Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Jan 9, 2006.
ralph peters takes on the dem's "bush is big brother" myth with ferocious force.
that the Democrats have not offered any very good alternative plan. On the other hand, they've also been rather stifled by Bush's heavy-handed, "if you don't agree with me, you're a traitor" way of handling dissent. Bush is hardly one to encourage discussion of different ideas, or respect for his opponents' viewpoints. Some people seem to see this as a strength. I see it as a possibly fatal character flaw.
(Of course, he is capable of whopping flip-flops when the situation calls for it: Oops, no WMD's in Iraq or even under my desk, ok, ok, let me see, "We came here for humanitarian reasons!" Derides Gore as a nation-builder, then starts the biggest nation-building project since the Marshall plan. Says he's a "uniter, not a divider" and then runs the most divisive, aggressive, and secretive administration in recent memory.)
Peters isn't providing any real information in this opinion piece at all. Just hot air.
Why does he put "eavesdropping" in quotes? What else was it but eavesdropping?
I'm glad he feels so safe about the safeguard on American citizens within the intel community. His saying so doesn't make me feel more safe.
I like that Jefferson quote. I'd guess that eavesdropping without having to tell anyone would count at "tyranny" in Jefferson's eyes.
I found his comments about how intel gathers info, and some of their restrictions quite revealing and interesting.
And how many new ideas have come from Pelosi Dean gang lately?
You obviously pick an agenda and then make the facts fit.
Hey, but OBL loves you. Its guys like you who make his life easier.
You are afraid that the government is spying on you ? :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
My best guess would be to distinguish it from what the NYT is implying to the Bush Administration's definition of "aimed exclusively at foreign terrorists and their willing contacts on our soil".
Please tell me what information we are to get out of this article with proof of the insinuations that the NYT is making.
Yea, the Dems have been real stifled in opposing Bush's war plans. Uh, there was a presidental election recently "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place".
Apparently your memory is quite short. Shame on you for posting such a blatant mis representation of the facts.
Yes, and that poor Sheehan woman. No coverage at all of her anti-Bush rantings.
Separate names with a comma.