Re: Do air strikes make sense in the Philippines? (Re: china donates...)


"Camilla Umerez" <socculturefilipino@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140561819.003249.28910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
hah saud family dont want these people to run for anything coz they
are scared that a palestine or iran scenario would happen .

Whatever are you talking about? We were talking (I thought...) about the
Saudis killing their own people because they were puppets of the US.

What does this have to do with elections?

a sane govt would not tolerate having its own citizens become
collateral damage and do nothing. as i said on the original post you
dont bomb a house when there are other people inside willy nilly.
as a govt you dont tolerate toher countries doing it inside your
borders to your own citizens. if they re going after someone send
ground pounders around the house and shoot the mtfkr that are
wanted once they get out . we are not excempted from civilized
behavior .

Ahhh... how do you surround the house when the US military is not allowed
there, and the Pakistani military refuses to go into the tribal areas?

btw in another off tangent topic even some of your people are up in
arms regarding the dubai people taking over the operation of certain us
ports.

This is another "Harriet Meiers" moment for Bush. Unless there are things
of which I am unaware (some deal with Dubai to hand over OBL, for example)
this is one of the DUMBEST moves the Bush administration could make. Like
several Rep congresscritters have noted, this is a totally tone-deaf
decision.

In the law, judges are to recuse themselves from cases if there is the mere
appearance of impropriety. In other words, if it looks like you have a
conflict of interest, you back away. Here, even though Chertoff may be
correct that there are safeguards in effect, it certainly looks bad. And if
it looks bad, absent some compelling reason, it should be scrapped.

I cannot see this thing passing. If Bush stands up for it (he apparently
has said he would veto any law which prohibits it) I will be the first to
label it a stupid and dangerous decision.

See, we can agree on some things Pig


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: House democrats will be responsible
    ... Sylvia, how can anybody today, still support that loser Bush. ... law, ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi maintains the congressional majority is simply ... Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to compel their cooperation. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Bush Rats Out The Democrats for Making America UNSAFE!
    ... WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. ... Terrorists are plotting new attacks against America "at this very moment," Bush said in renewing his call for the House to pass legislation needed to renew the intelligence law that expired last weekend. ... The Senate bill, which passed 68-29, provides retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that wiretapped American phone and computer lines at the government's request, but without the permission of a secret court created 30 years ago to oversee such activities. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: In defense of waterboarding
    ... Bush is not a nazi and I would ... the "House" has not said that. ... And "if" they can get enough votes to pass a law to stop the practice, they would do it and up to now, they have not been able to get enough votes to pass such a law. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Can the new Democratic Congress go up against a "Unitary Executive" President??
    ... When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, ... power must be unilateral, and unchecked. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)