Sen. Byrd's Argument FOR Term Limits!

On YAHOO! NEWS Today Tue Feb 28, 2006
Associated Press

"Byrd Regrets Vote for USA Patriot Act"
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Feb 28, 3:30 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. Robert Byrd, the dean of the Senate and
its resident constitutional expert, counts only a few
regrets in his 48-year Senate career: filibustering the
1964 Civil Rights Act, voting to expand the Vietnam War,
deregulating airlines.

Add to the list a new one from this century: supporting
the anti-terror USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks.

"The original Patriot Act is a case study in the perils
of speed, herd instinct and lack of vigilance when it
comes to legislating in times of crisis," the West
Virginia Democrat said Monday on the eve of the Senate's
final votes on its renewal. "The Congress was stampeded,
and the values of freedom, justice and equality received
a trampling in the headlong rush."

* * * * *

This is probably the best argument I have encountered
for Term Limits.

A 48 year Senate career does not make anyone's judgment
infallible when it comes to politics. And even in his
excuse for voting for the Patriot Act, Sen. Byrd trys to
evade responsibility; "The Congress was stampeded..."!
But folks, it wasn't 'stampeded' without its permission.
The arguments you use every day with your peers apply
here. There are many other arguments that parents
use everyday that could apply as well, yet we suspend
judgement when it comes to 'politicians' in 'leaders'
clothing.

True, we may not want the accounting whizkids of Enron
and Arthur Anderson to be voted into office, but at least
we could correct OUR mistake sooner should
we find that we have indeed voted such errors into office.

Term Limits is not the end of civilization as we know it.

It could be the beginning of civilizations as we would
like for it to be.

Bush's own personal government!

Listening again today to a local radio talk show, I heard
the two most important words ever uttered by George W. Bush.
I believe it was a slip of the tongue, because he did
correct his slip later on in his monologue.

During the show, a sound bite was played wherein Bush was
explaining, sorta, why the 'sale' of the Ports was ok and
risk free.

On the show, a liberal talk show, the confused sentences by
Bush and the horror of the very thought of selling any of our
ports to the UAE took center stage. The reasons for the horror
was explained and they were still explaining when I had to
turn off my car radio.

After the sound bite was played, it was mentioned that the
publicity over the Port Sale ironically had taken over the
country's imagination, and media, and had driven the controversy
of South Dakota challenging the current abortion rulings by
the Supreme Court onto page 4 or 8 or 13.
Likewise, the controversy about the volatile Port Sale overshadowed
the two most revealing words in the Bush sound bite about the sale.

If you have access to that sound bite, listen to it very carefully
and you will actually hear George Bush tell America that his
government had already explored the security issue and they
determined it was ok.

HIS government!

The acutal words were "my government."
Not 'our' government, not 'your' government, but HIS government.
And it was stated, all things considered, as if his government
was his personal possession and it had nothing to do with Congress
or the people of the United States! This was a deal between
Bush and the UAE. And it was risk free because Bush had had
his goverment look it over and the sale would not have proceeded
had their been any security risks.

Those two words tell you how Bush perceives his position in
this country and in this world. "..my government.."
Listen to the tone, the inflections of the whole sentence and
you will understand the driving force behind every decision,
every deal, every tantrum, every blurb that George Bush utters.

Shades of Imelda Marcos and her view of 'the little people!'

How did Hussein beat bin Laden into Court?

Several years back, I told the people in a Yahoo Group
that it is possible that electing G.W.Bush as President
may be the best thing this country has done. I based that
on the presumption that he, Bush, will probably be the
best example, by word and deed, of showing this country
just how easily this country can be lead down a path of
near-total corruption and destruction, much like Nazi
Germany, much like Enron. It is possible that he, better
than anyone else, will bring into focus this country's
pursuit of the dollar and "me-ism" [as if money were
the end-all and not the means to an end, and the 'me'
was in a race to accumulate more of it than all of the
other "me's" in the world] before it realizes that this
experiment is not going in a direction we as a nation
particularly relish.

Ironically, I see a government being run pretty much as
the corporation Enron, according to Eichenwald's book
Conspiracy of Fools, i.e., a government bent on creating
its own rules without giving any thought, understanding
or concern as to why the old rules were put in place.

"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney shrugged off
congressional criticism of the Bush administration's
domestic eavesdropping program Tuesday...

He also expressed little interest in working with
Congress to settle legal disputes."

Shades of Enron!

So, in listening to a morning radio talk show, I was
struck with a question posed as to why Bush didn't get
the FISA rules changed to make wiretapping, etc.,
legal when he was presented with the opportunity .
I think, actually, the answer was given in that same
broadcast. It is such that should a case ever be
brought up about prosecuting someone based on evidence
gathered via an illegal action on the part of law
enforcement, that evidence would not be allowed in a
courtroom.

VOILA!

There is your answer. The logical conclusion is
that the survelliance and wiretapping is not being
done solely for the purpose of gathering information
strictly on terrorists and terrorists related
activities, and such ulterior purposes could easily
come to light in a court of law.

"In an address last October, Bush said the United
States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious
plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last
four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks
on both U.S. coasts."

Note the use of the word "foiled." The article from
which this quote was taken, even though lengthy,
only mentions one case of someone being arrested
and being held for prosecution. And the other nine?
Good luck on finding that information.

So, it is not now and never has been the intention
of the Bush government to actually prosecute and jail
terrorists!
It is not now and never has been the intention of the
Bush administration to find and prosecute ben Laden!

Witness:

Remarks by the President After Two Planes Crash Into
World Trade Center - Emma Booker Elementary School -
Sarasota, Florida 9:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is a
difficult moment for America.
Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes
have crashed into the World Trade Center in an
apparent terrorist attack on our country. I have
spoken to... and have ordered that the full resources
of the federal government go to help the victims
and their families, and to conduct a full-scale
investigation to hunt down and to find those folks
who committed this act. Terrorism against our nation
will not stand." -White House (9/11/01)

Presidential Response, Barksdale Air Force Base near
Shreveport, Louisiana, September 11, 2001 12:36 P.M. EDT
"Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless
coward and freedom will be defended. I want to reassure
the American people that the full resources of the federal
government are working to assist local authorities to save
lives and to help the victims of these attacks. Make no
mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those
responsible for these cowardly acts."

Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation
8:30 P.M. EDT
"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil
acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence
and law enforcement communities to find those responsible
and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction
between the terrorists who committed these acts and those
who harbor them."
["...and those who harbor them." hint, hint.
Was this our first indication that it had already
been decided that we were going to war with Iraq, a
country later described as 'harboring terrorists.']

Yet:
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not
our priority."

This administration that makes extensive use of 'it may'
and 'it might' and 'what if.' So, should an actual occurance
of those mights and mays ever come into being and be
tried in the field of reality, the House of Maybe would
be seen for exactly what it is, a created scenario
simply for the furtherance of those who prey on confusion,
created by themselves. The plan has been there all along...
make a new reality based on what you want it to be!

The war on Iraq and the war on terrorism were created
by the Bush administration. They created it based on a
lie and now they must support the original lie with
another lie, and with another, and another, etc.
We all know how this works. We did it as children,
until we learned that it doesn't work. But this is what
the Bush administration is doing in order to support it.
In turn, it makes THEM essential to the running of this
country according to their new policies using their new
rules (see Conspiracy of Fools).

Yet not one initiative with anything near the weight of
the dollars and number of people that have been provided
for the war in Iraq or terrorism has been made to
bring other oppressive and bloodletting governments to
their knees in Africa or anywhere else in the world.
Why?

Nor has the amount of effort to stop the spread and use
of cocaine and other drugs from entering this country
been expended as has been spent on the effort to bring
a rather odd definition of democracy to just one country
in the middle east.
Why?

Nor has any amount of money nearing the halfway mark for
the war in Iraq been spent to solve the emmigration
problem that is, in fact, at our borders.
Why?

Nor has an equal amount of effort been expended to find
Osama ben Laden, the confessed instigator of 9/11, and
bring him to justice as has been spent in bringing
Hussein, a 'may be,' a 'could be,' a 'might be,'
'possible' threat, to a court of law.
Why?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not
our priority."
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

And if terror against the U.S. in order to bring about
change was the goal of ben Laden, why has he been
underground and quiet for so long? Was he really just
a one-time shooting star? Has his role been played out
to its end and he is now behind the scenes helping
with the props?

And if justice, by Bush's definition, is a goal, why has
he been so lax in pursuing Public Enemy No. 1, the one
person who could create another 9/11-type event at any
time?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not
our priority."
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Why is President Bush, instead of relentlessly pursuing
ben Laden with the blinding zeal of someone intent on
extracting justice, only adding to the deaths of 9/11
with an additional 2000+ soldiers killed in Iraq, and
more being added daily?

Shouldn't he be saying "Enough is enough. Either win
this thing or come home!"?

How did Hussein beat bin Laden into court?

Keeping the Pot Stirred

And to keep the pot stirred, not only does Bush make
an unnecessary comment on the erupting reaction in
the Middle East to an intended religiopolitical cartoon,
Ms Rice also jumps in with both feet to fuel the fire.

And this had to do with the United States....how?

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.

Is Double-speak the NEW Order!

Vice President Dick Cheney said, as regards the violence
erupting from the militant Muslims over the recently
published cartoon of Prophet Muhammad, "..violence is not
justified in terms of what's happened there."

Does this mean that he believes violence is justified for
some events happening elsewhere?

Would you buy a used car from this man?

...and the budget for Peace includes 15 billio...

Yahoo News, Feb 03, 2006:

Re the new military budget:

"Echoing characterizations by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, the plan calls China the greatest future threat,
saying that country has "the greatest potential to
compete militarily with the United States."

Future threat!
At what age does Donald stop seeing monsters under his
bed and in his closet? At what point do the children
in charge of our country talk about peace? When? Is
peace not in the budget or the agenda?

Will China be our next war, after Iran? Are we lining
them up, or what?
Let's just say it now, to every country, "FUCK YOU!," and
let the next 15 administrations deal with the
consequences! Let's just continue to BULLY our way
through the next 3 years.

Isn't increasing the budget for the military the same as
admitting that we can't handle what's on our plate now
with what we've got? And who doled out the portions that
are on that plate?

and:
"The figures did not include about $50 billion that Bush
administration officials said Thursday they would request
as a down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
in 2007. The administration said war costs for 2006 would
total $120 billion."

Wait a minute! Was I just hearing things when Bush said,
way back there, that the oil in Iraq would pay for the
war? And whatever happened to the slight disagreement
over who would get how much of Iraq's oil at the
onset of this war? Did Russia get what they wanted?
Did France? Did Spain? Did the US?

'Just say NO' to Mr. Bush

Mr. Bush's budget reminds me of a crack addict. Keep asking
for MORE, MORE, MORE! Got to have that fix! Everything else
is of no consequence.

Promise, promise promise. But this is not money that will be
paid back. But where is it coming from? This is money that
is coming out of citizens pockets, every single day and is
going into the pockets of military manufacturers, weapons,
rockets, munitions. Money you will never see again. This
war budget is what you are working for, in your jobs, in
your offices, at your desk, on the ladder, in the ditch.
It's not an investment in Americas future, the sciences,
health, peace, a prosperous world for all of us, etc.
This is your money at work for killing someone you don't
even know and won't even make an effort to know. You let
bush tell you what you need to know and no more. Is that
how you learn about your neighbors, your friends?

But it's your money. YOUR MONEY! Is this really the way
you want your money spent? To Kill?

And where is the money for a decent breakfast for a
homeless person? The poor and elderly? But we're
christians, aren't we? Aren't we? Really? How can you tell?
And the christians keep silent, just like they did in the
20's, 30's and 40's. I guess christians love war too.
Kill, kill, kill for Jesus. My way or no way. I'm right
even when I'm wrong because I'm the King. I am Jerusalem!
I am the President!

This is for Mr. Bush's aggrandizement and bush's friends.
Leader of the FREE world? FREE? FREE? Only to mr. bush.

Where are the voices of dissent? Where are the citizens who
are paying for this? Do you really approve of war. And we
let the media convince us that Goldwater was a war-monger!
Whooo! whooo!
He was a wuss compared to bush. Has bush donned his
blue turban yet? Just how far into hell will Americans
let him lead us before we wake up and realize it's too late?

When is enough, enough? Just say NO to Bush!