. Its followers are "infidels" and "polytheists," even if they consider themselves as Jews or Christians by religion.

As noted, radical Islamic scholars rely in their rulings on the principle of retaliation while justifying indiscriminate mass murder of Christians. Suliman Abu Ghaith, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, in his famous series of public letters entitled Under the Shade of the Lances and directed at Muslim youth, listed the crimes of the U.S. against the Arab and Muslim world. He argued that the U.S. is responsible directly and indirectly, in its long-lasting war on Islam, for the death of four million Muslims, including 1.2 million Iraqis, 260,000 Palestinians (as a result of its support for Israel), 12,000 Afghans and Arab fighters, 13,000 Somalis, and millions more throughout the world. From his perspective, al-Qaeda's attacks in Washington and New York in September 2001 are not enough to balance the equation of killing. Basing his claims on the Islamic principle of retaliation, Abu Ghaith argues that Muslims have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, to displace eight million Americans, and to cripple hundreds of thousands more. Moreover, Abu Ghaith asserts that Muslims are religiously entitled to use chemical and biological weapons in their war against the U.S.

The dirty bomb

Nasser bin Hamed al-Fahd, another prominent Saudi Salafi scholar, in an Islamic ruling published in May 2003, approved the use of weapons of mass destruction against America. He also based his indictment on the principle of retaliation, but argued that Muslims have the right to kill ten million Americans in response to the crimes of their government against the Muslim nation. Al-Fahd elaborated the circumstances under which it is religiously permitted to kill non-combatant Americans: During a military operation when it is hard to distinguish between soldiers and civilians and according to military needs or considerations. Ascribing great importance to the military considerations, he asserted that the military leaders who are responsible for the execution of jihad have the authority to make the decisions concerning what types of weapons to use against the infidels. If they decided to use weapons of mass destruction based on military need, it would be an obligation under Islamic law.

I could go on forever - but you get the idea.

Radical Islam is on the move. In Europe, and throughout the world. Just because we do not want to be in a fight, doesn't mean we won't be.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

On September 11, 2001, just as we had been for 8 years previous, we had a robust military operation overflying and quarantining Iraq. We had forces in Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. This is what spun radicals up. I'm not for a second saying we should not have had the Iraq overflight operation, but it is not accurate to give Americans the impression that Muslims want to come kill them in their beds "because of their freedom." It is absolutely about our support of Israel and our presence in the region. Reducing our presence in the region is surely the quickest way to relieve pressure from this region. you're a smart man, Mixer. I believe you know that in this Iraqi policy arm wrestling match, there are far too many arms pulling for a phased withdrawl as opposed to an open-ended commitment. After listening to Chuck Hagel on Meet the Press, I have to agree with him that the President has about 90 days before Congress begins to set policy for him.

Kevin "Hack" King

I was in Incirlick AF Base, Turkey back in 1979 and again in late 1991.

A "10,000-foot runway at the base 7 miles east of Adana, and approximately 250 miles southeast of Ankara, Turkey, was built in the spring of 1951".

Also in 1954, United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) activated the 7216th Air Base Squadron at Wheelus Field, Libya.

In the summer of 1958, the 7216 ABS met its first test when a crisis in Lebanon focused world attention on the Middle East. During the height of activities, 147 aircraft and crews sat on Incirlik’s tarmac. The majority were C-124s and C-130s involved movement and logistics support of an Army battalion into Lebanon. Four F-100s flew nonstop from the United States to Incirlik and were combat ready minutes after arrival. After the Lebanon Crisis, TAC deployed F-100 fighter squadrons on 100-day rotations to Incirlik from the US.

With the invasion of Kuwait by neighboring Iraq in August 1990, Incirlik’s role in the Middle East again took on great significance. As Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait continued into 1991, Incirlik welcomed units from around the world; and from every service. Units deployed in direct support of Operation Desert Shield and later, Operation Desert Storm.

Incirlik was USAFE's only strike base for Desert Storm.

We used military intervention on predominantly Muslim countries:

Afghanistan 2001
Iraq 2003
Liberia 2003
Pakistan 2005
Somalia 2007

With all do respect, I do not think Iraq created the world wide rise in terror that is a part of fanatical, radical Islam. The quotes I provided for you in my previous blog are the equivalent (in the Muslim world) of 'edicts' from the church. They are the equivalent of Supreme Court Rulings from the court. They are what 'good' Muslims are to follow.

I think Hagel is wrong. Congress will not withdraw troops because they want Bush to take responsibility for Iraq all the way until the election. They will stand on the side and complain and decent. It's all about the win in 2008 for them. They have politicized this war from day one. When it was popular, they were for it, when it's not - they are against it.

I think the crux of our disagreement is this: I believe Radical Islam is on the rise and is now to the point of reaching out to western democracies on their own soil. I think nations like Iran and elements supported by them truly desire the destruction of Israel and the United States. I think an entire generation of Muslims in unprecedented numbers are trying to become a part of the culture of 'jihad'. I do not believe that us leaving Iraq will satisfy this rabid philosophy of anti-western and anti-democratic feelings and teachings that have been taught for a number of years now.

In other words, while I do not think Global Warming will reach in to your bed in the dead of night and pluck you out. I do believe that you can be going on about your daily life, as were 3,000 citizens in the World Trade Center, and that this 'global jihad', which is highly promoted and deeply ingrained in the Muslim youth movement can indeed snuff out your life.

I would also like to address the predominant view that Davids Mom espouses: They are 'Radical' and we have radicals too, like Timothy McVeigh - YES - this is true. However, while we indeed have a handful out of three million - you can probably name them all yourself. The Islamist Radical Muslims n the other hand have enough 'radicals' that people every day, multiple times a day, commit and plot to commit suicide and homicide bombings, have schools that teach they can and should, are held in high esteem for the act, do not face criminal charges if caught by a non-western democracy, and believe that they will go to heaven if they can successfully kill themselves while killing you and me.

In my opinion, this is a dangerous way to think - that we are only dealing with a 'few' radicals. Underestimating your opponent is deadly sin number one in my world.

Houston, we have a problem. Click here for more information on the history of Islam.

I like your contributions here (which are usually 98% wrong ) and I like Gump a whole heckofalot too. Can't quite figure out why we all aren't drinking buddies.
Anyways, you and I agree more than you realize. I believe the terror threat is global and our very localized presence in Iraq is actually hurting our global presence. We are aging our ground equipment 6 years for every one year in Iraq. The Commander of the Guard Bereau has said point blank that there are domestic requests for guard support which have been denied due to lack of equipment and personnel. We are a defacto occupation force, a situation which hurts diplomatic efforts and robs Maliki's government of credibility and the appearance of independence. The Iraqi parlimant is holding a "no confidence" vote this week; not a good sign.
As we both know, terrorists are allready here. They are in England. They are in Asia. They have tried to hit JFK, Fort Dix, Glasgow, Heathrow. Troops on the ground in Baghdad will not and cannot fight those attempts. $400 billion thrown at one facet of this complex issue hasn't served us well. But I sense change is comming sooner rather than later.

Kevin "Hack" King

About everything you just said except the first two sentences.

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

They are the equivalent of Supreme Court Rulings from the court. They are what 'good' Muslims are to follow.

I don't have the view that there are only a 'few' radicals. However,
only the radicals, who admittedly are growing in number, are listening to their ranting. Hitler caused catastrophic horror - but did not prevail; as did Stalin; Amin; and others. We, the US, must have the intelligence and foresight to stop this madness - now! One way is to acknowledge that we are involved in a different type of warfare that requires different strategies. I think we are like the British when confronted with the American Indian - who insisted on following British rules of combat - while the Indian fought 'Indian style'. Al qaeda and other cells have proved that they can get to us without superior weaponry. We ignored it when it was happening to others - and mistakenly thought that our superior military strength could quash al Qaeda. IMO while we protected our oil interests in Iraq- al Qaeda gained in strength by recruiting angry Muslims who have suffered not only recently but also throughout the ages at the hands of 'Christians'. (They are taught the horror of the Crusades from an early age) The conflicts/perceived occupations that you mention only added to the 'fuel' of hatred.

You make a good point about McVeigh. In my estimation American radicals are also those who sanctioned 'lynching'; segregation; the send Africans back to Africa movement; etc. - and they were 'overcome' by reasonable Americans. There are reasonable Muslims - just as there are reasonable Americans. I just don't want to see this country go off half-cocked and accuse all brown-skinned, non-Christians of terrorism. (a la 9066)

If we had paid attention to those in the state department who tried to share how our actions would be viewed/interpreted by the Sunni/Shiite populace - we may have been more successful in helping the Iraqis begin to participate in a democracy. It is still hard for me to believe that our leaders felt that we would be welcomed with open arms unconditionally after bombing the 'hell' out of their cities. If we had implemented almost immediately a plan to involve the people in rebuilding - the outcome may have been different. It is interesting that this administration is now 'quietly' changing course. I just feel it is too little, too late. I hope I'm wrong.

Congress will not withdraw troops because they want Bush to take responsibility for Iraq all the way until the election. Not so!READ THIS

I am always amazed whenever a democrat acknowledges some sort of 'shift' in policy or that we are 'utilizing diplomacy' in the middle east.

When did anyone ever say that we would attempt a one pronged military only intervention?

We have NEVER (to the best of my knowledge) attempted anything without covert and overt diplomacy and operations.

I liked the Hitler analogy; however, didn't about 47 million people die in World War before we got a handle on Hitler and Nazi Germany? Oh, if you count military it was about 72 million wasn't it? Yea, we won alright.

Someone may need to also remind me, I don't recall Germany ever attacking us - seems like that was Japan, no? Isn't that a little like going to Iraq - they didn't attack us either did they?

And didn't Neville Chamberlain in Europe assure us of 'Peace in our time' and not to 'over react'? Seems he thought if would would just appease them and not 'ruffle and feathers' we would get along just fine. Correct?

Look, I know we won't agree and that's fine. As for the politics, If I am a democratic congressman, and I pull the troops out of Iraq and we get hit big AGAIN at home - I have a huge problem.

If I do not pull them out and just continue to whine and complain and talk about pulling them out (this time I really mean it!) and about America's "failed policy" then Bush gets the blame and the democrats get a political advantage (here we are).

If we have do an attack here AGAIN while we are still in Iraq I say, "I told you we need to get out" and I say "see, I told you he made it worse"!

Any way you look at it, the only way I can lose politically, as a sitting Democrat, is to take a chance by pulling the troops out of Iraq or for the people of America to think things are going well in Iraq, or it is worthwhile (hence, all the negative news that us 'righties' think is liberally slanted).

There are good things going on in Iraq - you just don't hear about it.

Democrats now have the unenviable position where if good things happen for America in Iraq - it's bad for the democrats.

Bush will not turn his back on General Petraeus unless and until he says it's a no-go. The last thing said to Petreaus by the icompetents in Washington that 'bungled this whole mess' was when "Both the president and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz met with Petraeus before he was sent back to Iraq with his third star. "They told me, 'Whatever you need, you've got it'."

Bush won't give up on him and the dems won't allow you to think all is well in Iraq. Congress over-rule the deployment and bring hom the soldiers from Iraq? It won't happen to this President.
Remember, this 'change the world we live in' democratic congress that just finished a 'do nothing' first hundred days was against plenty but had no plan for 'afterwards'.

America is indeed disgusted with ALL of Washington. The democratically controlled House and Senate, as you have noted, are more disliked already than Bush and he has been hammered by the media and the democrats for 6 years as the dumbest man in America.

That's my political prognostication for the season.

Ask this question, as I know you have, suppose we do withdraw from Iraq, then what?

Isn't that the million dollar question I have asked for two years and you too have begun asking?

Have you gotten a realistic answer yet? Me neither.

By the way, who didn't think the atomic bomb was 'radical'?

Did you know that some of the scientists thought it would start a chain reaction that would never stop?

Most historians argue that killing the million or so in Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved an estimated million and a half or more of the allied military troops in the next phase of military operations and about another two million civilians - did you know that too?

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video