Bring our Troops Home, NOW...secure our borders
The_Carpathia
troops from needless wars that are not against Al Queda. Then, he
surged troops into Afghanistan to fight the TALIBAN that has NOT
ATTACKED US OUTSIDE THEIR BORDERS, ONCE. His official reason for that
war, now, is to combat insurgents to help elections in Afghanistan,
which is Bush's excuse for the Iraq war.
Bring our troops home and secure our borders, since they aren't being
used to fight those that hit us on 9-11.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Ron
.
Re: Bring our troops home and secure our borders....
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits using US military forces for
the enforcement of civil law.
http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm
There have been instances where the PC Act has been bent to serve a
specific cause but in general, getting Congress to authorize the use
of military troops to guard our border would be difficult.
As one writer put it, the PC Act prevents the US from becoming a
banana republic.
RO
The_Carpathia
I said BORDERS...not walking through the streets. But, since your
issue is thus, I expect a condemnation of Obama that is using the
military to monitor civilian populations in this country and
coordinate Homeland Security by way of the Pentagon and more. Even
the CIA is breaking the law to monitor THIS COUNTRY, under Obama and
Bush.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
I don't recall you bitching and moaning about it under Bush, however.
Whyzat?
Harold Burton
Major Debacle <Major_Debacle@the_pentagon.mil> wrote:
Much like we don't recall you bitching and moaning about it under the
Obama-lama-ding-dong.
Snicker.
The_Carpathia
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm getting fucking PISSED at your continual lies about me. I have
broken off communication from you for this reason among others. You
are a lying, scumbag Demoncrat party man that breathes LIES to justify
yourself, as often as you like. You aren't worthy of my rebuke, but
to let others know I HAVE been condemning Bush over wiretaps and to
show you (and the other party-line attackers on here) for the
dishonest idiot you are...
--
Jan 2006....
---
"Bush is defending his 4th Amendment violations as being limited.
Limited? Nixon went down for wiretaping a few individuals, this is
hundreds (at least), with calling pattern observations of thousands.
Also, Bush is defending it by saying that he let others know he was
going to do it. So? In the courts, if you tell someone you are
going
to do a crime and then do it, the punishment is worse. The same
should
apply here. It wasn't an accident. He isn't sorry. And, he's
already
said it will continue. It is the pride of this man, more than
anything
else, that is driving myself, a life-long GOP activist and Bush
supporter, to say that it is time for Bush to go. We are setting
precedent with this man. Will the precedent be that no one is above
the law, or will it be that the law is whatever the President says it
is?
"Ken Clifton"
---
December 2005
---
"The following is Senator Durbin's words on the powers of the
President
and the Constitution. The words are the public domain words of the
Senate Record...
"UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION -- (Senate - December 19, 2005)
"[Page: S14010]
--- Mr. DURBIN.
"Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend my colleague from West
Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. Some of the people who are witnessing this
session of the Senate had a chance to hear this man speak just
moments
ago. I do not know of another Senator more dedicated to our U.S.
Constitution or one who has been more fearless in attacking
Presidents
of both political parties when he thinks that they have gone too far.
Senator Byrd's speech should be read by every American as a reminder
of
basic freedoms in this country that we should never, ever take for
granted.
"I listened to his speech as I was sitting in my office and I
thought
I would come to the Chamber and try to follow in his footsteps,
though
what I have to offer cannot possibly match what he had to say.
"Several things have occurred over the last several years which
are
historic in nature and troubling. This administration has decided on
three occasions, at least three separate occasions, to depart from
the
traditions of America, traditions which we have followed for
generations, Presidents, Republican and Democratic alike.
"It was this administration which told us we could no longer wait
to
be threatened by another country, we could no longer wait to be
attacked by another country, we must act preemptively, we must strike
first, based on intelligence and information we must attack first,
and
that is why we invaded Iraq. What did that intelligence lead us to
believe? That Iraq had weapons of mass destruction threatening the
United States and our allies; that Iraq was developing nuclear
weapons
that could threaten the Middle East and the United States; that Iraq
was in concert in some way with al-Qaida and responsible for the 9/11
attacks; that Iraq was securing fissile material from Africa to
manufacture into nuclear weapons. All of those things were told to
the
American people, some by the President in his State of the Union
address, and every single one of them turned out to be wrong.
"The President told us we needed to attack Iraq for those reasons,
and it turned out none of the reasons were valid, not one. So he
would
change the foreign policy of the United States not to wait and
carefully make a decision about whether we commit our troops and our
treasure but, rather, to move preemptively--a departure from foreign
policy for generations.
"Secondly, this administration said that we had to depart from the
traditions of the United States for generations when it came to the
interrogation of prisoners. This Bush administration argued that we
had
to redefine torture in a way that was inconsistent with treaties the
United States has accepted as law of the land. Terrible things
occurred. We saw the worst of them in some of the photos from Abu
Ghraib and reports from other agencies.
"Thank goodness for the leadership of Senator John McCain, a
Republican of Arizona, himself a POW in the Vietnam War, also a
victim
of torture in that experience, who stood up to the administration and
said, You are wrong. Torture is not American. If we are fighting for
values, those values cannot include torture.
"He was responding to our troops who were writing to Members of
Congress saying, Give us clarity, give us direction, tell us if the
world has changed;
"[Page: S14011]soldiers, graduates of West Point, who were told we do
not engage in torture as soldiers representing the flag of the United
States of America. Thank goodness for the leadership of Senator
McCain
in confronting the Bush administration and forcing them to back down
when it came to this dramatic change in the standards for torture.
"Now comes another chapter in changing the tradition of America
under
this administration relative to our right of privacy as American
citizens, the PATRIOT Act, which I voted for to give this Government
more powers to fight terrorism, but we said every 4 years we will
look
at it to make certain we have not gone too far, that we have not
given
up our basic rights and freedoms in the name of security and safety.
"Now we are involved in a debate. My colleague from Alabama has
been
to the floor several times. As a former prosecutor, he argues that
under the PATRIOT Act we have to trust the Government, we have to
trust
the prosecutors, not to go too far. Unfortunately, that is not the
standard in America. The standard in America says in this
Constitution,
this Bill of Rights, that our basic freedoms are guaranteed to us,
and
before this Government takes those freedoms or infringes upon them,
there must be good reason and good cause.
"Last week, on a bipartisan basis, we said, Stop this version of
the
PATRIOT Act, make certain that changes are made so that the freedoms
and rights of Americans are protected. In the midst of that debate
came
a revelation which is truly astounding, a revelation that for years
the
Bush administration, through Government agencies, has been involved
in
wiretaps and eavesdropping on American citizens.
"The reason this is of concern, of course, is that it violates a
longstanding legal requirement that the Government has to obtain a
court order to eavesdrop electronically on an American in the United
States. We spell out with specificity what the Government must do if
it
is going to invade our privacy, listen to our conversations, hack
into
our computers, whatever it may be. The grounding for that is not just
some speech on the Senate floor or the House; the grounding for that
is
this Constitution, where its fourth amendment makes it clear from the
beginning of this Nation the standard we would use, a standard worth
repeating in the fourth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"That is in our Constitution that we have sworn to uphold. And for
thousands of unsuspecting Americans, their basic records, their
communications, their computers have been looked at and listened to
by
this Government, without legal authority.
"So therein lies the third dramatic departure of this
administration,
from a tradition which most of us assumed would never be violated, a
tradition which says that our privacy can be compromised if a
President
assumes the power to do it. This President did not come to Congress
saying, I need powers to listen to America's conversations. No. He
just
did it. He said he has the power to do it as Commander in Chief.
"Well, there are some obvious questions that should be asked when
we
hear these things. Where is the concern in Congress? Where is the
sense
of outrage in the Senate? Where is the sense of obligation that our
generation owes to our children to make certain that we are held
accountable to protect their constitutional rights? I am glad that
Senator Specter of the Judiciary Committee has said we will have a
hearing on this, and we should. This is a serious matter.
"Some of us saw recently a movie about Edward R. Murrow titled
``Good
Night and Good Luck.'' I remember Edward R. Murrow. As a young boy, I
used to see him on television from time to time. This movie depicts
the
McCarthy era where the Congress in this case overstepped its
authority,
and one Senator from Wisconsin literally destroyed lives, literally
infringed on the rights and liberties of individual citizens. The
sense
of outrage in America rose to such a level that eventually he was
called to task and discredited for what he had done in violation of
the
basic rights of American citizens. It took some time. In the
beginning,
the red scare kept people quiet, they did not want to raise this
issue.
" Sadly, in this war on terrorism, we may be going through a
parallel
moment in history, where our fear of another 9/11 has kept us
entirely
too quiet and silent when this Government has gone too far. I hope
what
we have learned about this wiretapping and this eavesdropping, these
violations of basic rights of citizens, will cause all Americans, not
just those of us serving in the Senate, to stand up and speak out. If
we swore to uphold this Constitution, it was not just the paper that
it
is written on but the spirit and values that it stands for, values of
privacy and freedom which once lost may never be reclaimed.
" I urge my colleagues to read carefully the earlier remarks of
Senator Robert Byrd and consider carefully our individual
responsibilities.
"I yield the floor.
"Ken Clifton"
--
Dec 2005
---
"Years ago, conservatives (myself included) protested Democrats
bouncing
checks illegally, which brought into power our party. Then, we
protested Clinton's illegal use of the FBI, illegal destruction of
documents, and illegal sexual activities, which led to impeachment of
Clinton. Now, Bush has admitted to violating the Constitution in
several ways....
"1. He has set up oversea prisons to torture people without being
bothered by US law.
2. He has used the NSA (which is forbidden to spy on the US) to spy
on
hundreds of people without search warrents. Remember that Nixon was
impeached for spying on one man.
3. He has used the US troops to fight a war that was neither for our
protection, nor in our interests. He has now admitted all his
"evidence" was false....ALL of it.
"These are just a few examples, but they are enough for me. I am a
lifelong Republican, having voted for EVERY GOP candidate over me
over
the last decade. I have actively advocated for all of them online.
I,
personally, defended Bush on the war, and I feel betrayed.
"I'm also a minister. My Christian sites are...
"christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
"I say all of this to show that I am not a Democrat claiming all of
this. I have been torn for a while as this started coming out. I
realize what it means for our party and our goals. However, we
cannot
keep defending a President that flouts the law. Bush, upon being
told
all of this is illegal, said that he was going to keep doing it
anyway.
That's what was the final straw for me. He has set himself above
Congress and the Courts. In effect, he is saying that in wartime he
has unlimited power. I heard a quote from a congresswoman earlier
that
I have never supported, but she was totally right. "We have a
President, not a King." If our President is willing to void these
laws
based solely upon his will and faulty intelligence, what laws will he
NOT void.
"I must also say as a prophecy buff, that this is the exact legal
setup
that the antichrist would want, the ability to void our privacy and
freedoms upon any subjective threat. We MUST rebuke Bush for this,
and, it saddens me to say, possibly remove him. The law must hold.
This President is not over it.
"Ken Clifton"
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
But were you bitching and moaning about Bush back when he was in office?
I don't *think* so.
Ramon F Herrera
> Bring our troops home and secure our borders, since they aren't
> being used to fight those that hit us on 9-11.
You logic is faulty because relies on a fallacy. You seem to believe
that the military always have to be engaged in some belligerent
activity. Maybe you have a background as kindergarten teacher?
Ken: "We have to find ways to keep them busy".
Ken: "Hello, Pentagon? I am sure you have some soldiers available.
There are some gangs in my neighborhood and those damn Latinos play
their music too loud. Send over a platoon, will ya'"
-Ramon
ps: Couldn't help noticing you list Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity among
your MySpace "friends" (snicker).
Ron
>
> - Show quoted text -
.
The border is indeed the topic of discussion, and the US Customs and
Border Protection has the job of maintaining border security. The
body of law under which they do so is civil law, not military.
Border security has been poorly handled by ALL administrations for
decades.
RO
The_Carpathia
--
> > Dec 2005
>
> But were you bitching and moaning about Bush back when he was in office?
>
> I don't *think* so.
Exhibit A...I provide THREE examples of my CONDEMNATION of
Bush...calling for his removal from office...back in 2005 and 2006,
and this putrid punk ignores THOUSANDS OF WORDS OF EVIDENCE to
continue lying about me. Ignore Major Dolt...he's a liar and a
partisan.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
The_Carpathia
> On Jul 10, 4:38 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bring our troops home and secure our borders, since they aren't
> > being used to fight those that hit us on 9-11.
>
> You logic is faulty because relies on a fallacy. You seem to believe
> that the military always have to be engaged in some belligerent
> activity. Maybe you have a background as kindergarten teacher?
>
> Ken: "We have to find ways to keep them busy".
>
> Ken: "Hello, Pentagon? I am sure you have some soldiers available.
> There are some gangs in my neighborhood and those damn Latinos play
> their music too loud. Send over a platoon, will ya'"
>
> -Ramon
So, you think we should keep them fighting and dying in a war
unrelated to our national security, instead of bringing them home?
Yes or no?
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
Ask Bushie Boy.
He sent them over there and you voted for him.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
bump
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
The_Carpathia
From CNN...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/gates.taliban/index.html
"Gates, referring to talks with the Taliban, said a similar
rapprochement strategy worked in Iraq.
"'We promoted a reconciliation that involved people we were pretty
confident had been shooting at us and killing our soldiers,' he said.
"'At the end of the day, that's how most wars end,' Gates said,
referencing the Sunni Awakening Movement in Iraq.
"'There has to be ultimately -- and I'll underscore ultimately --
reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this,' he said
"Those talks would not include al Qaeda, Gates said.
"The reconciliation would have to be on the Afghan government's terms,
and the Taliban would have to subject itself to the sovereignty of the
government, he added.
"'That's ultimately the exit strategy for all of us,' Gates said"
So, Gates...the CURRENT Sec. of Defense...distinguished between the
battle against Al Queda with that of the battle against the Taliban,
saying that the Taliban could be a part of the post-war Afghan
society.
So, again, I ask, WHY ARE WE FIGHTING THE TALIBAN? We were TOLD the
war in Afghanistan was a war against those that struck us on 9-11, but
Gates said last year (above) that the Taliban WERE NOT IN THAT GROUP
and could be a part of Afghanistan's future. So, if the Taliban
didn't attack our country, WHY ARE OUR CHILDREN DYING IN A WAR AGAINST
THEM? The answer is found in what he said above...."the Taliban would
have to subject itself to the sovereignty of the government." This
isn't about our national security. This is about picking sides in a
muslim civil war and destroying the enemy of Iran and Russia.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
The_Carpathia
> In article <grQ5m.3496$Ad2.2...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
You will never hear them condemn their savior, even if he IS a picture
of their condemnation of Bush.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Ramon F Herrera
I essentially have supported the policies (about Iraq, about
immigration and economy, among other) of President Bush and of
President Obama.
The US of A needed those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a while,
and they need to come back progressively now: That is exactly what was
needed. That is exactly what is being done.
Afghanistan is a clear demonstration of what happens when you let a
cancer grow. Humanity is much better off without the Husseins,
somebody had to get rid of them, and that somebody is us.
The question on the plate is why do you think that the military are
some sort of kindergarteners who need to be constantly occupied?
Do you have an idea of how many soldiers (specially latinos but also
black and others) have said: "I would rather shoot my commanding
officer" when asked about military actions against civilians and
mothers carrying children?
Do you really believe all those soldiers will be pointing their
weapons in the south direction?
-Ramon
Tom Sr.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/msg/372322dc0a7381ad?hl=en&dmode=source
Re: Huckabee stands to gain 360 delegates Feb 5th
> On Jan 29 2008, 11:41 pm,
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> With McCain's win in Florida, we have to keep it all in perspective.
> Prior to this night, Huckabee has been 2nd in the number of delegates
> (ahead of McCain). Now, McCain jumps to first place with his win in
> Fla. However, come Feb. 5th, Huckabee stands to gain 360 delegates by
> winning Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia,
> Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma (all states where he leads in recent
> polls). If Guiliani pulls out a win of NJ and NY, McCain only stands
> to gain 326 delegates. If Romney wins California, that number for
> McCain could be 153 delegates (if that happened, Huck would probably
> lead the whole pack in delegate numbers with twice as many as
> McCain). So, this fight is far from over, just because McCain won a
> moderate republican state.
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Major Debacle
Here, Kennie... choke on it:
Hold Obama to the same standard as Bush
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/78899fd913b93e2/24a684c044426461?q=obama+author:major_debacle%40pentagon.mil#24a684c044426461
Sid9
"The_Carpathia" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54f908dd-fd58-4ace...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
You're a wackadoo!
Obama's a man, not the kind of religious being you believe
in.
Harold Burton
Major Debacle <Major_Debacle@the_pentagon.mil> wrote:
Yeah, and?
Snicker.
Harold Burton
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Who tells the truth.
> Obama's a man, not the kind of religious being...
tell that to the lefturds who worship him.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
<54f908dd-fd58-4ace...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 7:52�ｿｽpm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <grQ5m.3496$Ad2.2...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > �ｿｽMajor Debacle <Major_Debacle@the_pentagon.mil> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The_Carpathia wrote:
> > > > On Jul 10, 5:48 pm, Ron <ron...@wt.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Jul 10, 3:38 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:> We
> > > >> can't
> > > >> trust Obama's words. �ｿｽHe said he was going to withdraw our
> > > >>> troops from needless wars that are not against Al Queda. �ｿｽ Then, he
> > > >>> surged troops into Afghanistan to fight the TALIBAN that has NOT
> > > >>> ATTACKED US OUTSIDE THEIR BORDERS, ONCE. �ｿｽHis official reason for
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> war, now, is to combat insurgents to help elections in Afghanistan,
> > > >>> which is Bush's excuse for the Iraq war.
> > > >>> Bring our troops home and secure our borders, since they aren't being
> > > >>> used to fight those that hit us on 9-11.
> > > >>> Kenneth W Cliftonwww.myspace.com/kenclifton
> > > >> .
> > > >> .
> > > >> Re: Bring our troops home and secure our borders....
> >
> > > >> The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits using US military forces for
> > > >> the enforcement of civil law.
> >
> > > >>http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm
> >
> > > >> There have been instances where the PC Act has been bent to serve a
> > > >> specific cause but in general, getting Congress to authorize the use
> > > >> of military troops to guard our border would be difficult.
> >
> > > >> As one writer put it, the PC Act prevents the US from becoming a
> > > >> banana republic.
> >
> > > >> RO
> >
> > > > I said BORDERS...not walking through the streets. �ｿｽBut, since your
> > > > issue is thus, I expect a condemnation of Obama that is using the
> > > > military to monitor civilian populations in this country and
> > > > coordinate Homeland Security by way of the Pentagon and more. �ｿｽEven
> > > > the CIA is breaking the law to monitor THIS COUNTRY, under Obama and
> > > > Bush.
> >
> > > > Kenneth W Clifton
> > > >www.myspace.com/kenclifton
> > > I don't recall you bitching and moaning about it under Bush, however.
> >
> > Much like we don't recall you bitching and moaning about it under the
> > Obama-lama-ding-dong.
> >
> > Snicker.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You will never hear them condemn their savior, even if he IS a picture
> of their condemnation of Bush.
Yep, they're hypocrites. If Bush did it - bad, if the
Obama-lama-ding-dong does it - good.
Snicker.
The_Carpathia
>
> - Show quoted text -
bump
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
No link, no cred.
I claim you made it all up on Friday, July 10th, 2009.
Remember... no link, no cred.
Ramon F Herrera
The above questions are still pending. With that kind of prompt
assistance from the Carpathia, small wonder the Titanic sank and 1500
died.
I think it would be best if you join Al Qaeda:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/07/13/somalia.american.killed
-Ramon
The_Carpathia
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > bump
>
> > Kenneth W Clifton
> >www.myspace.com/kenclifton
>
> No link, no cred.
>
> I claim you made it all up on Friday, July 10th, 2009.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I said, there are about a half dozen OTHER examples from those
years of me calling for the removal of Bush from office, not to
mention my saying he is equally guilty for getting us to this bad
economy as the other Democrats.
I await you to display your partisanship and lying nature to ignore
all of these threads and keep lying about me, anyway.
When was the last time you called for the removal of a Democrat from
office? Do you condemn Obama for using the same Wiretaps that Durbin
and Byrd condemned? They don't.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Tom Sr.
Afghanistan And Providing Safe Haven To al-Qaeda.!
On Jul 13, 3:20 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh...well...if it was in the NEWSPAPERS...it MUST be true. It also
> means you should have no problem producing a SINGLE SOURCE (not news
> report but SOURCE) confirming it. We can't trust Bush's intel, so
> provide a SINGLE confirmation of the Taliban supporting Al Queda
> BEFORE we invaded their land.
=> READ AND LEARN, Kenneth Clifton!
----------
http://www.stillwater-newspress.com/editorials/local_story_187102432....
*Focus: Terrorist Activities Against the U.S.*
Afghanistan, Pakistan, India - and the Problem of Terrorism
by Harold Sare
Second in a series
Published: July 06, 2009 09:24 am [NOTE THE DATE!]
Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia into a family that migrated
to Saudi Arabia from Yemen.
His family was rich and well established, but bin Laden was influenced
by extremist Muslim authorities who led him to pursue a radical
political life that took him to Sudan in Africa, back to Saudi Arabia,
and finally to Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded that state.
He had become unpopular with the Saudi government, though supported by
wealthy Saudis who responded to his extremist Muslim views.
In Afghanistan, bin Laden found a country that was largely rural (more
than 80 percent), but which was experiencing modern pressures.
He, with his wealth, became well known because of money he spent on
behalf of the Afghans and his personal fight against the Soviet
Union.
In 1965, a Marxist-oriented group, the People’s Democratic Party of
Afghanistan, a communist party, came into existence.
Soon, Afghanistan faced considerable political turmoil and finally a
PDPA coup in 1978. By December of 1979 the PDPA was in considerable
trouble, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was soon drawn into that conflict against the Soviet
Union. The Soviet Union could never stabilize its power and was driven
out in 1988.
The United States and Saudi Arabia working through the ISI - Pakistani
Intelligence Service - assisted the Afghans in driving out the
Soviets.
More than 2 million Afghans were killed and more than 6 million fled
to Pakistan, Iran and other countries. The United States and the
government of Saudi Arabia pumped more than $6 billion into that
conflict.
Growing out of the conflict and with the presence of Osama bin Laden,
the al-Qaeda was formed.
Under the leadership of bin Laden the movement grew: a terrorist
leadership, training camps for terrorists, and a strategy against any
state that was not a “true Islamic” state were established.
The United States because of its world prominence was targeted.
A second force to contend with, the Taliban was officially established
in 1994 under the leadership of Mullah Omar, an Afghan, in response to
the heavy activity of the Pakistani ISI in Afghanistan.
It seems likely that much of the money that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia
spent in the fight against the Soviet Union was used to lay the
foundation for the creation of the Taliban. Also, elements in the
Pakistani ISI perhaps were helpful in establishing the Taliban.
We must recognize that other anti-U.S. and anti-government groups were
also functioning in Afghanistan. The political environment is
complex.
The Taliban began its attempt to take over Afghanistan from the five
regional armed forces that had developed during the Soviet period.
From its headquarters in Qandahar it moved toward Kabul and took
control in September of 1996.
In a short time the Taliban controlled about 90 percent of the
country. The ideology of the Taliban was mixed among sub-groups, but
the Islamic extremists were in control.
Many Afghans found the Taliban to be oppressive and as a result, many
fled Afghanistan, complicating further the refugee problem in
Pakistan.
While Afghanistan had been Muslim for some time, the Islamic faith
generally had not been rigorously enforced.
The Taliban changed that, especially with respect to the position of
women, forms of dress, and strict application of Islamic law
(Shari’ah).
The Taliban recruited many men from within Afghanistan and from
Pakistan as well as from other Muslim countries. It drew heavily on
younger refugees and Pakistani youth who attended the many madrassas
in western Pakistan.
These madrassas are “schools” for Islamic youth who are heavily
indoctrinated in the faith, even to the point of becoming martyrs for
the Islamic cause.
Out of this new Afghan environment, terrorists were trained and sent
out to strike the “evil” world.
In the early 90’s the World Trade Center in New York was bombed, and
later in the 90’s U.S. Embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania.
President Clinton blamed the bombings on Islamic extremists and
demanded of Afghanistan that terrorist activities cease and that bin
Laden be turned over to the U.S. for appropriate punishment.
When the Clinton demand was not responded to, the U.S., in August
1998, hit the bin Laden terrorist training camps, funded by some
wealthy Saudis, with cruise missiles fired from U.S. Navy ships in the
Arabian Sea.
U.N. sanctions were imposed in November 1999 for the same reason, and
all military aid to Afghanistan was cut off in 2001. After September
11, 2001 - when the World Trade Center in New York was destroyed and
3000 people killed, the attack on the Pentagon, and endangered White
House - the U.S. demanded the surrender of bin Laden, the shut-down of
the al-Qaeda by the Taliban, and closing the terrorist training
camps.
The refusal of the Taliban to cooperate led to the bombing of
Afghanistan by the U.S. with the assistance of the British.
Efforts to close down the terrorist problem began in earnest with the
attacks in the United States: 1) Forces within Afghanistan began to
move against the Taliban, 2) the United States moved troops into
Afghanistan, and 3) NATO eventually took command of the International
Security Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan under a UN mandate. Politics
began to change in Afghanistan, and Pakistan began to experience
internal political pressures as a result of turmoil in Afghanistan.
In spite of the years of effort and use of resources in war in Iraq,
the U.S. is still determined to eliminate or greatly reduce the
terrorist threats from the Central Asian area.
----
Harold Sare has studied, conducted research and taught university
courses focused on the region of which he writes, and has lived and
traveled in that area, specifically in India, including Kashmir, and
in Pakistan. He now lives in Stillwater. Tomorrow: Part 3, action
against terrorism in Central Asia.
----------
----------
If you cannot (OR *WILL* NOT) accept the facts, Clifton, then I
strongly suggest you seriously consider "Shutting-The-Fuck-Up" ---
instead of continuing to prove to the rational readers of Usenet that
you, Kenneth, are either a compulsive liar or psychotically
delusional,
But yet again, you will NOT understand this, Kenneth Clifton. You
have become so very blinded you cannot see the truth in front of you.
-Tom Sr.
The_Carpathia
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > bump
>
> > > Kenneth W Clifton
> > >www.myspace.com/kenclifton
>
> > No link, no cred.
>
> > I claim you made it all up on Friday, July 10th, 2009.
>
> > Remember... no link, no cred.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_frm/thre...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_frm/thread/4e2...
>
> As I said, there are about a half dozen OTHER examples from those
> years of me calling for the removal of Bush from office, not to
> mention my saying he is equally guilty for getting us to this bad
> economy as the other Democrats.
>
> I await you to display your partisanship and lying nature to ignore
> all of these threads and keep lying about me, anyway.
>
> When was the last time you called for the removal of a Democrat from
> office? Do you condemn Obama for using the same Wiretaps that Durbin
> and Byrd condemned? They don't.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still waiting...Major Dolt. Will you admit you lied about me? Will
you challenge your own party?
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
The_Carpathia
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > bump
>
> > > > Kenneth W Clifton
> > > >www.myspace.com/kenclifton
>
> > > No link, no cred.
>
> > > I claim you made it all up on Friday, July 10th, 2009.
>
> > > Remember... no link, no cred.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/browse_frm/thread/241220...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_frm/thre...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_frm/thread/4e2...
>
> > As I said, there are about a half dozen OTHER examples from those
> > years of me calling for the removal of Bush from office, not to
> > mention my saying he is equally guilty for getting us to this bad
> > economy as the other Democrats.
>
> > I await you to display your partisanship and lying nature to ignore
> > all of these threads and keep lying about me, anyway.
>
> > When was the last time you called for the removal of a Democrat from
> > office? Do you condemn Obama for using the same Wiretaps that Durbin
> > and Byrd condemned? They don't.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Still waiting...Major Dolt. Will you admit you lied about me? Will
> you challenge your own party?
>
> Kenneth W Cliftonwww.myspace.com/kenclifton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still waiting...though, I don't expect Major Dolt to show the
integrity to admit his wrong or question his beloved leader.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
Three lousy posts over a two week period?
No wonder I never saw them.
The_Carpathia
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> Still waiting...Major Dolt. Will you admit you lied about me? Will
> >> you challenge your own party?
>
> >> Kenneth W Cliftonwww.myspace.com/kenclifton-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > integrity to admit his wrong or question his beloved leader.
>
> > Kenneth W Clifton
> >www.myspace.com/kenclifton
>
> Three lousy posts over a two week period?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are a SAMPLE of the posts of those years...but where is your
admission of error? Where is your admission you lie about me? Where
is YOUR challenge of ANY Democrat?
I knew you were too much of a coward to fess up.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Sid9
Kenny, no one lies about you.
You have created your own coo-coo fundamentalist persona.
The_Carpathia
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
> > >> Still waiting...Major Dolt. Will you admit you lied about me? Will
> > >> you challenge your own party?
>
> > >> Kenneth W Cliftonwww.myspace.com/kenclifton-Hidequoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > integrity to admit his wrong or question his beloved leader.
>
> > > Kenneth W Clifton
> > >www.myspace.com/kenclifton
>
> > Three lousy posts over a two week period?
>
> > No wonder I never saw them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> They are a SAMPLE of the posts of those years...but where is your
> admission of error? Where is your admission you lie about me? Where
> is YOUR challenge of ANY Democrat?
>
> I knew you were too much of a coward to fess up.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still waiting liar. You said I had not condemned Bush over this. I
provided multiple links to the contrary, and you run away and hide.
Coward.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
What lie have I posted about you, Kennie?
Major Debacle
Nope, I never claimed that, Kennie.
You're setting yourself up again.
The_Carpathia
> >>>>> you challenge your own party?
> >>>>> Kenneth W Cliftonwww.myspace.com/kenclifton-Hidequotedtext -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> integrity to admit his wrong or question his beloved leader.
> >>>> Kenneth W Clifton
> >>>>www.myspace.com/kenclifton
> >>> Three lousy posts over a two week period?
> >>> No wonder I never saw them.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> They are a SAMPLE of the posts of those years...but where is your
> >> admission of error? Where is your admission you lie about me? Where
> >> is YOUR challenge of ANY Democrat?
>
> >> I knew you were too much of a coward to fess up.
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Still waiting liar. You said I had not condemned Bush over this.
>
> Nope, I never claimed that, Kennie.
>
> You're setting yourself up again.
"I don't recall you bitching and moaning about it under Bush,
however.
"Whyzat?"
At the start of this thread. Are you willing to confess you were
wrong about that assumption?
> > I
> > provided multiple links to the contrary, and you run away and hide.
> > Coward.
>
> > Kenneth W Clifton
> >www.myspace.com/kenclifton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Major Debacle
Sorry, Kennie, it was not an assumption and but I was absolutely right.
The_Carpathia
> >>>>>> integrity to admit his wrong or question his beloved leader.
> >>>>>> Kenneth W Clifton
> >>>>>>www.myspace.com/kenclifton
> >>>>> Three lousy posts over a two week period?
> >>>>> No wonder I never saw them.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> They are a SAMPLE of the posts of those years...but where is your
> >>>> admission of error? Where is your admission you lie about me? Where
> >>>> is YOUR challenge of ANY Democrat?
> >>>> I knew you were too much of a coward to fess up.
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Still waiting liar. You said I had not condemned Bush over this.
> >> Nope, I never claimed that, Kennie.
>
> >> You're setting yourself up again.
>
> > "I don't recall you bitching and moaning about it under Bush,
> > however.
>
> > "Whyzat?"
>
> > At the start of this thread. Are you willing to confess you were
> > wrong about that assumption?
>
> Sorry, Kennie, it was not an assumption and but I was absolutely right.
SEE!!! This is why I was right to break off contact with you. I just
quoted you saying that I didn't complain about it under Bush. I
provide quotes to the contrary, and you claim I made them up and
didn't have cites. I provide cites to the quotes, and you STILL
choose YOUR LIE over the proven facts, since you WILL NOT DUMP YOUR
PREJUDICE FOR THE TRUTH. Period.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
> >>> I
> >>> provided multiple links to the contrary, and you run away and hide.
> >>> Coward.
> >>> Kenneth W Clifton
> >>>www.myspace.com/kenclifton-Hide quoted text -
Major Debacle
Your critical reading skills are weak, Kennie.
I posted that *I didn't recall* you bitching and moaning about it under
Bush, not that *you didn't* bitch and moan about it under Bush.
And that remains true. I still don't recall you bitching and moaning
about it under Bush. All that means is that I don't follow you around to
obscure newsgroups and read everything in the overwhelming flood of
posts you put up under various IDs.
But if it suits you to throw a temper tantrum, be my guest.
Tom Sr.
> We can't trust Obama's words. He said he was going to withdraw our
> troops from needless wars that are not against Al Queda. Then, he
> surged troops into Afghanistan to fight the TALIBAN that has NOT
TIME FOR THE TRUTH, KENNETH CLIFTON.
None of your recent bullshit has anything to do with the United
States' war on terror against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Past posts by you, under your "The_Carpathia" email address, PROVES
you clearly understood the Taliban are terrorists and supported
terrorism and are a serious *threat* to our nation and its people.
Citations:
-----
In 2004 --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/msg/b63d4baf9646180c?hl=en&dmode=source
Re: UN didn't stop 9-11
On Apr 16 2004, 12:24 pm, writing...@yahoo.com (K C) wrote:
> Who didn't stop 9-11 from happening? Democrats blame Bush. The GOP
> blames Clinton. However, what about the UN? Consider these following
> words....
> "Deploring the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven
> to Usama bin Ladin and to allow him and others associated with him to
> operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled
> territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor
> international terrorist operations,
> Noting the indictment of Usama bin Laden and his associates by the
> United States of America for, inter alia, the 7 August 1998 bombings
> of the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam,
> Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill American nationals outside the
> United States, and noting also the request of the United States of
> America to the Taliban to surrender them for trial (S/1999/1021),"
> Do you know where these words are from? They are from a UN Security
> Council Press release from 19 December 2000, 9 months before 9-11.
> The UN knew where Bin Ladin was, knew that he was guilty of terrorism
> in the USA, and were doing what...passing resolutions....
-----
You yourself, Clifton, wrote that Bin Laden, the Taliban, and
Afghanistan were all part of "international terrorist operations".
I tried to find further mention of the Taliban and Afghanistan during
the 8 years W. Bush was President, but there next to none in *all*
those years! Certainly there was NOT the slightest suggestion by you
that the United States of America should pull-out our troops!.
When you really did start writing about Afghanistan -- in *mid-2008*
-- it was to try to condemn the presidental candidate Barack Obama for
not being "anti-war" -- because he supported the war in that country.
-----I
In 2008 --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/8a44ea5da1edec1d?hl=en&dmode=source
Re: "Anti-War" Obama's War in Afghanistan
On Jul 18 2008, 11:15 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> ...In reality, I don't think that Obama recently claimed to be anti-war
> (after having achieved party nomination). He says the troops will
> stay in Iraq for 18 months, at least, and only be withdrawn at the
> advice of the commanders (and he just voted to promote Bush's Iraqi
> war commander to more authority). Further, McCain is calling for
> troops for Afghanistan, also. There is no benefit or change to Iraq
> or Afghanistan war policy, no matter who gets elected into office.
> There is no anti-war President, and the same commanders will run
> the war, regardless of who gets the White House.
-----
So once again, there is NO suggestion by you that the United States'
troops should leave Afghanistan. No, your "point" was ONLY to try to
*claim* there was no difference between Obama and McCain in the way
that Afghanistan war would be run.
Again there was never the slightest suggestion in all of your posts
during this time that the USA should "Bring our troops home, NOW and
secure our borders". *NEVER.*
But now, let's get to the REAL TRUTH behind your recent rantings and
ravings *claiming* the Taliban are "no threat" to the USA and its
citizens and and Afghanistan has *nothing* to do with the War on
Terror.
-----
In 2009 --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/45d5ac475988a668?hl=en&dmode=source
Re: Obama Reveals Afghanistan Military Plans Were Fake Campaign
Promises
On Feb 8 [2009], 12:52 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> One note. I've been saying it will be hard and bloody in
> Afghanistan for months. But, my solution is NOT surrender, as
> Obama has chosen. What I have said is that you will need A>
> MUCH MORE TROOPS than is being proposed, B> a MUCH
> higher defense budget, and C> SUPPORT FROM A PRESIDENT
> THAT TELLS US WHY WE NEED TO GO TO WAR (WITH
> WARNINGS OF WHAT IS TO COME)...not surrender from an
> anti-war President. Just because it will be hard doesn't make
> it wrong. How is it that we can spend a trillion dollars on road
> construction, condemns, and social services, but we cannot
> spend enough money to actually GET THE JOB DONE in
> the war on terror?
-----
* AND *
-----
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/msg/fd9e60e75a2ad52e?hl=en&dmode=source
Re: Obama Surrenders in Afghanistan
On Mar 27 [2009], 5:16 am, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> It's hilarious how much dictatorial power Obama has to use the press
> as propaganda tools. I see a news story that says Obama is increasing
> the troops in Afghanistan. So, it sounds like he is committing the US
> to the war there...right?
> Yes...that's how it SOUNDS. Yet, then, in the article...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_afghanistan
> ...we read the following....
> "Obama plans to send in 4,000 more U.S. military troops, whose mission
> will be to train and expand the Afghan army to take the lead on
> counterterrorism. He also plans to send in hundreds more U.S.
> civilians to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their nation."
> Get that? Obama is sending the new troops with the mission of
> training Afghanistan to take over in the war....much like we are doing
> in Iraq, right now. Thus, these troops are not being sent in advance
> party of more U.S. troops to the war, there. They are being sent to
> prepare for our withdrawal, before we have done ANYTHING new to win
> the war there or caught any major elements of Al Queda that OBAMA said
> were there. Thus, he is preparing for SURRENDER. This is perfectly
> in line with his retasking of the troops, earlier this week, from
> fighting a "war on terror" to conducting "overseas contingency
> operations." He'll probably need the troops for imposing martial law.
> IF Obama was a muslim or a terrorist ally (I believe he IS the
> latter), what would he have done differently so far, since he has
> promised withdrawal from Iraq, started withdrawal from Afghanistan,
> ordered the closure of our terrorist jail, renamed the war from being
> the war on terror, and shuned U.S. military equipment sales to our
> allies to defend them. Bin Ladin even said years ago that his goal
> was to sink our economy and make us a third world country, and Obama
> is getting it done. Seriously, how would it look ANY different?
So Kennie! In these two posts (and there are many others by you of
the same nature during these months) what was your *claim*? You were
*claiming* that President Obama wanted to *abandon* the war on terror
against the Taliban and Afghanistan. You claim he wants to
*surrender* AND that you *believe* Obama is a terrorist himself!
That after previously *claiming* Obama was *not* an "anti-war"
President, you started to *claime* he is "anti-war"!!!
WHAT CHANGED IN ALL THOSE YEARS, CLIFTON, so that now you are suddenly
saying that our nation should just retreat from Afghanistan because
they are not a threat to us -- when for at least FOUR YEARS you were
repeatedly *claiming* over and over that fighting the Taliban in
Afghanistan was an very important part of the War on Terror, that you
NEVER once suggested our troops should be pulled-out of Afghanistan
while W. Bush was in office,.and even *claiming* that Obama was going
to SURRENDER to the Taliban and leave that country?!
While you, Kenneth Clifton, in fact stated:that YOUR "solution is NOT
surrender"! Yet *now* you *claim* want our troops to retreat!
What's changed? Huh?
W. Bush is no longer President. NEVER once did you ever suggest our
troops be pulled out of Afghanistan to stop fighting the War on Terror
there against the Taliban there -- the Taliban who you stated were
most certainly part of"international terrorist operations"!
Now we have President Obama. He is continuing and building up our
troop strength in Afghanistan. Exactly what *YOU* previously wanted
Obama to do, Clifton!
YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL LIAR, KENNETH CLIFTON.
After years of saying *nothing* against the War on Terror in
Afghanistan when W. Bush was President AND *claiming* now President
Obama would "surrender" to the Taliban, for which you repeatedly and
viciously condemned him.
AND NOW that President Barack Obama *IS* fighting the War on Terror in
Afghanistan -- *suddenly* you are are *claiming* there IS no terrorist
threat from the Taliban, that the war in that country is a mistake,
and that we should pull-out our troops from Afghanistan -- actually
*surrendering* to the terrorists, the Taliban -- something you
*claimed* you would NEVER DO.
All of this bitching and moaning and boo-hoo of yours, Clifton, has
*NOTHING* to do with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
No, Kenneth Clifton, all of this recent, fucking, hypocritical, lying
bullshit of yours is because of YOUR BLIND, VICIOUS, TWISTED *HATRED*
OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.
You're such a fucking asshole, Clifton.
-Tom Sr.
Major Debacle
Yeah, Kennie... what *he* said!
The_Carpathia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well...hello Oliver North...I do not recall it at this time...Then, I
don't recall you pledging allegience to our flag, and nothing you say
will change that recollection.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Tom Sr.
IT'S TIME TO STOP LYING, KENNETH CLIFTON.
None of your recent bullshit has anything to do with the United
States' war in Afghanistan against the Taliban.
Past posts by you, under your "The_Carpathia" email address, *PROVES*
you clearly understood the Taliban are terrorists and supported
terrorism and are a serious *threat* to our nation and its people.
Citations:
-----
In 2004 --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/msg/b63d4baf9646180c?...
-----I
In 2008 --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/8a44ea5da1edec1d?hl=...
-----
In 2009 --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/45d5ac475988a668?hl=...
Re: Obama Reveals Afghanistan Military Plans Were Fake Campaign
Promises
On Feb 8 [2009], 12:52 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> One note. I've been saying it will be hard and bloody in
> Afghanistan for months. But, my solution is NOT surrender, as
> Obama has chosen. What I have said is that you will need A>
> MUCH MORE TROOPS than is being proposed, B> a MUCH
> higher defense budget, and C> SUPPORT FROM A PRESIDENT
> THAT TELLS US WHY WE NEED TO GO TO WAR (WITH
> WARNINGS OF WHAT IS TO COME)...not surrender from an
> anti-war President. Just because it will be hard doesn't make
> it wrong. How is it that we can spend a trillion dollars on road
> construction, condemns, and social services, but we cannot
> spend enough money to actually GET THE JOB DONE in
> the war on terror?
-----
* AND *
-----
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/msg/fd9e60e75a2ad52e?...
The_Carpathia
> ....
>
> IT'S TIME TO STOP LYING, KENNETH CLIFTON.
It is true that I have wavered on my opposition to the war in
Afghanistan, and my FIRST thread opposing this war last week began
with "I've come 180..." So, what's new? It's also true that I oppose
Obama, as does half of America...again, what's new? It's also true
that I condemned Bush over the Iraq war multiple times, calling for
his impeachment over it...so, my opposition to the wars isn't
partisan.
It's also true that your opposition to Bush poilicies disappeared when
Obama was guilty of the SAME CRIMES....fucking partisan.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Tom Sr.
> On Jul 15, 6:43 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IT'S TIME TO STOP LYING, KENNETH CLIFTON.
> It is true that I have wavered on my opposition to the war in
> Afghanistan, and my FIRST thread opposing this war last week began
> with "I've come 180..." So, what's new?
What is *new* is Barack Obama is now President, and not W. Bush, and
that your blind *hated* of Obama is why you are suddenly changing your
*belief* about the war of terror against the Taliban -- which you have
proven, in your own words, you *DO* the facts and justification for
our fighting in Afghanistan.
Nothing you have post in recent days has in any way contradicted those
truths.
And are you really so foolish to believe that our *military* troops
could be brought back to patrol our borders?! That would be a serious
violation of out Constitution which clearly separates military action
from civil law-enforcement.
For the US military to patrol our borders, martial law would have to
be declared. Do you *seriously* want Obama declaring martial law so
this could happen?
> It's also true that I oppose Obama, as does half of America...again,
> what's new?
Nothing new since you are still LYING, Clifton.
A Gallup poll from July 10-12 shows an overall approval rating of 58%
for President Obama and disapproval of 36%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121685/Obama-Praised-Effort-Knocked-Spending.aspx
Just over one-third is NOT half, Clifton, nor does it mean they
*oppose* Obama, as you do. Your extremely narrow world-view and your
hatred of Obama are seriously distorting your understanding of
Reality, Kennie.
You sin so very easily with your repeating baring of false witness.
Also for Obama what truly matters is not the short-term, but the long-
term. It took W. Bush and Company 8 years to destroy our economy.
The American public as a whole is unrealistic to think this could be
drastically changed for the better in just *SIX months* -- though
given the horrible effects this is having on so very many people
(including myself, Kenneth) the emotional impact is understandable.
There are some signs, such as the overall increasing stock market,
that our economy is improving, but with unemployment high and likely
to get higher -- because it is a *lagging* indicator of economic
health, people are of course badly frustrated and seriously worried.
> that I condemned Bush over the Iraq war multiple times, calling for
> his impeachment over it...so, my opposition to the wars isn't
> partisan.
Yet you are now repeatedly lying about the simply fact that is was Bin
Laden, *with* the aid of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, caused 9/11 -- even
though you are now lying that the Taliban had "nothing" to do with
those attacks -- nor the fact that both the Taliban and al-Qaeda
> It's also true that your opposition to Bush pollices disappeared when
> Obama was guilty of the SAME CRIMES....fucking partisan.
Oooh! Kennie swore!
You are truly a clueless moron, Kennie. Your depths of your sheer
stupidity never seems to end.
Start *trying* to cite proof of this claim of yours, liar.
First off, you will have to show how I can be a "partisan". Let's
start with the *fact* I am neither a Democrat *or* a Republican
(though I have voted for candidates of both parties and others). I'm
an Independent, Kennie, and have been for decades.
Ha ha.
I have almost 99% of the time disagreed with W. Bush on almost every
policy and position he has held.. The only thing I ever approved of
with him is his increased spending on our space program -- though, of
course, he even fucked that up by politicizing NASA scientists in his
blatant attempt to deny the realities of Climate Change.
As far as the war in Afghanistan, like most Americans and others, I
understood under international law, our justified retaliation against
the Taliban was and our current presence there is due to the facts
that they aided and abetted in an attack on the people of our United
States and through their continued support of their own terrorism and
that of al-Qaeda, they remain a serious thread to our citizens.
When our nation illegally *invaded* Iraq, a country that was not in
any way a threat to the United States people, I like many others were
totally appalled and disgusted with W. Bush -- not only for such a
crime, but because he then reduced our military strength in
Afghanistan -- the USA's *real* enemy* -- so he could fight a
completely unnecessary, immoral war.
Unlike YOU, Clifton, I *am* not trying to re-write history by denying
the truth of the past -- or by completely ignoring the real threat the
remain to the United States of America this day.
It is blatant obvious, as I suspect it is to most of the rational
readers of your posts, that you sudden "change" of opinion of the real
war on terrorism in Afghanistan comes from your completely irrational
HATRED OF OBAMA, and nothing else.
Since suddenly he is doing *exactly* what you wanted him to do with
that war, your twisted psychologically cannot allow you to actually
*support* Obama in this -- and so to continue your sick hatred of our
President, you must now "oppose" him on this.
This is, in reality, no change for you, Kenneth Clifton. For you with
your disturbed psychology, as I have previously stated, it does not
matter what the actual facts are about the terrorist Taliban and al-
Qaeda in Afghanistan and our nations fight against them. What is
vital to the continuation of your irrational *beliefs* is that you
must in all ways continue to HATE OBAMA. even if it means twisting
completely previous "beliefs" of yours.
You behavior is not surprising. For extreme fanatics, it is not
uncommon for them to suddenly flip 180 degrees -- as you have stated
yourself -- into believing the complete opposite of what your
previously did. For an excellent example of just such an individual,
I strongly suggest you learn much more about the political figure
Lindon LaRoush.
I will grant you this. It has been vary obvious to me for years now,
after reading many of your posts, that you truly lack any significate
or meaningful understanding or insight into yourself, your thinking,
and especially your *beliefs*, Kenneth.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if you *believe* your sudden
opposite to the United States war in Afghanistan is based of "facts",
since you lack the ability to see how your BLIND HATRED of Obama warps
your ability to comprehend Reality.
In other words, Clifton, I think you might actually be so foolish that
you actually *believe* your own lies to yourself.
But you won't, as usual, understand this.
-Tom Sr.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Yep...you disagreed with Bush...where have you disagreed with Obama,
fucking partisan? Of the two of us, I'm the only one that has
attacked both parties...moron.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
Sid9
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6889d83-656a-4702...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
You did not understand his post at all.
How dense can you be?
Where Americans stand:
Quinnipiac University Poll. June 23-29, 2009. N=3,063
registered voters nationwide. MoE � 1.8.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in
Congress are handling their job?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
6/23-29/09 29% 57% 14%
Tom Sr.
> You did not understand his post at all.
How true, Sid. It is, sadly, exactly what I expected of Kennie.
> How dense can you be?
It's more like "How deeply in psychotic denial can Clifton be?"
From his own posts, I think it is over-his-head-in-bullshit deep.
-Tom Sr.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> On Jul 15, 11:42 am, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > You did not understand his post at all.
>
> How true, Sid. It is, sadly, exactly what I expected of Kennie.
>
NEITHER of you have EVER attacked or condemned a Democrat for
anything...fucking partisans.
Kenneth W Clifton
www.myspace.com/kenclifton
The Wandering Poet
> On Jul 15, 11:52 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 11:42 am, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > You did not understand his post at all.
>
> > How true, Sid. It is, sadly, exactly what I expected of Kennie.
>
> NEITHER of you have EVER attacked or condemned a Democrat for
> anything...fucking partisans.
I've never attacked Democrat or a Republican on Usenet. I don't
believe in attacking people. Why do you? I have disagreed with
things that people in both parties have done (and if you want to find
out what they are, do your own search). I generally don't post on
Usenet to speak my mind about what someone may or may not have done.
I post on Usenet to correct misconceptions and outright fallacies--
usually posted by you.
And I know you won't respond to this because "you've broken off
contact with me" but I don't care. You nearly never read or post to
any threads that you don't start and you act like you're the only
thing that matters on Usenet. You think you're changing the world
here when in reality you only reach about 30 people with your rantings
and ravings. Usenet is not a majority of the public and the sooner
you realize that the better off you'll be.
>
> Kenneth W Cliftonwww.myspace.com/kenclifton