Damn, I bet Bob Iger's e-mail spam filter is getting a workout. Do you actually think he is going to read your bullshit?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

International. Which is why I said kind of. I'm sure that it's perfectly legal for Americans to have prisons in other countries, not following American law.

Helene

__________________
Don't make me seem like the unhealthy crazy one, when you're the one who wouldn't tell me what to do!

Yes, there is a need for covert CIA operations, I'm sure.

I figure it's important to fight along those rules that allow you to win, at least... But then you realize it stops being the good guys vs the bad guys, it's just us vs them.

Helene

__________________
Don't make me seem like the unhealthy crazy one, when you're the one who wouldn't tell me what to do!

Michael Moore annoys me to no end. He hurts more than he helps. But then, I'm not a Clinton apologist. And I don't have a problem with Bush on ideological grounds as much as I have with his incompetence.

Helene

__________________
Don't make me seem like the unhealthy crazy one, when you're the one who wouldn't tell me what to do!

You think I am wrong. What? You don't believe that in the cold war, the US interfered internationally, to stop countries from turning communists? You don't believe that the Soviet Union was fighting against Afghans during that time period? You don't believe the US tried to help the Afghans in their fight against the Soviet Union? You don't believe that after Vietnam, they'd rather train Afghans than send American soldiers? You don't believe that it'd take about 35,000 Afghans (and other fundamentalists) to fight the Soviet Union effectively?

I mean, it's not that I don't understand the US's motives. It's hardly an accusation. It's just really stupid to think "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Which is what the US did. And it backfired later on.
But, I see it... you need a link. And, then, if I give a link to a wrong site, with an ideology you don't support, you can dismiss it. Am I right or am I right?
I'll give you a couple, and perhaps you'll find one you can't dismiss:
http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/cg....2/prados.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Well, he could just be lying not to deceive them, but to protect them, or to protect secrets that can't come out.

No, it just makes you appear uninformed. It's been all over the news lately. Pick up a newspaper, and read. I'm sure they've stopped printing about Terri Schiavo by now.

Helene

__________________
Don't make me seem like the unhealthy crazy one, when you're the one who wouldn't tell me what to do!

Actually Helene, the accusation you made was

"I don't know which American president funded the Afghani terrorism against the Soviet Union, but they certainly did train about 35,000 of them. And yes, that became the taliban

None of your sources say that. Don't get in a hissy-fit, I'm just asking you to back up your unsubstantiated anti-American defamitory disinformation.

Instead of backing it up, you try to prove a specific proposition by pleading a general conclusion. 'Round here we call that ass-backwards non-logic.

Where did you get this specific information that the US trained 35,000 people who became the Taliban?

I think you are lying, can you back up that claim or not? I think you should back it up or retract it. In other words, I'm calling you out on this claim.

Can you quote the alleged lie and prove it is a lie?

So then, you can't back that up either. What prison did Bush deny existed? I think you are just making this shit up too.

What is the name of this prison, when did Bush deny it existed, and where is it located? Only in your imagination perhaps?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't get hissy-fits. What you are having, is a hissy-fit. Calling what I said unsubstantiated anti-American defamitory disinformation, is having a hissy-fit.

I'm not sure which part you think my souces don't support, so I'll address the two things you might have an issue with:

Now, from one of my sources:
"However, he never mentions that the "tens of thousands of fanatical Muslim fundamentalists" the CIA armed are some of the same people who in 1996 killed 19 American airmen at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; blew a hole in the side of the U.S. destroyer Cole in Aden harbor in 2000; and on Sept. 11, 2001, flew hijacked airliners into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

Admittedly, it doesn't say 35,000. It says tens of thousands. I can find sources that specify 35,000. But I think you and I can agree that tens of thousands of muslim fundamentalists that later went on to perform all kinds of terrorist attacks against the US is accurate enough? Or are you really keen on the 35,000? Ok ok:

"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=368

Oh, and you're going to love this:
"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=368

From the source I already gave:
"For the CIA legally to carry out a covert action, the president must authorize a document called a finding. Crile repeatedly says that Carter signed such a finding ordering the CIA to provide covert backing to the moujahedeen after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on Dec. 24, 1979. The truth of the matter is that Carter signed the finding on July 3, 1979, six months before the Soviet invasion, and he did so on the advice of his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in order to try to provoke a Russian incursion. Brzezinski has confirmed this sequence of events in an interview with a French newspaper, and former CIA Director Robert M. Gates says so explicitly in his 1996 memoirs."
http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

So, perhaps you just don't believe that those muslim radicals that the US trained and supplied in Afghanistan later on became the Taliban?

I'm just not sure which part you are contesting, so I was asking a question. Instead of answering, you just apply label and attack what I say, without actually knowing anything about the topic.

*shudders* oh my oh my... so now I should see whether one of the sources actually explicitly says that those muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan in the 80s did in fact turn into the Taliban? I mean... I don't know where you think the Taliban came from... hold on, hold on

"The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 16.

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=368

What am I? Your personal education and information centre? Aren't you even remotely interested in your own government and politics? What are you doing on this forum? I expect people to at least be up to date on the latest developments when they come into the forum. Is all you can do is say: "lies lies lies!"

"WASHINGTON Sep 6, 2006 (AP)— President Bush has transferred 14 key terrorist leaders from secret CIA custody to the U.S. military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be prepared for eventual trials, a senior administration official said Wednesday."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...2400844&page=1

Secret CIA custody.
"The CIA programme had caused some friction with European allies. Some EU lawmakers said the CIA carried out clandestine flights to transport terror suspects.

Dick Marty, who investigated the issue of secret CIA prisons for the Council of Europe, said it was now up to European governments to reveal what they know about secret CIA prisons in Europe. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5321606.stm

Oh, and as for it having been denied previously:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110101644.html

OH, and please, in the future, be more specific about WHICH parts you don't believe. So I don't have to quote too much. Oh, and actually READ the links I provide. It helps. Think of it as informing yourself.

And your act of: "it's the US, it can't do anything bad or wrong" comes across as really silly and partisan.

Helene

__________________
Don't make me seem like the unhealthy crazy one, when you're the one who wouldn't tell me what to do!

Everyone lies, they may lie to their doctors, they may lie to their spouses, their teachers, children. The fact that someone tells a lie does not make them a liar (repeated action does this) further it matters what the lie is, and why it was told.

Sure Clinton should have come out and told the republicans to get over themselves and the fact that they weren't getting any (w/o paying), but he didn't, and was the country any worse off because of the lie? No it was worse off because republicans wasted money over investigating it.

And you want a lie? Howabout that the president has the constitutional power to wiretap without a warrant? That torture is legal, that Saddam had WMDs, that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda, that the president can attach signing statements declaring his intent to violate standing law, that the president can make up his own laws to try alleged war criminals in complete contravention of the geneva convention.

If you're looking for a pathological liar you're looking at the wrong president. Clinton was merely responded like anyone would in his position.

Oh, Samantha..... Paging Samantha....

Maybe you didn't notice this the first time, so I'll post it for you again:

Note: Gellman is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, who was writing for the post. He clearly documents the opportunity Clinton had, and concludes that Clinton didn't make the effort.

Matt

Sorry to disagree, but believe it or not, there are people that not only don't lie, but also don't cheat on their spouses. Your defense of Clinton doesn't wash, if he had been a decent man and husband , he'd have not had the need to lie in the first place.

Back to Bush (even though this thread isn't about Bush, read the title please) I say it again:
If there had been the evidence that an intentional lie had been told intended to decieve the American people, he'd have faced what Clinton did.

__________________
Mr. Obama, please release the UFO files!

Everyone has told lies. They only thing which differs is what they have told them about.

You're logic doesn't follow. That a person is a philanderer does not mean that they are therefore immoral in any other regard. For that matter Bush was a cocaine addict, all that tells us is that he has an addictive personality.

Are you kidding me? Since he hasn't faced it yet, pretty much disproves what you just said.

OK, how about a citizen asking for the TRUTH to be depicted rather than outright falsehoods?
Are you defending ABC concocting LIES and presenting it as FACT ?
Regardless of what you think of any one person, is it responsible to lie, slander and defame that individual
simply because you do not agree with them?

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

Clinton declined to expose his private life to the public... to a frenchman, it sounds like the one at fault here is the american public/media, for asking unreasonable questions. Lying about an extramarital adventure isn't really relevant when it comes to having presidential charges.

If the media had asked Clinton about the size of his thing, and if he had lied because he is complexed about it, would he be considered "a liar" who you can "never trust"? (cf MattLarson).

Here, a book has just been published about the sex lives of the political men & women of the last few decades. And there's much to say about our last few presidents, apparantly. Yet, nobody seems to care about it, except for the entertainment value. Different cultures I guess

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

It isn't the WHOLE American Citizenry, only the Puritan element that has had a resurgency in recent years.
If anyone actually takes a hard look at the so-called Christian Right,
they might be surprised to find how similar that group is to the Taliban.

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission