Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Americans Prefer Not to Know

Jarhead

War Hero
exactly what is best for the country - right now, congress and the house have been a rubber stamp for Bush until very recently.
 
Bergen said:
sussex2 said:
msgsmiley said:
Another civil post by Bubba Bergen. Not biting. The thread is definitly anti-American before I ever came on it. You couldn't wait to pounce on grapeshot now could you Bubba? I wasn't defending any of the actions of who did or did not support terrorists. But it is stupid to say all Americans did. And you did imply that. As for saying Americans tell everyone world wide what leaders to elect, evidently we are not doing a very good job in China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Africa, Canada, England, Ireland, Venezulea, Colombia, Mexico, Japan, Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, North Korea, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Spain(terrorists tell them who to elect there), Portugal, France, Greece, Turkey, Italy. I think a rational person gets the picture. Have you seen your head doctor lately to see what makes you so unhappy? Take a chill pill, lower your blood pressure and relax. The world will not stop turning because everyone worldwide does not see eye to eye with you.

Excuse me but, but you are not getting away with that.
As one who was in Spain when 200 plus people were ripped to shreds on commuter trains.
The Aznar right-wing Francoist government handled the matter in a predictable and ham handed way, hoping perhaps that this would improve its' chances in the forthcoming elections.
This government told frank lies to the nation, blaming the murders on ETA, though there was no evidence whatsoever to link that organisation with the bombs. Despite this they persisted in attempting to blame ETA.
The people understood they were being lied to and took to the streets in the way only the Spanish can, millions of them, some estimates are that 30percent of the population turned out.
They chanted that they wanted the truth, understanding they were being mislead.
Likewise they turned out in some of the highest numbers seen worldwide to protest at the invasion of Iraq.
The Aznar government was in their Francoist way against any kind of separatist movement in Spain, which is not a single nation state but made up of separates states with their own identities, some with parliaments and governments of their own, under the umbrella of Madrid. The country has at least four distincly different languages.
They cynically saw the bombs as a method of attracting an anti ETA vote at the forthcoming elections.
The country stands by the United Nations and that is the reason why they withdrew their forces from Iraq. Aznar had put them in as an 'old boy' gesture to Bush. Spain has considerable forces under UN auspices in Afghanistan and in more other countries worldwide than the UK. They have armed forces capable of sustaining these operations.
As I write the defendants caught as a result of the murder investigations after the 11th of March are on trial and so in the publics' mind is the Aznar government, or if not them the PP party who will rue the day they attempted to hoodwink the Spanish people.
Spain is a fledgling republic with a strong constitution and a politically aware population.

I think that you have made a mistake here S2. Not in your reply which is lucid, factual and well written but in engaging the Master Sergeant in any logical discussion.

The former Spanish government were voted out by a politically savvy electorate and the present Spanish government has acted impeccably in dealing with aftermath of the terrorist attack. This thread is entitled "Americans Prefer Not To Know" and this is correct at multiple levels; how else could they have allowed Bush the latitude to behave in the way he has.

RM

Thank you and I take your point.
 

stumpy

War Hero
msgsmiley said:
Grapeshot, it is not typical British humor. It is what it is. Bergen lives in Texas and makes his living here. So there is no difference between him and someone else going to another country to get his boodle. As far as Americans supporting the IRA, I never gave a penny to one of those bloody terrorists. Thats a pretty broad brush to say Americans supported them. As if no other source of money was involved? And my ancestors came from Ireland. The description of DC is fair enough. But I can find worse conditions anywhere else in this world and have seen them in my travels. Just because I like or dislike a foreign leader does not color how I view the individual citizen of that nation. It is a little presumptive of foreigners to tell others that they should elect leaders that suit them. Remember most of the opinions and rants on here will end up in the porcelin queen. Welcome to British hospitility.

Who is president of Switzerland or Andorra? I don't know or care. I do care (and know ;)) who the President of the USA is as you are the sole superpower and have a habit of projecting your power around the world. That makes it everybodies business.

So please, next time, vote for someone you and the whole world can respect. You have done so in the past but went a bit odd from the seventies onwards.
 
Jarhead said:
because bush has successfully danced along the lines of whether we can impeach him or not; that plus the replublican dominated house and senate means there are few checks.

Bush has stretched the line of his powers entirely too much, and i for one, am looking forward to having someone else in office.

The American nation elected Bush, twice, and as such must collectively take joint responsibility for his actions, be they good or bad, just as hwether we like it or not we must accept responsibility for Blair and NuLabor,who we have foolishly elected thrice
 

Bergen

ADC
Maxi_77 said:
Jarhead said:
because bush has successfully danced along the lines of whether we can impeach him or not; that plus the replublican dominated house and senate means there are few checks.

Bush has stretched the line of his powers entirely too much, and i for one, am looking forward to having someone else in office.

The American nation elected Bush, twice, and as such must collectively take joint responsibility for his actions, be they good or bad, just as hwether we like it or not we must accept responsibility for Blair and NuLabor,who we have foolishly elected thrice

Bush didn't win the 2000 election. It was handed to him by a Supreme Court ruling.

Florida had a Secretary of State named Katherine Harris who was in charge of Florida elections. She was also the Chairwoman of the Elect George Bush Campaign. In the run up to the elections she was busily purging 58,000 voters from the electoral rolls because they were convicted felons and as such couldn't vote. Except that 91% of the people purged had no criminal records or any reason to be purged. No one was informed and the first time that most of these folks knew that they had been dis-enfranchised was when they arrived to vote. One thing that most of them had in common was that they were black or hispanic and predominantly Democrat.

The final results indicated that Bush had taken Florida [and therefore the US presidency] by 537 votes an incredibly low margin and a fraction of 1/10th of 1%. Recounts were demanded and began but by the stroke of a pen Katherine Harris declared 180,000 votes to be spoiled and refused a recount. The US presidential election hung in the balance but the Supreme Court declined a recount and awarded it to Bush.

RM
 

AfterSSE

War Hero
Bergen said:
Bush didn't win the 2000 election. It was handed to him by a Supreme Court ruling.

Florida had a Secretary of State named Katherine Harris who was in charge of Florida elections. She was also the Chairwoman of the Elect George Bush Campaign. In the run up to the elections she was busily purging 58,000 voters from the electoral rolls because they were convicted felons and as such couldn't vote. Except that 91% of the people purged had no criminal records or any reason to be purged. No one was informed and the first time that most of these folks knew that they had been dis-enfranchised was when they arrived to vote. One thing that most of them had in common was that they were black or hispanic and predominantly Democrat.

The final results indicated that Bush had taken Florida [and therefore the US presidency] by 537 votes an incredibly low margin and a fraction of 1/10th of 1%. Recounts were demanded and began but by the stroke of a pen Katherine Harris declared 180,000 votes to be spoiled and refused a recount. The US presidential election hung in the balance but the Supreme Court declined a recount and awarded it to Bush.

RM

Yep and guess who the Governor of Florida was at that time........Jeb Bush, a possible future candidate for the presidency... 8O

The two party system in the US has hamstrung it's politicians, the Republicans and Democrats hate each other so much they can't bother to compromise on serious issues, even though they all understand that it would be to the "publics good".
 
Handler said:
You might have Maxi !!!

I didn't but too many other people did,and at the end of the day we are all in ittogether, unless youdecide to emigrate. One may not like it but that is the way it is, we all vote and at the end of the day end up with a government decided by those votes.
 
Bergen said:
Maxi_77 said:
Jarhead said:
because bush has successfully danced along the lines of whether we can impeach him or not; that plus the replublican dominated house and senate means there are few checks.

Bush has stretched the line of his powers entirely too much, and i for one, am looking forward to having someone else in office.

The American nation elected Bush, twice, and as such must collectively take joint responsibility for his actions, be they good or bad, just as hwether we like it or not we must accept responsibility for Blair and NuLabor,who we have foolishly elected thrice

Bush didn't win the 2000 election. It was handed to him by a Supreme Court ruling.

Florida had a Secretary of State named Katherine Harris who was in charge of Florida elections. She was also the Chairwoman of the Elect George Bush Campaign. In the run up to the elections she was busily purging 58,000 voters from the electoral rolls because they were convicted felons and as such couldn't vote. Except that 91% of the people purged had no criminal records or any reason to be purged. No one was informed and the first time that most of these folks knew that they had been dis-enfranchised was when they arrived to vote. One thing that most of them had in common was that they were black or hispanic and predominantly Democrat.

The final results indicated that Bush had taken Florida [and therefore the US presidency] by 537 votes an incredibly low margin and a fraction of 1/10th of 1%. Recounts were demanded and began but by the stroke of a pen Katherine Harris declared 180,000 votes to be spoiled and refused a recount. The US presidential election hung in the balance but the Supreme Court declined a recount and awarded it to Bush.

RM

Technically the Supreme court did not give Bush the election, they said the law said Bush should have the election because the votes were valid. Now they may be wrong but that is the way the system works, it looks at the votes and the descision is made based on those votes. To us simple Brits the US system may seem weird, but then to many ours is just as crazy.
 

Bergen

ADC
Maxi_77 said:
Bergen said:
Maxi_77 said:
Jarhead said:
because bush has successfully danced along the lines of whether we can impeach him or not; that plus the replublican dominated house and senate means there are few checks.

Bush has stretched the line of his powers entirely too much, and i for one, am looking forward to having someone else in office.

The American nation elected Bush, twice, and as such must collectively take joint responsibility for his actions, be they good or bad, just as hwether we like it or not we must accept responsibility for Blair and NuLabor,who we have foolishly elected thrice

Bush didn't win the 2000 election. It was handed to him by a Supreme Court ruling.

Florida had a Secretary of State named Katherine Harris who was in charge of Florida elections. She was also the Chairwoman of the Elect George Bush Campaign. In the run up to the elections she was busily purging 58,000 voters from the electoral rolls because they were convicted felons and as such couldn't vote. Except that 91% of the people purged had no criminal records or any reason to be purged. No one was informed and the first time that most of these folks knew that they had been dis-enfranchised was when they arrived to vote. One thing that most of them had in common was that they were black or hispanic and predominantly Democrat.

The final results indicated that Bush had taken Florida [and therefore the US presidency] by 537 votes an incredibly low margin and a fraction of 1/10th of 1%. Recounts were demanded and began but by the stroke of a pen Katherine Harris declared 180,000 votes to be spoiled and refused a recount. The US presidential election hung in the balance but the Supreme Court declined a recount and awarded it to Bush.

RM

Technically the Supreme court did not give Bush the election, they said the law said Bush should have the election because the votes were valid. Now they may be wrong but that is the way the system works, it looks at the votes and the descision is made based on those votes. To us simple Brits the US system may seem weird, but then to many ours is just as crazy.

Weirder than usual in the case of the 2000 US Presidential election. Al Gore won the popular vote across the country by 48.4% to 47.9%. Ralph Nader polled 2.7% of effectively Democrat votes.

Everything hinged on the 25 Florida electoral votes and the 537 vote advantage that Bush had only represented 0.001% of the entire Florida vote. The Florida Supreme Court were then overruled by the US Supreme Court who then proceeded to decide 5-4 not to allow a recount. Bizarre, but I can see why many Democrats refer to Shrub as the (p)Resident.

RM

RM
 

msgsmiley

War Hero
Bubba, Florida state law only allows the looser in an election to challenge the votes when it is close. Anyone ever heard of the winner challenging an election? Duh! Gore made the first challenge and therefore by doing so admitted he lost. Also his team threw out thousands and thousands of military votes from overseas on a tech ruling. They did not have a US post mark. We do not elect presidents in the states on popular vote. It's called the electoral college. Look at Clinton's elections. Both times he did not get the majority vote. When you add up Ross Perots votes to the other Bush Clinton got 43% of the vote. About the same against Dole. He was what we call a plurality president. All the supreme court did in florida was uphold the state law. So many urban legends abound on that subject. That is why facts are always better than opinions. Besides opinions are like arm pits, everyone has a couple.
 

Unser_Giftzwerg

Midshipman
AfterSSE said:
Bergen said:
Bush didn't win the 2000 election. It was handed to him by a Supreme Court ruling.

Florida had a Secretary of State named Katherine Harris who was in charge of Florida elections. She was also the Chairwoman of the Elect George Bush Campaign. In the run up to the elections she was busily purging 58,000 voters from the electoral rolls because they were convicted felons and as such couldn't vote. Except that 91% of the people purged had no criminal records or any reason to be purged. No one was informed and the first time that most of these folks knew that they had been dis-enfranchised was when they arrived to vote. One thing that most of them had in common was that they were black or hispanic and predominantly Democrat.

The final results indicated that Bush had taken Florida [and therefore the US presidency] by 537 votes an incredibly low margin and a fraction of 1/10th of 1%. Recounts were demanded and began but by the stroke of a pen Katherine Harris declared 180,000 votes to be spoiled and refused a recount. The US presidential election hung in the balance but the Supreme Court declined a recount and awarded it to Bush.

RM

Yep and guess who the Governor of Florida was at that time........Jeb Bush, a possible future candidate for the presidency... 8O

The two party system in the US has hamstrung it's politicians, the Republicans and Democrats hate each other so much they can't bother to compromise on serious issues, even though they all understand that it would be to the "publics good".

The recount was a travesty, the haphazard patchwork voting systems we use is a travesty, well, point made.

Both sides are guilty of trying to game that recount. Each party tried to get their version of a partial recount through the courts. If theyhad simply recounted the entire state they may have gotten somewhere. Gore may have won despite all that voter disenfranchisement Bergan cites.

Well, what I meant to say was, there won't be a President Jeb Bush anytime soon. Not after the way his brother wrecked the country.

The current US Attorney scandal has the potential to be big. In a way, it is tied intot eh voter disenfranchisement drives the Republican run. Bush's minions have been caught trying to stack the US judicial system with young underqualified party loyalists. They got caught because of their obsession with using the legal system to skew election results.

Eventualy a house of cards falls. Eventually President Bush is going to so embarass his party that the GOP leaders will have to help the Democrats take him out.

Impeachment hearings this July or August? It might not be as crazy as it sounds ... today.

It'd be a major step forward to restoring a bit of national credibiity, says I.
 

Karma

War Hero
Nutty said:

Gods that's a p!ss poor article, although it makes a couple of legit points.

Yes the majority of US TV programming is pretty crap, but some of it is very good. Similarly an awful lot of broadcast TV in the UK is pretty crap, and some is very good.

Perhaps influenced by our profession, but the majority of USians that I've had dealings with are entirely personable. Of course there are a few nutters, but is any society any different.

Of course I'm prepared to acknowledge that my experience has been North West (Mass, NY, Conn), Washington DC, North Carolina and South East (San Francisco and San Diego). I've never had to go into the central area. Nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there.

The government systems are clumsy, but as Jarhead says upthread at the moment they're in balance. There was a period when they were out of balance, but we had the same here in the UK for going on ten years now.
 

msgsmiley

War Hero
Maybe we should call this the, Brits want to know thread? Once again points of view posted by reading news articles. For one thing all, I say again ALL, US Attorneys are political appointees by whomever is president. They serve entirely at the pleasure of the president. When Clinton was elected he fired all of them , over 100, and not a whimper from anyone. Why, because it was his right to. The president does not have to answer for that. All presidents replace a fair majority of them when elected because they want their own people in there. This is a made up story by politicians in the Senate and most people haven't a clue because they do not read the constitution anymore and it has not been taught in our schools for years. But then very few senators get elected president either. Most are former Govenors.
 

Bergen

ADC
msgsmiley said:
Maybe we should call this the, Brits want to know thread? Once again points of view posted by reading news articles. For one thing all, I say again ALL, US Attorneys are political appointees by whomever is president. They serve entirely at the pleasure of the president. When Clinton was elected he fired all of them , over 100, and not a whimper from anyone. Why, because it was his right to. The president does not have to answer for that. All presidents replace a fair majority of them when elected because they want their own people in there. This is a made up story by politicians in the Senate and most people haven't a clue because they do not read the constitution anymore and it has not been taught in our schools for years. But then very few senators get elected president either. Most are former Govenors.

As usual you are entirely correct - except for the entire premise of your message and every single fact that you have written. The title of the thread remains very apt.

US Attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States by and with the consent of The Congress. When Clinton was elected he replaced 91 of the 93 US Attorneys immediately. Done cleanly, with no objections from the Republicans it was a good call. Changing all or most US.A's at the beginning of a Presidents term in office is normal and typical.

What has been done with the firing of the 8 US.A's is highly unusual, especially since they were all Republican appointees. If Shrub had simply stated that they had been fired because it was his prerogative to do so then it would be a non-story. Instead the Republicans began to spin and lie and it has not only backfired on them spectacularly but it looks like bringing the entire rotten lot down. What has happened in American public service is that Bush has politicised every level of government by replacing able, hardworking professionals with political ideologues. We have seen it in Iraq, in FEMA [remember New Orleans] and in every nook and cranny of the Federal Government.

Back to the US.A's; every State and most major cities have a US Attorney. There are 93 in total. Bush fired 8 of them; they all had one thing in common - they were carrying out major investigations into republican malfeasance that led to major figures in the Republican party and threatened to tie Abramoff and Cunningham [who are already serving prison terms] to Bush and Cheney.

Bushco introduced a rule into the US.A's offices that any intended prosecutions that they were investigating that might have political implications had to be reported to Washington immediately.

The US.A for SoCal was named Carol Lam. She informed Washington that she had issued search warrants and subpoenas in an investigation into Republicans. She was immediately fired, replaced by a Bush ideologue and the search warrants and subpoenas withdrawn and the case redacted.

LAM> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html



The furore in the USA at the moment is the discovery that Bushco have been evading the US government communications systems and using a Republican email system [GWB43.com] to conduct US Government business. This is not only insecure but also highly illegal. Congress has issued subpoenas for these emails and the Republicans are livid. This is bigger than Watergate was for Nixon and will bring the entire house of cards crashing down. The United States Attorney General Abu [the Geneva Convention is quaint and irrelevent] Gonzales appeared before Congress last week and he was a travesty.

GWB43 FOR DUMMIES>
http://www.correntewire.com/gwb43_com_for_dummies


The words 'I don't recall' 'I have no recollection' 'I don't remember' spilled from his lips 120 times. He fired the US Attorneys but he couldn't remember why. Even Republican Congressmen are asking for his resignation and his appearance in Congress to explain the US.A scandal was likened to the clubbing of a baby seal by national newspapers. It was a disgrace.

I DON'T REMEMBER> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901366.html + http://www.truthout.org/AlbertoCongress.shtml

Gonzales has been Bush's personal consigliere since the days when Bush was an alcoholic failed Texan businessman and his main task as USAG has been to cover for Bush at the expense of the American people, the constitution and US Law. A fact little known outside of Texas is Bush's drunken driving record. Gonzales took steps to prevent Bush being called to jury duty to prevent this being publicly revealed.

CONSIGLIERE> http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2006/08/consigliere_gon.html


RM
 

msgsmiley

War Hero
Bubba, wrong, wrong, wrong. Us attorneys are appointed by the president period. And fired by the president period. No consent clause concerning them. Only the attorney general is confirmed by the Senate. Not each US attorney.
 

msgsmiley

War Hero
Article II, Section 2 US Constitution.
He (President) shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with Advise and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are notherein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the recess if the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


Congress, made up of both the House and the Senate, have never passed a law saying that the Senate approves the appointment of inferior officers, that is US attorneys that work for the Department of Justice, in this country. The only one approved by the Senate is the Attorney General. All others serve at the pleasure of the President or the Department Head, The Attorney General, and they do not have to explain to anyone why they are hired or fired. This flap over US Attorneys being fired is political partisan stuff. Both partys do it. It's no big deal. If something was done illegal it would have been cited and splashed across every paper around the world. All they complain about is the way it was done. Besides who cares.
 

Unser_Giftzwerg

Midshipman
msgsmiley said:
Maybe we should call this the, Brits want to know thread? Once again points of view posted by reading news articles. For one thing all, I say again ALL, US Attorneys are political appointees by whomever is president. They serve entirely at the pleasure of the president. When Clinton was elected he fired all of them , over 100, and not a whimper from anyone. Why, because it was his right to. The president does not have to answer for that. All presidents replace a fair majority of them when elected because they want their own people in there. This is a made up story by politicians in the Senate and most people haven't a clue because they do not read the constitution anymore and it has not been taught in our schools for years. But then very few senators get elected president either. Most are former Govenors.

Yes, Presidents appoint people to positions, including the US Att'y offices. And yes, Presidents can replace peope in these positions later on. But that is only the surface of the story.

Once appointed USAs are traditionally left alone. It is extremely rare for a serving USA to be replaced in mid-term. ~90% of ths instances have been due o gross incompetence/misconduct. President Bush removed 8 USAs at one time. They are USAs he himself put into office in the first place. In all the history of the US of A, there have not been 8 USAs removed by the same President to give them the job in the first place. Not for reasons of mere Presidential whim.

This huge glaring massive historical anomaly of course raised suspicions. These grew when no one - no one - was able to say who fired the USAs for what reasons. President Bush says he didn't decide, The Att'y General can't remember, and everything else is "the process".

USAs "serve at the pleasure of the PResident". But as GOP Senator Arlen SPector said, that does not mean the President can remove them for improper reasons.

Several of the fired USAs were working on political corruption cases targeted on Republican Congresspeople.

Others had declined to pursue weak corruption cases targeting Democratic politicians.

All were in states expected to be close in the upcoming 2008 Pressidential elections.

The Repoublicans especially under Karl Rove have a long history of using legal challanges to toss out ballots cast in strong Democratic neighborhoods.

Since no one willl say who fired the USAs or why, and given the above reasons, there is a lot of reason to suspect the White House was attemtping to meddlin existing criminal investigations.

This IS against the law, pure and simple. And that's what it looks like, even if there is no iron-clad proof of it.

Yet. And on a final note, I leave you with this thought.

USAs may be fired by the President, and that is it. The law is clear about that. The USAs may not be fired by the Att'y General. they may not be fired by the Chief of Staff to the Att'y General. They may notbe fired by a bunch of DoJ staffers rounded up by the CoS to the Att'y General. They may be fired by the President.

Whatever your opinion on 'hands-off management' the law says the Prsident is the Decider. This President has explicitly said he had no involvement on the decision. He just decided to accept the decision of some unnamed junior-level staffers.

This is not business-as-usual. Not in the adult world.

This President and this Vice PResident will be impeached.

Resistance is not futile.
 

Jarhead

War Hero
on the contrary, dubya, no matter how corrupt his policies are or may be seen to be in the future, will escape office without being impeached. saying anything else is denial of reality.
 

New Posts

Top