|
|
September 01 The Republicans are hypocrites! If they are going to demand Craig's resignation, they should have demanded the resignation of cheater and self-confessed "sinner" Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) too. They keep telling us they are to party with morals. I say they are the party of HYPOCRITES!
(Vitter is in his first Senate term after serving six years in the House. Sen. David Vitter’s name appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," and he issued a confession saying: "This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," He claimed it was before he was elected Senator, but did not deny it was while he was serving as a House member. During his Senate campaign, Vitter was also accused by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee of carrying on a lengthy affair with a prostitute in New Orleans's French Quarter.)
Now, do you want to discuss the affairs of Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani?
Sen. Craig announces resignation - Politics - MSNBC.com
May 21
| Gardiner: 5/5/2007 8:35:00 AM
|
+2
|
| |
I read the comments on the KSL blog before reading the comments on the Trib blog. It was like the KSL bloggers saw a different “debate” than the Trib bloggers. (I felt truly sad reading the KSL blog.)
The KSL bloggers didn’t seem to hear any of the facts that Rocky listed. I would have to characterize their comments as “Bush is my President and he makes no mistakes.” They mostly said, “Rocky’s facts were all lies or I didn’t hear Rocky say anything meaningful.” For some of the KSL bloggers, I wonder if they listened at all when Rocky spoke. (Never let the truth get in the way of what I believe.) I wonder how they can be so blind? I can accept that they reject Rocky’s conclusion that we should impeach Bush, but when they reject the documented facts as lies, it really makes me worry for our future as a nation. Many of the pro-Bush supporters resort to the same tactics that Hannity used; i.e. attack the messenger (Rocky), label him, and call him names. Attacking prior Presidents and specific Democrats (Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Reed) does nothing to reduce Bush’s responsibility (accountability) for the mess in Iraq. Bush is the President, the leader and has more responsibility than anyone else! Blind obedience to a lying President truly bothers me. (Yes I believe the Congress is culpable in this mess and should be removed from office, but lets start at the top first. Question: did Congress have all the facts (intelligence) when they turned the War making decision over to the President, or did they just trust that Bush was telling the truth?)
When I read the comments on this (Trib.) blog, I was encouraged. At least there are some people who listened to the facts, and do not blindly follow the President.
I can accept Hannity’s logic that if we pull out now it means that we have lost the War and Iraq could become a greater training ground for terrorists, but I have to wonder if we stay, can we ever kill ALL the millions of Shiites that hate us and their children that are now in training to be the future terrorist (insurgents.) If another country invaded our country and took power away from “we the people,”
would we ever give up fighting a guerilla war to inflict heavy damages on the enemy? I would hope not, and I don’t believe it will ever happen in Iraq, unless we kill every last Shiite, and I don’t think that will ever happen. If we did kill every last Shiite, then we would be no better than Saddam. (And what about the Shiites in the other Moslem nations, how would they respond?) I really believe we are in a no-win situation. It is better to cut our loses now and get out.
KSL bloggers scare me and make me sad. Trib bloggers give me hope. The journey ahead is filled with no easy answers.
___________________________________
| Gardiner: 5/5/2007 9:52:00 AM
|
+2
|
| |
massman said: "Furthermore, according to an April 27, 2007 article in The Washington Times, at least one senator who was on the intelligence committee (Richard J. Durbin) states that even some of the information the committe did have access to was in "direct contradiction" with what White House was saying publically."
Let us remember that Orrin Hatch sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. (I know, this sound like a oxymoron.) Does Hatch do anything except blindly follow his Republican President? Hatch should be investigated and if he knew that much of Bush’s evidence on Iraq were lies, he should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE! If you can‘t impeach a Senator, we certainly MUST NOT RE-ELECT HIM NEXT TIME!)
|
|
| Gardiner: 4/28/2007 2:20:00 PM
|
+4
|
| |
As to whether this is an illegal war or not, I will defer to Judge BRUCE S. JENKINS, Senior U.S. District Judge. He has served as a federal district judge in Salt Lake City since 1978. He served in the Utah Legislature from 1959 to 1965, his final year as Senate president. He has published several articles stating his belief that this is an illegal war.
________________
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb? Search: "Bruce S. Jenkins"
Feb 10, 2007 Congress must reassert war powers
...In the allocation of governmental power, the founders placed the power to declare war in the legislative branch. The words of the Constitution are plain. Section 8 of Article 1 says, "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war . . . ." They did this deliberately and with full appreciation of the hard lessons of history, particularly British, French, Roman and Greek history.
The design was to limit the power of one man to take the nation into war. They taught that the decision to start a war, and the inevitable cost in lives and treasure, foreseen and unforeseen, required that the nation make such a critical decision through its representatives in Congress, and to announce such group decision by a declaration.
The president has no power to declare war. The judiciary has no power to declare war. The legislative branch, and it alone, has the power to declare war.
To date, the Congress has not declared war against anyone, including Iraq. Yet the president calls himself a wartime president. The Congress has funded a war, off budget, that has yet to be declared. The failure to declare implicates international treaties and agreements, including how we treat prisoners...
...A principal reason for the mess (although not the only one) is that Congress did not do its constitutionally mandated job. Starting a war is the responsibility of Congress. That is the way our forefathers decided it should be.
Among other things, Congress made two major mistakes: First, it delegated the war decision to the president. It gave him the power to decide to go to war or not. That is what the congressional resolution says. Some responsibilities the Congress cannot delegate. That is one of them. Its job is to decide on war or peace. But Congress lost its voice. It passed a resolution which shifted the power and responsibility to another. It delegated the actual responsibility for the decision to the president, and in the process did the second wrong thing: It abdicated its responsibility to genuinely test the evidence for war, the justification for war and to evaluate the risks and the consequences to the interests of the United States...
___________
Judge Jenkins' writing is informative and interesting. If the above link does not work, go to the Utah Pioneer Library and search the SL Tribune articles published under the name of "BRUCE S. JENKINS"
Judge Jenkins' first "illegal war" article was printed September 19, 2004 "For ignoring constitutional war powers we reap the whirlwind"
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb? search "Bruce S. Jenkins"
I agree with Judge Jenkins that this is an illegal war and believe our elected Senators and Congressmen should be getting more of the blame. (Hatch serves on the Senate intelligence committee (an oxymoron if I ever heard one,)... He of all people should have known that our entry into Iraq was based on lies and taken action to assert his Senate authority and DO HIS SENATE JOB. I believe Senator Hatch should be investigated and impeached for not doing his job.
__________________________________________________ | |
| Mac the night: 4/27/2007 8:38:00 PM
|
+2
|
| |
For the readers who don't have a PH.D. in Liturature and I don't so I looked it up. "Vitroil" means extreme bitterness and and hatred toward somebody or something.
An "aserbic tongue" means bitter, caustic, acid, etc.
"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me". That will always be a classic.
How about this one?
"Roses are red violets are blue, Reid is a whimp and Polosi is too. The Sltib, formerly the West's most respected and Independent News Paper, has sadly turned blue.
Making an effort to be objective in thought and kind in manner, I have to admit there is a slight chance that "Iraqi Rocky "will kick Sean Hannity's butt in May Kingsbury Hall debate.
Go Rocky
__________________________________________________________________________
Gardiner: 4/27/2007 11:32:00 PM
+1
|
|
To Mac the night: The Trib isn't blue. You're forgetting that they endorsed Bush as President the last time around. I'd say they're schizo...I'd have to color them as plaid.
__________________
Sticks and stones: Attorney general blasts war critics
|
Tribune Editorial
Salt Lake Tribune
|
| Article Last Updated:04/27/2007 07:32:07 PM MDT
|
|
|
Take one Utah, the reddest of red states, and one Brigham Young University, a decidedly conservative college campus. Add a microphone, an adoring audience, and Dick Cheney - he of the acerbic tongue and quarrelsome manner. Mix, heat, stir and - voila! - you get vitriol.
So we're not surprised by the things that were said during Cheney's visit to BYU, where the vice president addressed the graduating class of 2007. We're just shocked by who said them.
Cheney was on his best behavior, making no mention of the war in Iraq, or the war in Washington D.C. over the war in Iraq, during his gracious 15-minute speech. But earlier, at a pro-Cheney rally outside the Provo City Library, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said everything that many thought the vice president might say about the war, and worse.
There was name-calling directed at war critics: Shurtleff dubbed Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson "Iraqi Rocky," and he christened Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "Hezbollah Harry."
There also were claims that those who support the troops by opposing the war are aiding the enemy.
And, after describing himself as a champion of dialogue, Shurtleff said this: "Free speech ends where the enemy benefits from your free speech." Wow! This for simply suggesting that the war is lost and that the troops should come home. We're glad Shurtleff is not on the U.S. Supreme Court.
It should be noted that the rally was scheduled to counter an anti-Cheney/war demonstration, where 300 protesters gathered peacefully and sang the National Anthem. They did not march, chant, scream, or, like Shurtleff, obfuscate.
Perhaps we can clear up a few things for the attorney general. First, sticks and stones may break Rocky's and Harry's bones, but names will never hurt them. In fact, when people resort to name-calling, it's often because, beneath the bombast, their arguments won't survive scrutiny.
Second, this country has a long, proud history of protest. Remember the Revolution, the marches for suffrage and civil rights, the demonstrations that helped end another lost war in Vietnam?
And finally, when public officials attack our basic freedoms, including our freedom of speech, it is, in a sense, a victory for our enemies. Like the president said, they hate us for our freedom.
|
|
___________________________________________
Gardiner: 4/27/2007 12:09:00 PM
|
+2
|
| |
"Free speech ends where the enemy benefits from your free speech," Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told the library crowd.
Republicans (Bush, Cheney, Hatch and Shurtleff) in an effort to squelch criticism continue to mouth this half-truth that any criticism of war efforts “embolden” the enemy.
The greater truth that we should have learned from Viet Nam is that a large super-power can not go into a smaller country and force it’s will on the people. A Guerilla war movement supported by a large group of the people in that country will win every time. They are fighting a guerilla war for their land, their families, and the freedoms that they choose. The Sunni minority are fighting for their “rights,” and they are a large enough group that they will fight this guerilla war for a very long time. We will not win in a long, drawn out guerilla war. They have time on their side, and they are fighting an invading army. (And living here in Utah we should know better than anyone that religious Zealots will never abandon their beliefs.)
We couldn’t win in Viet Nam, the Russians couldn’t win in Afghanistan, and the British couldn’t win in the Colonial United States. When will we ever learn?
____________________________________________
| Gardiner: 4/27/2007 12:18:00 PM
|
0
|
| |
Hey Warner Woodworth, I see your picture here. I took a Marketing class from you 30 years ago. Boy, you are sure getting old! (I think I look a little different too, but at least I still have my hair.) LOL
_______________________________________________
new_kid100000: 4/27/2007 5:35:00 PM
Gardiner: "squelch" is the wrong word. Vietnam was lost in the US, Afghanistan was lost in Russia when people lost their will. "When will we learn?" Soon I hope.
____________________________________
| Gardiner: 4/28/2007 3:46:00 PM
|
+1 |
To new_kid100000: If you like the words "suppress" or "censor" better than squelch, feel free to substitute one of those.
As for your comment, "Vietnam was lost in the US, Afghanistan was lost in Russia when people lost their will." I actually agree with you. An invading army will almost always loose it's will before the people that live there and who are fighting for their homeland, their families and their rights. Again, how do you think our own poor little country kicked the huge super-power (of its day) the British out. The British got tired of the loses and decided it wasn't worth it. Again, when will we ever learn (from history?)
_____________________________________________________
| Sidekick: 4/27/2007 8:43:00 AM
|
+5
|
| |
"Despite being challenged on everything from their piety to their sexuality ..."
Shouldn't that be the other way around? Wasn't it the pro-Cheney students shouting "WE LOVE DICK!"
_____________________________________________________________
Cheney demonstrators follow BYU conduct rules, but passers-by less civil
|
By Matthew D. LaPlante, Steve Gehrke
and Sheena McFarland
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
|
| Article Last Updated:04/27/2007 10:15:20 AM MDT
|
|
|
PROVO - How do you know you're big time? You're turning down requests to go on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart."
That's what Diane Bailey said she did this week. The BYU College Democrats president said she feared the indomitable Stewart would mock her school or her faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Snubbing one of the hottest talk shows on television might not be the best course of action for drawing attention to one's cause. But there was something decidedly unconventional about the protest that welcomed Vice President Dick Cheney to this ultra-conservative campus on Thursday.
For one thing, it was even allowed to occur.
"I've been here 38 years and this is a first," said BYU Police Capt. Mike Harroun, who spent the afternoon watching over the protesters - and the parade of disparaging drive-by detractors on University Boulevard that welcomed the demonstrators to Provo with calls of "traitors!," "losers!" and "we'll be praying for you!"
Despite being challenged on everything from their piety to their sexuality, the student group stuck to the rules written by BYU officials: No chanting, marching or screaming while on school property.
And most of the students even kept off the grass.
Would saintly behavior buy more opportunities to protest in the future? Several participants said they hoped so.
Indeed, BYU instructor Mary Bingham Lee said she didn't fear any repercussions would befall her for having taken part in the protest or appearing in protest videos which appeared online earlier this month.
About 300 people took up posts on three corners of an intersection leading into the school - a fourth was left vacant of protesters so that blacked-robed graduates could observe the tradition of having their picture taken next to a campus sign.
Still, not everyone was content with the protesters' conduct.
"I wish I had some water balloons," said facilities management graduate Travis Gividen as he stood across the street from a gathering group of demonstrators.
Gividen, a native of Corvallis, Mont., felt the protest was disrespectful to Cheney, the BYU graduates and their families.
"He's not here on a political campaign," he said. "He's here to speak to us. And they are disrespecting us, too."
Down the road, at a counter demonstration of about 50 people near the city library, Environmental Science student Allie Winegar took a tactful approach. "I respect my fellow students who have voiced their opinions and I honor and support their opinions," she said. "But I support the office of vice-president."
Cheney and others in the administration he represents, Winegar said "are doing the best they can."
Joshua Everett, who is graduating this year in Middle Eastern studies, planned to attend both the BYU graduation and the off-campus alternative commencement, organized by BYU students and featuring Ralph Nader as speaker.
"The protest is a healthy demonstration of political dialogue, and I want to show that I can be balanced and go to both," he said.
But even as students, in demonstrating the ability to remain civil in the midst of debate, seemed to be earning the privilege to protest on a private campus, some were questioning their right to do so anywhere.
"Free speech ends where the enemy benefits from your free speech," Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told the library crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
| Gardiner: 4/27/2007 10:00:00 AM
|
+3
| 
|  |
I am truly disappointed by this diatribe by the Attorney General. I thought he had more class than this. Is partisan name calling appropriate by a man in his position? As Utah's top lawyer, I would expect him to keep to the facts, or at least state logical reasons for his beliefs.
“He (Shurtleff) added that Americans too quickly forget Sept. 11, 2001.” Dick, Orrin, and now Mark infer that there was direct link of Iraq and the Sept 11th attacks. Study after study has failed to find the link, but that doesn't stop these good republicans from making the assertion. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, and if you repeat it enough, then everyone will believe it. I have lost a lot of respect for Mr. Shurtleff. I thought he was better than this.
___________________________
Gardiner: 4/27/2007 11:14:00 AM
|
+3
|
| |
The Republicans (Bush, Cheney, Shurtleff, and bloggers: rcpollitz, Alternate, and BioHaz) in an effort to squelch criticism continue to mouth this half-truth that any criticism of war efforts “embolden” the enemy.
The greater truth that we should have learned from Viet Nam is that a large super-power can not go into a smaller country and force it’s will on the people. A Guerilla war movement supported by a large group of the people in that country will win every time. They are fighting a guerilla war for their land, their families, and the freedoms that they choose. The Sunni minority are fighting for their “rights,” and they are a large enough group that they will fight this guerilla war for a very long time. We will not win in a long, drawn out guerilla war. They have time on their side, and they are fighting an invading army. (And living here in Utah we should know better than anyone that religious Zealots will never abandon their beliefs.)
We couldn’t win in Viet Nam, the Russians couldn’t win in Afghanistan, and the British couldn’t win in the Colonial United States. When will we ever learn?
_____________________________
bmcgee: 4/27/2007 7:37:00 AM
|
+3
|
| |
The founding fathers created the principle of Free Speech during a time of war. There are no caveats to their definition. And who gets to decide if some comment aids the enemy? How does someone become our Attorney General with such a flimsy grasp of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? The 'enemy' Shurtleff talks about is largely the creation of an administration hell-bent on a war which has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The beauty of America is that the PEOPLE determine the course of our laws and policies, not a diminishing collection of ivory-tower, iconoclastic chickenhawk warmongers like Shurtleff and those who think like him. If he wants to live in a country where there can be no dissent or discussion, let him move to Iran.
_________________________________
Ben Williams: 4/27/2007 6:29:00 AM
|
+4
|
| |
I thought Mark Shurtliff was above petty name calling. I thought Gee there's at least one fair Republican in Utah. Now I can see I am wrong.
______________________________
Shurtleff blasts war critics, says they aid the enemies
|
By Steve Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
|
| Article Last Updated:04/27/2007 01:31:51 AM MDT
|
|
|
PROVO - Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff lashed out at prominent critics of the Iraq war on Thursday during a rally for visiting Vice President Dick Cheney.
While lambasting skeptics who say the United States has lost the war in Iraq, Shurtleff referred to Salt Lake City's mayor as "Iraqi Rocky" Anderson and chided the U.S. Senate majority leader, calling him "Hezbollah Harry" Reid.
Utah's attorney general also drew parallels between Anderson and Reid, and Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally and Hanoi Hannah - a trio of radio propagandists who broadcast on behalf of Japan and Germany, and North Vietnam during World War II and the Vietnam War, respectively.
Shurtleff accused the Salt Lake City mayor of using the national stage to further his own interests, in the process giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
And though he described himself as a champion of dialogue, he said there must be limits.
"When 'Hezbollah Harry' says we've lost the war, that's reported to the troops, to insurgents, to Hezbollah and Hamas," Shurtleff said.
And that, he added, contributes to the proliferation of bombs and IEDs - improvised explosive devices - that kill and injure U.S. troops in Iraq.
"We are at war with an enemy who wants to kill you," Shurtleff told a crowd of around 50 people, mostly Cheney supporters, as they gathered on the lawn outside Provo's Academy Library. "Now I hear an Al-Jazeera reporter is here in town looking for every criticism and put that into the hands of the enemy."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deep Waters...or notPhotosProfileFriendsMore 
Tools 
Invite as friend
Profile
Blog
Photos
Lists