A Declaration of Independence from President Bush

Tue, 07/11/2006 - 4:58pm
By: Letters to the ...

Everybody knows about the Declaration of Independence; at least they know that there was one, which is a start. The Declaration of Independence was for the most part written by Thomas Jefferson in the early summer of 1776 at the behest of the Continental Congress. Its purpose was to unequivocally declare to Great Britain, the mother country, and to the world, that the people of America were free to govern themselves.

But these were reasonable gentlemen with property interests, not prone to such “liberal” thinking and action, and they wished to make themselves understood to other like gentlemen of the world. The Declaration of Independence explained not only why the colonies should be free, but gave a damning list of the infractions heaped on them by George III. Anyway, it’s a lovely piece of writing, and I steal from it unashamedly.

Here is my abridged Declaration of Independence for the forthcoming elections, written for and about our own George II.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated poorly held and executed decisions based on preconceived notions, much to the detriment of the country as a whole, and often to the benefit of a privileged few.

It is a history of divisiveness used as a wedge to continue in power. It is a history of unnecessary war and occupation; of irrational, wasteful, dangerous spending; of ever decreasing protections for privacy and personal freedom; of destructive foreign policies; of cynical, abusive handling of the electorate and their attachment to this country. “To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

He has held meetings behind closed doors concerning national energy policy, relying on the advice of those most likely to profit from that energy policy.

He has failed to protect the sacred borders of these United States by ignoring warnings from the very people appointed to monitor and warn of such impending actions.

He has abused the good will and patriotism of the people by invading and occupying a foreign and sovereign nation under erroneous pretenses.

He has caused the unnecessary deaths of over 2,500 of our citizens by invading and occupying a foreign and sovereign nation under erroneous pretenses.

He has wasted a significant portion of the military power and budget of this government by invading and occupying a foreign and sovereign nation, under erroneous pretenses.

He has squandered the nation’s treasure by invading and occupying a foreign and sovereign nation, under erroneous pretenses.

He has failed to direct sufficient force against the very enemy responsible for the attack on this nation by invading and occupying a nation that was not involved in the attack on this country.

He has authorized the detention of citizens of this country in violation of habeas corpus and the Constitution.

He has authorized the warrantless surveillance of citizens of this country in violation of their privacy rights under the Constitution.

He has driven the treasury to the brink of insolvency with frivolous and profligate spending, while bequeathing huge tax breaks to influential donors and the wealthiest and most powerful among us.

He has engaged in the petty defamation of citizens and exposure of classified material to disgrace citizens who loudly disagree with his policies.

He has squandered our good will among the nations by invading and occupying a foreign and sovereign nation under erroneous pretenses.

He has allowed the treasury to borrow huge sums from a future military competitor which may someday pose a threat to this nation’s sovereignty.

He has presided over the destruction of manufacturing in this country, the very basis of our past, present, and future power while allowing multinational manufacturers to transfer this capacity to a future threat, and affording unlimited access to our markets.

He has ignored the threat to our borders and way of life posed by economic migrants from Latin America in order to allow the continued import of cheap labor and consequent pressure on menial labor wages.

He has failed to safeguard the country’s future energy sources by encouraging the wasteful use of energy, and failing to provide leadership in husbanding that which we possess.

He continues to cynically use the invasion and occupation of a foreign country for his own political purposes.

“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A (president) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a (base, manipulative, lazy, and altogether foolish) tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

As this pathetic sycophantic traitorous Congress is unlikely to impeach him, we see no recourse but to vote his pathetic sycophantic traitorous (Republican) party out of power, and deal with him afterward. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm belief in the systems and traditions of our forefathers, and the spirit of our Constitution, I remain:

Timothy J. Parker
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 10:58am.

Amendment XI, simply put, says states enjoy immunity from lawsuits from people in other states. It has nothing to do with our discussion. You may not like the fact that Massachusetts permits gay marriage, but Amendment XI prohibits you as a resident of Georgia from challenging Massachusetts in state court.

Amendment V says that American soldiers and sailors on active duty are exempt from due process provisions in time of war (limited due process, btw, was later codified into the UCMJ).

Article 3 simply defines the Supreme Court. Do you have a point?

Once again, the United States signed a treaty, gave it’s solemn word of honor to other nations (“honor”, of course, being a foreign concept to you, being as you have none) to abide by the conditions of the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court simply said, hey America, you gave your word, now you have to live by your word.

”Better to take no prisoners…
“Take no prisoners” is a war crime, which you no doubt learned in your officer basic course.
There’s a reason your military career never reached the battalion command level, and I suspect attitudes like this played a large part in it.
You are a disgrace to the United States Army.


ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 11:25am.

I'll be judged by my peers, of which you are NOT one.

How do you ASSume that I meant kill prisoners when I said take no prisoners. Maybe we should release them until they shoot at us again and then the can be legally engaged

I love teaching you lessons, so today's lesson is in rank and advancement

One interesting set of facts that emerges from these numbers is the increasing competition for promotion as you climb the rank structure. For instance, two out of every three Captains are promoted to Major, while the number of Majors selected for lieutenant Colonel is slightly less, at 64 percent. But the number of Lieutenant Colonels advanced to Colonel sharply diminishes:

Only 38 percent of Lieutenant Colonels can expect to advance to Colonel.

Only 40% of the INFANTRY majors in my year group were selected for LTC, probably because we were downsizing from 20 divisions to 12. Of course Aquisition Corps, your true staff weasels were promoted at close to 75%, simple math fewer combat units, fewer combat soldiers needed.

Are you still mad that I was able to retire and keep getting some of your money monthly? If you can calculate what slight bit of your taxes (Assuming you pay taxes) makes it through the system to me, I would be glad to return it to you in coinage shoved up your 4th point of contact.

Oh, and terrorists are not signators to the treaty, in fact the treaty that we follow EXCUDES them dipstick!


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 11:14am.

The "Better To Take No Prisoners" tactic isn't the way to go. What needs to happen is this: As we are transporting these killer terrorist over to Gitmo we open the back of the C-17 somewhere over the Mid Atlantic. We throw Rosie O'Donnell (gotta remember that Arabs like really ugly women) out the back of the C-17 and one of the crew members yells over the intercom...VIRGIN...VIRGIN. As the terrorist detainees chase after her bailing out over that great expanse of water then we can all sit back and shrug our shoulders and say... I guess it was a choice.


Submitted by rmoc on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 11:05pm.

Republicans and Democrats ...most folks are socially liberal and fiscally conservative..I don't care what you do as long as you don't shove it down my throat and I don't care what you want as long as you don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it..The parties are bull..

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 10:47am.

Libertarians tend to go way to close the anarchy.

Like it or not, 'Buyer Beware' is not a philosphy to do business by. No one should have to figure out a product is intentionally made in a way to sell that will not give service or is dangerous.

At the same time, you cannot protect a fool from themselves. If they insist to standing on the top of a ladder and get hurt, don't cry to the manufacturer or store that sold it.

You don't see a social obligation to have schools? Foolish.

You don't see a country has to take stands to defend human life, including abortion? Don't expect other to turn a blind eye.

A guy wants to rape a woman he gets mad at? Does the government have a right to intervene? Yes.

So, yea, there are issues where the goverment intrudes too far. Others where they do not intervene too much.

Lowest common denominator is a lousy way to decide intervention levels.

I am an independent who dislikes both parties. But I also dislike Libertarian thinking as well.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 12:53pm.

I am so tired thta this paper publishes garbage from Parker, Same Stuff, Different Day!

How about these simple facts:

1. We have not been attacked again on our home soil since 9/11 despite the best efforts of the ACLU and NY Times to reveal everything we are doing to protect Americans

2. No programs have been deamed ILLEGAL!

3. Meetings behind closed doors didn't seem to bother Democrats when it concerned Healthcare or fund raising from Buddist Monks, Chinese fronts for the PLA or pardons for large contributors.

4. Erroneous pretenses, you are obviously unaware that over 500 chemical weapons have been discovered in Iraq and Al Zarqari was in Iraq after he fled from Afghanistan.

5. The Pentagon makes war plans and establishes troop levels, or have you been out of uniform too long to remember who is responsible for executing our wars?

6. Yet the Democrats fought his Energy plan for 4 years and continue to vote down drilling in ANWR, off shore or allow more refineries to be built.

Hey Tim guess you do not ascribe to the philosophy of better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

It is truly a great and free country that allow traitorous and seditious opinions such as yours to be printed without fear of retribution. If The Republicans were as evil as you say, you'd be sharing a cell at GITMO with Bin Laden's driver untill he found a shive and tried to behead you.


Submitted by kevin king on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 11:12am.

You aren't as warm and fuzzy on the Timothy Parker link as you were on mine. Me thinks I see your true mindset. Quick questions for you: You are "sick" of Parker being published by the Citizen. Should the free press censor his comments as they would be in North Korea, China, the FSU (Former Soviet Union), Saudi Arabia? Did Tim, you, and I swear our true faith and allegience to the President, the Republican Party, or The Constitution of the United States of America; to support and defend said constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegience to the same. Timothy Parker comes on strong, but two things are fact: He has command of the pen that few men (even to the highest levels of our government) possess. And he was forced to take sides and choose whom he will serve. I, as well, choose the US Constitution. One thought to ponder: The President said Geneva Conventions did not apply to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo because there is not a formal declaration of war. The president then threw a tantrum because the NY Times (forgetting the Wall Street Journal and LA Times) published the SWIFT banking story during a "Time of War." I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Cheers,

Kevin Hack King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 11:42am.

Yes hack, being a former Airborne Ranger, who did my combat time during Desert Strom with 2/16 Infantry in the Big Red One, I have never been described as warm and fuzzy.

Did I ever say that Parker did not have the right to speak out, don't think so? The free press sensors every day by deciding what stories to run and how to run them. Do you think the Citizen publishes every letter to the editor? Bash Bush and attack the President letters get very old after a while especially with half truths and lies.

My point is that as YOU have pointed out he and his beloved party are not in power and very outnumbered in this red city in a red county in ared state. If I wanted to read garbage like his, I'd be living in Berkeley or SoHo.

Although we did not talk about politics much when I was Active Duty, we discussed Commanders in Chiefs. I was disappointed in Carter when I came on Active Duty in 1979. Reagan was respected by most because we traded in our M113s APCs and M60 tanks for Bradleys and M1s.

Most officers I knew did not respect Clinton because he disgraced the office, a 2LT would have been court martialed for what he did. Read LT. COL. ROBERT "BUZZ" PATTERSON's "Dereliction of Duty" some time.

Your Geneva Conventions argument is not very good, since it applied to LAWFUL combatants, which Al Queda is not.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 12:03pm.

Oh Kevin....

YOU SAID: Timothy Parker comes on strong, but two things are fact: He has command of the pen that few men (even to the highest levels of our government) possess.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Little Timmy didn't write that s&%t. He copy and pasted it from some dumb ass left wing rag he reads over the internet. Please don't insult our intelligence with SUCH a careless statement like that again.

Kick his ass Major and thanks for your service.


Submitted by kevin king on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 6:22pm.

You have a shaved kitty pictured for me to remember you by and you want to get envolved in our conversation... and be taken seriously.... and all you have is a "cut and paste" comment. Go find something else to shave, and exit this conversation between adults.... who don't shave kitty cats... or anything else with four legs. For Maj ret dude, help me with the substantive errors of Timothy Parker's writing. And help me understand how your feeling on "lawful combatants" WRT Abu Ghraib jive with the Supreme Court's ruling last week. Cheers,

Hack

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 8:34pm.

The possibility of an exception to Milligan for “unlawful combatants” derives from Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), and the interstices of international law. Quirin dealt with a military commission trial of Nazi saboteurs, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court held that certain enemy belligerents—specifically those who “without uniform come secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war”—may be detained without constitutional protections even if they are U.S. citizens:

[T]he law of war draws a distinction between . . . lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

This distinction may also be found within the structures of international law, particularly the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions state that members of armed forces (such as Al Qaeda) qualify for prisoner of war status if they meet four criteria: (1) being commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I'm no expert, but the Supreme COurt has been wrong before, by the way are they authorized to rule on International law or the US Constitution, I'm a little fuzzy about their jurisdiction last time I checked the President was Commander in chief.

As far as Parkers substantive errors every point he makes is his OPINION, I will not point them out point by point, but as an example:

"He has abused the good will and patriotism of the people by invading and occupying a foreign and sovereign nation under erroneous pretenses."

Last time I checked, Congress voted to authorize the use of force, unless like Senator Kerry they only thought they were authorizing the threat of force.

Funny Timothy does not declare independence from these Democrats because of their erroneous pretenses.

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003

John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

I'm going to stop now, there are too many to copy but this was a fun game.


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 8:57am.

You must have spent hours on that cut-n-paste. Precious little original thought, though. Which is of course disappointing, but not surprising.

I'm no expert, but the Supreme COurt has been wrong before, by the way are they authorized to rule on International law or the US Constitution, I'm a little fuzzy about their jurisdiction last time I checked the President was Commander in chief.

Your incredible run-on sentence aside, you appear to be asking if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction here, implying they don’t. Take a look at the second paragraph of Article 6 of the United States Constitution. It says very clearly that the Constitution and treaties entered are the supreme “Law of the Land”.

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions treaties. This means that no “presidential signing statement”, “National Security directive”, “Justice Dept opinion” or “Fox News analysis” may supercede this treaty. And hoooha! The Supreme Court has jurisdiction on Constitutional and treaty issues!

The Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva accords applied to all detainees, regardless of their classification (“lawful combatant”, “unlawful combatant”, “Prisoner of War”, etc).

This essentially put the United States out of the torture business (a great disappointment to you, I’m sure) as torture, humiliation, rendition, etc is prohibited by that treaty.

You babbled on about “Ex parte Quirin” in your cut-n-paste…good news, it still applies!

If you catch a saboteur in the act, you can charge him with sabotage in the morning, haul him before a military tribunal around lunch, condemn him to death and execute him in the afternoon and then go out to Zaxbys for wings. Just like WW2!

There is one “gotcha”, though (isn’t there always?): if you want to haul someone before a military tribunal, you have got to be willing to charge him with an internationally recognized war crime. (“Sabotage”, btw, is a valid international war crime)

Uh oh, big problem for those oh-so-clever Bush administration legal eagles: they’ve charged virtually all detainees solely with “conspiracy”, which is NOT an internationally recognized war crime.

So now those pesky detainees get access to the American court system, with additional protections provided by the UCMJ.


Submitted by tonto707 on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 10:53am.

is the sole and ultimate authority regarding our constitution and the relationships of the various states one to another, and any other matters that might affect the United States, from within or without.

As such the USSC may or may not recognize treaties and compacts with other nations, depending on thier validity under the constitution.

My recollection from law school is that the USSC has reversed itself only about a dozen times in the entire history of the nation.

The Bush administration was absolutely correct in prosecuting terrorists in the manner they chose and inasmuch as the "terrorists" are not a "nation" and not a party to the Geneva Convention they should not be protected by the provisions of that treaty.

Go Bush!!

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 11:12am.

"The Bush administration was absolutely correct in prosecuting terrorists in the manner they chose and inasmuch as the "terrorists" are not a "nation" and not a party to the Geneva Convention they should not be protected by the provisions of that treaty."

The United States Supreme Court rejected this position by a vote of 5-3 last week. You may continue to feel that this is "absolutely correct", but the highest court in the land has decided otherwise.

Until such time as the Bush regime is able to install another activist justice on the Supreme Court, the "law of the land", as of today, says that anyone captured by the United States military is subject to, as a minimum, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Accords.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 11:18am.

They did not make a ruling in stone.

They said the Congress needs to be involved and can set declare them not subject to the Genenva Accords, since they are not signatories, not a government and not actually soldiers.

It is not as clear cut as you are implying.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by susieq on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 11:01am.

Your posts always make a lot of sense to me.
GO TONTO!!
(Any friend of the lone ranger is a friend of mine.)

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 10:14am.

Amendment XI - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Seems to me that implys that they do not have jurisdiction on international matters, but I'm just an old soldier.

Or, try

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

Now if one was going to apply the Constitution to terrorists wouldn't this be the part applied, MILITARY JURISDICTION.

Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Search as I can, I just cannot for the life of me find that The Supreme Court has jurisduction on FOREIGN ILLEGAL COMBATANTS or any mention that the protections afforded US Citizens should apply in to ILLEGAL COMBATANTS in times of war for offenses on foreign soil. Just me and I'm no lawyer. Better to take no prisoners, they sure as heck don't.

Honest question time, If Kerry was President, would anybody care for the rights of these scum? Roosevelt interned Japanese and nobody cared, but those were the days when our security meant more than politics and the minority party wasn't a bunch of rabid President haters.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 7:30pm.

Don't blow smoke up my whazoo (did I spell that right Highgreen?). Little Timmy is about as original as Joseph Biden. Let me straighten you out one thing. If you post here do not expect your posting to be private in nature. I'm sorry your buds in Gitmo are unable to be with you. What would you like to do. Move them into your house. Yeah...that mean old Bushie locked up those innocent young men so he could pretend like there is a real threat out there. Huh? I'm with you. If they weren't locked up they could be with there families farming, working the market, building roads and parks in their homelands. But nooooo....that mean old Bushie has them locked up and they ain't even soldiers now are they? Sticking out tongue


Submitted by kevin king on Sat, 07/15/2006 - 11:08pm.

Gentlemen and/or ladies: This will absolutely be my last post on this issue. We're beginning to run in circles. Armymajretired guy: Your posts have become so long that my narcolepsy kicks in half way through them and I can't get to the end of them. That amount of typing is required when trying to explain why the Supreme Court is right when you like the decision and wrong when you do not. But if you don't hold their decisions as valid in a nation that relies on the rule of law, that opens up a certain decision on Florida recounts in 2000. We don't want to go there, do we?

On the POWs we have at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib: Are they all Al Qaeida as you both continually suggest? Remember, Al Qaieda operatives are less than 15% of the combatants in Iraq. And, as many astute people realize, many, many of those we have been detained were truly rounded up in mass. If they are "terrorists", why do we not CHARGE them and settle this? Could it be possible there is nothing to charge them with?

To the "whatever the President does is right" crowd, I offer this:

Returning to DC for a special session of Congress, paid for by us, to try to protect Terry Schaivo's dead brain. Not returning to DC for a special session of Congress to deal with dying Katrina victims. Dubai Ports deal. Harriett Myers as Supreme Court justice material. Privitization of Social Security. End of Major Combat Ops in Iraq.... three years ago? NO USAMA BIN LADDIN (remember? The one who DID attack us?) Failed intelligence and cherry-picking prior to invading Iraq. Out of Control spending with No presidential veto, ever! Berating the UN at every turn only to be forced to turn to them when we are out of ideas and clout WRT Iran, North Korea, and the Israeli-Arab world conflicts.

I understand defending the leader of your party, but at some point in time, with plummetting ratings and voter confidence, a wise person will ask: Is it possible that the policies I have supported are not working? Is it possible a change may be prudent? Voters are asking. I'm asking. In November of this year and '08 many questions will be answered. If we stay the course, you all have my word that I will salute smartly and shut the heck up. If my instincts are correct, I will have many, many more discussions on how to undo the diplomatic damage of "go it alone" foreign policy, and cut tax and spend domestic policy. Time will tell. God Bless and God's Speed,

Kevin "Hack" King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Sun, 07/16/2006 - 9:25am.

Are you on active duty now? The reason I ask this is that when I was on Active Duty, it was pretty much frowned upon to dicuss or get involved in politics.

I would never think of writing letter to the paper (old day version before the internet) explaining my "issues" with then President Clinton or his hanling of Somaila, WTC bombing, Khobar bombing, Embassy bombings Bosnia, etc .


ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Sun, 07/16/2006 - 8:21am.

Kevin,

I recently read a great book about the American Revolution. Interesting parallels can be made.

Washington lost many battles,

The "international community" did not support us except for France

The country was divided between Rebels and Tories.

Things definately looked dark.

The Civil war was also a turbulent chapter.

If waning popularity trumped leadership and courage, we would be a very different counrty.

Glad that we are free to debate. I will never change your mind and you will never change mine.

Now will you agree to not post Bush Bashing/negative attacks, even though that is your God given right?

If you have noticed my posts have only been RESPONSES.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 07/16/2006 - 1:09am.

Nope. It's clear your just a left wing bedwetting liberal hack that wouldn't understand balance or reasoning if you life depended upon it. It's clear where you get you talking points from. No original material in your writings.

Bush could cure aids, solve the centuries old Arab - Israeli war, eliminate poverty and just because he is Republican and a so-called Conservative your going to try to rip him to shreds. Ok...it's clear....we got another hate boy here. Which one of your guys could solve the mess this worlds in. Which one? Be specific. As for the last two clowns your party offered up it was all I could do to hold my nose and vote for Bush. But he's a hell of a lot better than your clowns.

I suppose you were the disabled vet who had the impeach Bush sticker on your mini van I saw at Publix today. God Bless and God's Speed to you too. Like you mean it. Gosh I wish Cal would give me Sunday mornings off. I git a little grouchy toward the end of my shift. Evil


Submitted by kevin king on Sun, 07/16/2006 - 10:40pm.

From the time I decided to write my Letter to the Editor to the last post I will make here, it has ALL been an HONEST debate between gentlemen and ladies about serious issues before us today. When I end my posts in cheers, I mean "Cheers"! Here's to you and me. Fellow Americans rolling our sleeves up and debating issues. Your response:

I suppose you were the disabled vet who had the impeach Bush sticker on your mini van I saw at Publix today. God Bless and God's Speed to you too. Like you mean it.

Git Real: When a fellow human being wishes you God's Speed and God's Blessings, ACCEPT THE WELL WISHES. Don't let your misplaced anger change honest debate to something it shouldn't be! At the end of the day, if your car was covered with "I hate Kevin King stickers", and it was on fire, I would not hesitate to try and save you. ArmyMajretired knows that we could argue over politics all day in the O'Club, but on the field of battle, I would take a bullet for him, and he for me. Keep the proper perspective friend. We may not agree on the playbook, but we are team mates.

Cheers and God Bless,

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by kevin king on Sun, 07/16/2006 - 10:40pm.

From the time I decided to write my Letter to the Editor to the last post I will make here, it has ALL been an HONEST debate between gentlemen and ladies about serious issues before us today. When I end my posts in cheers, I mean "Cheers"! Here's to you and me. Fellow Americans rolling our sleeves up and debating issues. Your response:

I suppose you were the disabled vet who had the impeach Bush sticker on your mini van I saw at Publix today. God Bless and God's Speed to you too. Like you mean it.

Git Real: When a fellow human being wishes you God's Speed and God's Blessings, ACCEPT THE WELL WISHES. Don't let your misplaced anger change honest debate to something it shouldn't be! At the end of the day, if your car was covered with "I hate Kevin King stickers", and it was on fire, I would not hesitate to try and save you. ArmyMajretired knows that we could argue over politics all day in the O'Club, but on the field of battle, I would take a bullet for him, and he for me. Keep the proper perspective friend. We may not agree on the playbook, but we are team mates.

Cheers and God Bless,

Kevin "Hack" King

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 07/16/2006 - 10:51pm.

I accept your well wishes and apologize for my rude remark. After such hateful and venomous remarks about your commander and chief I figured your wishes were sarcastic in nature noting the previous tone of your blog. Good day sir.


Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 10:10am.

I ran across this today and it reminded me of your post last week. Go to www.etgi.us and click on products. For a few grand you can pick up a hand held low level Cellular Signal Disruptor. Disrupts cellular signals up to 80 feet away. Fits easily in the pocket of your trench coat.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 2:39pm.

Wow! What a toy store. Are you in law enforcement. Don't answer that it could blow your cover. Greg and gang might be snooping around. I didn't find the jammer YET. But I think I want one of those remote helicopters. I'm thinking the jammer from the UK was about $400.00 but only had a 30' range. I'd like to have the 80' Tim The Toolman version.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 2:56pm.

But I am running IE 7 Beta and it isn't processing the ActiveX correctly on that site!

Got a link to the products page? Maybe I can get on there.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 3:59pm.

http://secure.etgi.us/shop/FMPro?-token=48347&-db=ETGI-Master.fp5&-lay=Main&-format=featured.htm&ETG_idhide=Done&featuredprods=yes&-sortfield=featprodorder&-sortorder=ascending&-find

Sorry, I was in a hurry


Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 4:36pm.

the hell was all of that?

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 4:41pm.

My long winded version of what you said. I copied it. Had to put out a fire so I slapped in there and taa..daa. Can you say UGLY.


Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 4:43pm.

is always the solution.

With all due respect to the lion.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 7:31pm.

I had already gotten in on Harvey's URL.

I appreciate the effort for me, a lot.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 3:05pm.

I'm having to do some research to help you out.

Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 3:58pm.

http://secure.etgi.us/shop

P.S. If you get there click on ALL PRODUCTS, that is where the cell phone disruptor is.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 7:02pm.

In and looking.

I really like IE 7, but it is Beta. Has some bugs with some activeX I cannot always figure out how to work around.

Thanks a bunch, Harvey!

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 7:15pm.

Robocopter
Wireless Surveillance/Inspection/Delivery Robots
MFD
Optical Snake Lens Scope
ITT Industries Night Vision

One could go broke there!

I will be looking closer at the non secure area stuff.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 7:37pm.

Welcome to our world. No one's going to park outside the lines in our ballpark.

Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 2:51pm.

You should have found it easily by scrolling down on the products page. I think I was wrong about the range of the low level disruptor.

It is the medium range disruptor which has a range of 82 feet. That one will not fit in your pocket. It's the size of a small cooler. It works better though. You could sit in the parking lot of Tinsletown and cause all cell phone calls to drop throughout the theatre and parking lot.

I'm actually a super secret County Marshal who wipes out phone calls made by anyone talking bad about our beloved County Commissioners.

WakeUp's picture
Submitted by WakeUp on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 2:53pm.

Now I know why I have such sorry cell service in the county. Eye-wink


Submitted by Harvey on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 2:59pm.

There have been a lot of people defaming the emperor lately. One does what one has to to make a living. We are, after all paying $3.00 a gallon for gas now days.

Submitted by lifeinptc on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 6:31pm.

Involved is spelled here with an I. And God forgive me for this because Highgeen won't, it's you're, not your feeling on "lawful combatants."

Go ahead Highgreen, let me have it I deserve it but I had to do it.

Submitted by Sailon on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 6:44pm.

SSALLRIGHT!!! I warrant git futter envolvede.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.