I've got to agree with Rick on this one. Some form of regulation along the lines of the original Glass-Steagall Act(s) is necessary. But Vic's point about this very corrupt administration figuring out how to line their pockets is frightening. Obama's fees on some, but not all banks is almost a bill of attainder.Comment Posted By Eno On 24.01.2010 @ 11:14
Steve Sturm's point is well taken. Israeli Intelligence claims the program was briefly halted in 2003, but since has been restarted. (Hat tip to captainsquarters.com)Comment Posted By Eno On 6.12.2007 @ 11:22
I think you missed a major point on why the administration wants this info out, Rick. It vindicates the Iraq policy from the beginning.Comment Posted By Eno On 5.12.2007 @ 18:34
The left is whining that this shows Bush's tendency to expand the "threats" to the country. This is such a silly point, but I expect to hear this meme for the next few days. The former NIE reports all indicated that the weapons program was in full force and effect. You lefties criticize Bush for NOT listening to the intelligence community in the lead-up to Iraq. In this instance, he has listened to his intelligence sources.
Secondly, whne did Iran stop their weapons program? At the beginning of the Iraq War. Like Libya's dismantling of their program within a week of Saddam getting hauled out of a rabbit hole, apparently Iran abandoned the program whne they realized the invasion was about to take place.
Lastly, the report further verifys two aspects of our relations with Iran that those on the left (and several Democrat Presidential candidates) try to deny. As you said in an earlier post, this report confirms that Iran violated the UN treaty and was attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Second, they still are enriching uranium against the strict orders and wishes of the international community through the IAEA.
If the Bush administration is so sophisticated and intelligent that they put this conspiracy to murder thousands of people; said conspiracy involving thousands of people and hundreds of man-hours; and then put it together in their eight months in office; then why are they unable to shut the mouths of a couple of you-Tube geeks and miscreants that are "exposing the truth" to the administrations detriment. Doesn't the fact these people exist prove the non-existance of the conspirators?Comment Posted By Eno On 21.08.2007 @ 12:29
I guess we are just going to have to demand that you produce some conservative bana fides again, or you are out of the conspiracy buster!!!
Another excellent column with (mostly) excellent commentary. I think many of you ignore the rather obvious fact that US military presence in this region has been necessary since the early 1980's. We have repeatedly had to send in troops for the last 30 years. Sorry johnnywalkerred, I still applaud congress and the president for the initial invasion of Iraq. We have o have a presence in this region. That said, obviously things have gone wrong in a largely successful military effort. I disagree with you argument with fight4theright. Your plans will likely lead to a civil war and bloodbath. Manning and Pacifus make the best points: We cannot leave Iraq under any circumstances. I suspect those complaining about the tragic loss of american lives are the same ones who said that we would lose 20,000 against the vaunted Republican Guards who would lay down their lives for their beloved Saddam.That turned out to be untrue. We must force the Iraqi's to come to terms with their own destiny. I agree that they may never do that at present troop levels. However, if they refuse to act politically, we should begin to (slowly) draw down troop levels and economic assistance.Comment Posted By Eno On 7.07.2007 @ 09:17
P.S. I don't care about Democrat "crowing". They have insulted our military repeatedly by claiming they have "lost" a war that is a clearly military victory. I know many men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't wait till they return home and begin to vote.
My condolences, thoughts and prayers with your wife's family Rick. Hopefully, some others will see her flight from dictatorships and brutality and realize the true meaning of her life.Comment Posted By Eno On 12.03.2007 @ 20:20
And the dirty bastards had to steal the Colts in the middle of the night to even have the franchise!!! No Irsay, we are NOT over it!!! Go Bears!!!!!Comment Posted By Eno On 4.02.2007 @ 09:45
I said in a comment to an earlier post and I'll say it again, we should be past the point of assigning "blame" for 9-11. There's plenty of it to go around. That being said, I think its crucial that this show be aired this evening. I abhor inaccuracies and outright lies in media presentations of historical events. But from what I've read about this series, even the "inaccurate" parts are contrived conversations that led to historically factual conclusions. In othe words, Sandy "docupants" Berger may not have had the conversation with Bill C. in the movie, but they DID decide on policy that ignored the threat. "The Reagans" was on the personal life of the pres. and his wife. Most of the program was alleged private conversations between the two that no one ever heard or witnessed. That's quite a bit different from this film.
The real threat here (as Rick eloquently points out) is the Left's demand the truth not come out. I think the Bush admin. admits that they could have done a number of things differently. Apparently the Dems refuse to admit ANY bad policies, and will resort to censorship to prove it. I would like to hear a liberal commenter defend that policy without resorting to fantastic conspiracy theory.Comment Posted By Eno On 10.09.2006 @ 08:46
I think the Dem vs. Repub carping on this comment line is missing Rick's point: 3,000 Americans died in what may have been preventable. Finger pointing at this juncture serves no purpose. With hindsight, one can easily criticize Clinton's absolutley HORRIBLE handling of foreign policy on terrorism issues. Sorry to all you Dems out there, but Somalia and the "law-enforcement" reaction to terrorist acts of his administration is cited by Bin Laden as proof of a "weak america". As a conservative, however, I can't say I disagreed too strongly with his policies. I would not have advocated invading Afghanistan during the 90's, and i thought terroism should be handled outside of international relations.
With hinsight we can see that these policies led directly to 9-11. The point of whether Clinton could have killed him is irrelevant. Someone with the suppport of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan would have replaced him quickly and another 9-11 event would have transpired. I can't honestly say that I criticized the Clinton administration (which I did for a "weak" foreign policy in the middle east and Korea) and predicted an attack on the scale of 9-11. Very few(if any) made that prediction. Clinton was just asleep at the wheel while the vast majority of us were asleep in the back seat. He is definitley accountable for that and his recent attempts at censorship tell us quite a bit about the man and his respect for the rights of others.
Likewise, it is irrelevant that Repubs played politics with "anti" terroism policies in the 90's. Short sighted? Absolutely. But this political gamesmanship had little to do with our missing this attack.
Recognizing that Islamofacism is a war against various nation states and acting on that realization is the one thing this administration has done right. The current decision of the left wing of the Democratic party and a radical element of our society to ignore that fact is what is dangerous. We can fight that battle come November.Comment Posted By Eno On 5.09.2006 @ 12:42
I can't join in all the fear and loathing of this decision by my fellow conservatives. I agree with yesterday's WSJ edit that pointed out the decision 1) Did not question whether detaining these criminals was legal;2) That detention could last the duration of the war; 3)Hamdan could be tried, but not with a new invention of a "military tribunal". The trial would be with a regular Courts-martial; 4) These trials would be conducted under the standing military code of justice procedures; 5) (Here's the kicker) Congress can change and adjust MCJ procedures at any time. In other words, Congress can establish these tribuals exactly as the Bush administration wants. This is an interpretation of the war powers act that restricts the executive branch a little, but I tend to think its constitutionally correct.Comment Posted By Eno On 1.07.2006 @ 08:13
I agree with the others in this thread that the Court's extension of the Geneva Convention seems a bit wrongheaded, and possibly damaging to the War effort.
Will Congress do its job? I'm with PC .....BWAHAHAHA. If they follow what the administration has asked for all along, however, the effect of this SCOTUS decision is to reaffirm almost everything that Bush wanted.
I just don't see this as a defeat. The decision says we are in a war, we can indefinitely detain POWs, we can have trials of these POWs, and if Congress approves, we can do it with new military tribunals. Sounds like everything Pelosi and Murtha said was wrong.
Pages (2) :  2