Will there be a regime change in 2008? - Page 11 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #101 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 01:13 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Looks like what she said was that the protests could spin out of control.

Bot




Rice Warns Cartoon Protests Could 'Spin Out of Control'


By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad could "spin out of control" unless governments moved to keep them in check.

The protests continued around the world today, although without most of the violence that has left around a dozen people dead.

More at NY Times
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 01:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 3:13 PM

Looks like what she said was that the protests could spin out of control.

Bot




Rice Warns Cartoon Protests Could 'Spin Out of Control'


By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad could "spin out of control" unless governments moved to keep them in check.

The protests continued around the world today, although without most of the violence that has left around a dozen people dead.

More at NY Times
If that's what she said then she is a hypocrite to the nth degree. It suits her to say that when the topic can bring some anti-American undertone, but if the protests were say about and against those same governments that she urged to crack down on the populace then she would have come out kicking about the lack of freedom of speech to voice opinion. As I am writing this Washington is putting in motion ways to create internal strife in Iran to soften that government in the event of an attack (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036145,00.html : “NEOCONSERVATIVES in Washington are urging President George W Bush to drop diplomacy with Iran in favour of boosting internal dissent and opposition forces within the Islamic regime.�
Go figure!
Shabah is offline  
post #103 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 03:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Shabah - 2/12/2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 3:13 PM

Looks like what she said was that the protests could spin out of control.

Bot




Rice Warns Cartoon Protests Could 'Spin Out of Control'


By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad could "spin out of control" unless governments moved to keep them in check.

The protests continued around the world today, although without most of the violence that has left around a dozen people dead.

More at NY Times
If that's what she said then she is a hypocrite to the nth degree. It suits her to say that when the topic can bring some anti-American undertone, but if the protests were say about and against those same governments that she urged to crack down on the populace then she would have come out kicking about the lack of freedom of speech to voice opinion. As I am writing this Washington is putting in motion ways to create internal strife in Iran to soften that government in the event of an attack (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036145,00.html : “NEOCONSERVATIVES in Washington are urging President George W Bush to drop diplomacy with Iran in favour of boosting internal dissent and opposition forces within the Islamic regime.�
Go figure!
I think what she said was that if the protests continue to escalate and governments don't get involved that the protests will get dangerously violent.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #104 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 03:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 5:03 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/12/2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 3:13 PM

Looks like what she said was that the protests could spin out of control.

Bot




Rice Warns Cartoon Protests Could 'Spin Out of Control'


By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad could "spin out of control" unless governments moved to keep them in check.

The protests continued around the world today, although without most of the violence that has left around a dozen people dead.

More at NY Times
If that's what she said then she is a hypocrite to the nth degree. It suits her to say that when the topic can bring some anti-American undertone, but if the protests were say about and against those same governments that she urged to crack down on the populace then she would have come out kicking about the lack of freedom of speech to voice opinion. As I am writing this Washington is putting in motion ways to create internal strife in Iran to soften that government in the event of an attack (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036145,00.html : “NEOCONSERVATIVES in Washington are urging President George W Bush to drop diplomacy with Iran in favour of boosting internal dissent and opposition forces within the Islamic regime.�
Go figure!
I think what she said was that if the protests continue to escalate and governments don't get involved that the protests will get dangerously violent.

Bot
Spin the interpretation Bot, you and I know exactly what she meant: You will riot only if it pleases our agendas...
Shabah is offline  
post #105 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 03:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Shabah - 2/12/2006 5:07 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 5:03 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/12/2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 3:13 PM

Looks like what she said was that the protests could spin out of control.

Bot




Rice Warns Cartoon Protests Could 'Spin Out of Control'


By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad could "spin out of control" unless governments moved to keep them in check.

The protests continued around the world today, although without most of the violence that has left around a dozen people dead.

More at NY Times
If that's what she said then she is a hypocrite to the nth degree. It suits her to say that when the topic can bring some anti-American undertone, but if the protests were say about and against those same governments that she urged to crack down on the populace then she would have come out kicking about the lack of freedom of speech to voice opinion. As I am writing this Washington is putting in motion ways to create internal strife in Iran to soften that government in the event of an attack (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036145,00.html : “NEOCONSERVATIVES in Washington are urging President George W Bush to drop diplomacy with Iran in favour of boosting internal dissent and opposition forces within the Islamic regime.�
Go figure!
I think what she said was that if the protests continue to escalate and governments don't get involved that the protests will get dangerously violent.

Bot
Spin the interpretation Bot, you and I know exactly what she meant: You will riot only if it pleases our agendas...
She's directly quoted in that NY Times article. She said that governments will have problems with violent riots if they don't take action.

Read it an dweep.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #106 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 03:31 PM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

The executive branch's ego seriously needs to be checked. Rice is now telling not only the U.S. of manipulation A. what to do but she has the gall to tell the rest of the civilized world what to do regarding free press. It is no wonder the world views us with such disdain and thinks we are A1 hypocrits.
Shane is offline  
post #107 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 07:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Shane - 2/12/2006 5:31 PM

The executive branch's ego seriously needs to be checked. Rice is now telling not only the U.S. of manipulation A. what to do but she has the gall to tell the rest of the civilized world what to do regarding free press. It is no wonder the world views us with such disdain and thinks we are A1 hypocrits.
Yeah, she sure is breaking new ground with that one, huh?
Botnst is offline  
post #108 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 08:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
Botnst - 2/12/2006 2:42 PM

Inquiry Into Wiretapping Article Widens
Jason Reed/ReutersDirector of National Intelligence John Negroponte, left, spoke this month at a Senate hearing on threats to the United States. With him were C.I.A. Director Porter J. Goss and F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III.
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.

The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.

The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information.

Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less."

The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference.

Redundantly more at NY Times
I wonder how the context of this interview and report would change if the conclusion is the domestic wiretapping, whether cloaked in secrecy or not, is deemed illegal. I would guess your view, and some of the other Bush supporters, would not change even though the crime would be impeachable. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #109 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 08:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
MS Fowler - 2/12/2006 12:21 PM

One of the main issues for the midterm elections this year will be this impeachment issue. You can be sure that if the dems cain control of either the House or the Senate, they will bring the charges.

The issue, as I see it framed by the administration is not related to FISA courts. It is an Atricle 2 issue--the ongoing struugle between the legislative and the executive branches.
Does Congree have the legal ability to pass a law ( other than a Constitutional Amendment) that takes away Constitutionally-defined Powers of the President?
I really wish the dems could offer something more than " I hate Bush" and "We're not like them" I hear there is an underground revolt brewing among some of the younger dems to repudiate the current leadership of Pelossi, Kennedy, et al.. It will be interesting to watch.
I agree, even though I find the present regime in power an offense to the essence of being American, that an opposition position other than whining would offer a greater potential to uprooting the squatters in power today.

On another point, I have yet to find any Constitutional authority granted the President to defy Congress on the subject of abridging the First Ammendment's provisions by authorizing secret spying on American citizens within our borders. The concept of telephones and the internet were not envisioned at the time the Constitution was written, so Congress made provisions for obtaining court orders that maintained the desired secrecy while still ensuring judicial oversight. Why this path was abandoned should be explored.

This, afterall is an administration that claimed there were WMD in Iraq, and that Iraq was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda, and that Iraq represented the greatest, imminent peril to the United States of all axis of evil or adjacent threats on the globe, all of which has turned out to be bunk. If the reason they abandoned the legal, established path to having the wiretapping authorized by the courts was the evidence to strip American citizens of their right to expect their privacy to remain intact was a little less than convincing, leading to delays or denials, then the action is even more reprehensible. The path was chosen to specifically circumvent a check and balance inserted by Congress because they were failing to meet the standard of the court for spying on Americans.

This administration has repeatedly taken the simple, direct and often least effort path to achieve its goals. Unfortunately the lack of effort has also led to selecting the wrong path over and over. They suggested Iraq was to blame for 9-11, that they had WMD, including nukes, invade in spite of UN weapons inspectors reports there are no WMD, then, afterwards find out there were no WMD and no ties to Al-Qaeda. They then expected to be welcomed by Iraqis based on collecting information from apparently nothing more than convenient sources providing data that appealed to the administration's prejudices concerning Iraq, get surprised and dragged into a Vietnam-like quagmire due to the insurgents. We find out there are no contingency plans - it is a die or get maimed as you go event with Americans the bait for frantic nuts seeking to become martyrs. Thousands of American casualties and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties later, not much has changed. The full description of the administration's plan is to "stay the course" which is actually no more than a slogan.

American troops get confusing instructions about what is torture and what isn't, with emphasis on goals and intentions to extract information from the prisoners. Graphic photos of prisoner abuse appear. America is likened to the sadistic sons of Sadam Hussein throughout the Middle East, Europe, South America and Asia (most of the rest of the world). We are found to be outsourcing to the "stans" various unsavory interogation techniques. America again loses stature in the international community. The list of blunders is endless. And we are supposed to just fall in line for "war on terror" which will "have no end" that requires we sacrifice our Constitution to meet the present regime's need for expediency and lack of effort. I hope not. Not this time. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #110 of 147 (permalink) Old 02-12-2006, 09:38 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Will there be a regime change in 2008?

Quote:
chiphomme - 2/12/2006 1:44 PM
You keep talking about treason. Again put up or shut up. You still haven't cited anything remotely treasonable. And you haven't shown anything that rises to impeachment level.
Did you know that the Clinton administration asserted the President has the power you're now calling a crime. Though I disagree with the wiretapping it's merely a question of the other two branches putting limits on it, not bringing charges and jailing people.
Well, you and I differ on the definition of treason. I think selling classified information for personal gain is treason. That is what the DISCO was concerned about, and made clear when you were given a clearance to work on classified programs. In this case the selling was leaking and it was again for personal gain. I see it as the same affront - disloyalty to the nation for personal gain. But feel free to have a different opinion. Neither of our opinions on this will amount to squat in the end.

I could care less what the Clinton Administration asserted at this point. Did they authorize secret wiretaps of American citizens contrary to the FISA provisions? I don't know. If you want to find out and prosecute Clinton, be my guest. It would have made a lot more sense than impeaching him for lying about a blow job.

The question is all about checks and balances and what motivated the present regime to ignore the FISA provisions. If the wiretaps are illegal, which remains to be debated and determined, but if they are, then a crime has been committed, over and over and over.

My personal concerns lie in the area of proving the American citizen involved is consorting with an actual Al-Qaeda operative. I think proving that is pretty difficult, and, given this administration's record of being precise about things like that, I would find the standard for proving this premise of associating with an Al-Qaeda is likely pretty low. Or non existent. Something the wiretap is most likely being used to find out. Which is illegal and offensive to me, and should be, if it is true, to you. But those are suspicions of mine, and, no matter how biased they might be, the President and his regime deserve a day or two in court over the subject before being impeached. But, again, if and only if the spying is found illegal, they should all be impeached or prosecuted as appropriate. Jim

JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome