• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Constituent wants to be heard - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

September 20, 2014

Constituent wants to be heard

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

31 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • carlosrponce posted at 5:04 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    Oh yes, You would have waited until they had enough to wipe out the world. I suggest you study Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". "The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim." In order words you don't wait until your enemy is too strong to take on.“When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.”

     
  • kevjlang posted at 4:19 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2896

    Supposedly, it was about the threat they posed to the region and the world. It would have taken more than a couple here and there for that. UN and US inspectors found nothing on the order of the premise for going to war. Now, that says nothing about the believed veracity of the intelligence, just on what was actually found. If we knew that what we found was all we would find, the quantity and quality were nowhere near what would have justified the attack.

     
  • gecroix posted at 4:11 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    It's not the number, it's the magnitude of impact, and the use of the orders to CHANGE laws, not just to act in their absence.

     
  • pflinn posted at 3:20 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    I knew you would surface, Jbgood, I just KNEW IT!

    Just to poke a little fun at an old lady (me) using a big word. When I typed that word, I thought to myself, "Jb is going to pick up on that like it's the last Chicken Fried Steak on the meat platter!"

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:42 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    "[L]arge stockpiles" ? It doesn't take much to kill several thousand.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:30 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2896

    I don't think I wrote they found nothing. They didn't find the large stockpiles the intelligence community thought were there.

    Overall, there are a lot of people around that aren't careful about distinguishing who on TV is reporting news, and who are the paid rabble-rousers, speculators, and flame-throwers.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:03 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    Iraq's weapons were moved to Lebanon and Syria just prior to the war.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259806/posts
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/
    Also I have eyewitness testimony from former students and other military that chemical weapons were found in Iraq during their deployment in that country. It tested positive for sarin and mustard gas. They had to wear hazmat suits to inspect and remove them.
    And Barack Obama WAS born in Kenya, Barack Obama Sr, that is.[beam]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:23 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2896

    What Leftist Press are you talking about? Are you confusing Columnists, Editorialists, and Commentators with new sources again? I've never heard any news outlet declare anything more than what the UN inspectors confirmed: No stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq. Sure, there have been opinionators try to proclaim that, of course there were no WMDs, the Bush administration knew there weren't any, but George W. wanted support to go kick Saddam's rear end because of how Saddam had defied George HW.

    If letting your commentators say things that are provocative without being proven is an indictment on the press as a whole, then you'd also have to lay responsibility on the Conservative Press for all the unfounded tales about Obama being a non-citizen.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:33 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    Why? Media Indoctrination. When the Liberals and the Leftist Press repeat a story often enough, people assume that it is true. Ask the average American about WMD in Iraq. The Leftist press has repeated the mantra so many times that Bush lied about WMD that people believe that it is true despite evidence that President Clinton used it as his rationale for bombing Iraq in December 1998. They ignore the fact that Bill repeated "Weapons of Mass Destruction" eight times in his "Operation Desert Fox" Speech. And that's just one speech. Read previous posts and Letters to the Editor. Many believe WMD was George W. Bush's invention just to fight Iraq.You know how many Americans will argue that President Clinton WAS NOT impeached? Beware the misinformed voter, the uninformed voter and the low information voter.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 12:16 pm on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    Ahh-rahhhhh, I know one thing! I love me some people who are not afraid to project themselves in a VOCIFEROUS manner online by using caps! Now, I don't use caps much myself, but....................[smile]

     
  • pflinn posted at 11:47 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    Why, then, when I asked my friend, a conservative Republican, WHY (she thought) we went to war vs. Iraq she answered me in all capital letters "WE WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF 9/11 AND THE TALIBAN."

    That reason was assumed by the American public, never disputed by the Bush Admin. and is believed by some people, even today.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    Here is Bush's announcement on the war on Iraq. No where is 911 mentioned,
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/
    But Read "The 9/11 Connection":
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206444/9-11-connection/deroy-murdock
    and "At Salman Pak":
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206485/salman-pak/deroy-murdock
    and
    http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/salman-pack-pictures.html
    and
    http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/vincent_brooks_4-6-2003.html
    and draw your own conclusions.

     
  • gecroix posted at 9:37 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Do you recall who was head of the CIA and thus intelligence gathering at the time?
    No decision is any better than the data upon which it's made....
    EVERY pass is a completed one on Monday morning, and every scramble goes for a touchdown....

    Colin Powell? A man with a fine career and record of service. A patriot.
    One can only wonder why, then, as the boss of Richard Armitage, and KNOWING that Armitage was the person who 'outed' CIA desk jockey 'agent' Valerie Plame, KNOWING it, he sat by for over 2 YEARS as a special prosecutor, who ALSO knew that Armitage wa the guilty party within TWO weeks after starting the investigation, Powell sat by in silence as his boss the President and the VP were utterly savaged by the prosecutor, and the press, and the people, when he could have TOLD the truth about hwat he knew, and ended that.
    It utterly escapes me when considered in the context of the honor and loyalty that were the hallmarks of all the restm of Powell's carreer.
    IMHO, that's what killed his career....as there was simply no good explanation for doing such a deceitful, dishonest thing, by omission...no matter how fine all things previous.
    But, that's just me....

     
  • pflinn posted at 8:52 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    The "Great Lie" perpetrated by the Bush Admin. was that Saddam Hussein & Iraq were connected to 9/11.

    It was Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that were responsible for 9/11.

    President George W. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for the war in Iraq because there were already "rumblings" about going to war in Iraq prior to 9/11. There was no Al Qaeda or Taliban in Iraq. Saddam would not have allowed it. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and (possibly) parts of Pakistan.

    Later on, when asked why we went to war in Iraq when there was proof that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, President Bush said, "He (Saddam) had insulted my daddy."

    Yes, the U.S. (President Clinton) and the British (Tony Blair) had a 4 day campaign, bombing Iraq in 1998, to (presumably) get rid of Iraq's capability to go to war with its neighbors. There were no U.S. or British casualties, and fewer than 2,000 Iraqi casualties. No comparison to the casualties in the subsequent war(s) in Iraq.

    Israeli intelligence was slanted in favor of our going to war because they were afraid of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Israel stood to gain by our going to war.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:02 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    "I don't remember Bush being heavily criticized " -you must be kidding! If you have a Rosenberg Library Card then you have access to the GDN from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009. Refresh your memory. George W. Bush's poll numbers went down due to constant media criticism. Add to that Michael Moore' s anti-Bush propaganda film.
    There is nothing wrong with executive orders if given within Constitutional limits. George Washington gave executive orders but they weren't called that back then. The problem with some of Obama's EOs is that they cross the line of authority.
    President Bush relied on reliable intelligence about WMD, similar to that President Clinton had in 1998 in bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox. You may question American Intelligence sources but Israeli Intelligence is the best and they said Iraq had WMD. So if George W Bush lied about WMD in Iraq (a primary reason for the war) then President Bill Clinton, Vice-president Al Gore and the Mossad lied. Here is President Clinton's transcript on WMD:
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
    To view President Clinton's Speech on WMD:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

     
  • pflinn posted at 7:00 am on Wed, Jul 30, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    I don't remember Bush being heavily criticized except for his lies in getting us into war with Iraq, and they were lies. Colin Powell had to apologize later on for believing the reasons why the U.S. was going to war vs. Iraq. It ruined any possible future political career he might have had.

    Here is the number of executive orders issued by each president, according to snopes.com:

    The number of executive orders issued by President Obama is 168. In his first term (i.e., the first four years of his presidency), Barack Obama issued 147 executive orders. (Now well into the second year of his second term, President Obama has issued a total of 168 executive orders overall.)

    President George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders during his eight years in office.

    President Bill Clinton issued 364 such orders over the same span of time. Clinton issued more than any other president.

    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp#qxmW1LTp7s3jtVKO.99

     
  • Don233 posted at 6:54 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Don233 Posts: 290

    I'm dying to know if ms. brown ever wrote a letter to the editor pleading for citizens to Stop bashing the president “in good conscience" when George W. Bush was in office and the hate mongers where spewing the extreme hate on him daily? I'm guessing not.

     
  • pflinn posted at 4:33 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    You did good, Jbgood. I get your point! Like I told another person, who posts, he should get a sign on his desk that says, "The Buck Stops Here!" Pres. Obama is too indecisive. He has not taken "ownership" of his Administration.

    He is still our President, though, for 2 more years, and I still respect and support him in most things! "You gotta dance with the guy that brung ya'." In the next election, you may change partners!

     
  • gecroix posted at 4:20 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Pflinn,
    You don't play last weeks poker hand - you play the one you're holding now.
    AND, one does not, or should not, excuse wrong doing or bad behavior by pointing it out in others.
    We elect new leadership to hopefully correct, make right, or improve upon their predecessor(s), NOT, to spend their term(s) in office saying that their screw ups and failures are OK because somebody else also did it.
    I bet you never took that excuse from your students....'Im doing lousy, but it's OK because Jeff did lousy last semester'...[wink]
    Ma'am, it's IMPOSSIBLE for 'communications' not to have increased, when we have a President who can hardly go a single day without getting together a bunch of people to stand behind a perpetual campaigning platform and adoringly watch him teleprompt another speech.
    When you're in a deep hole, stop digging!!!![beam]
    Question:
    Did you ever ask for student input, and ever grade papers, or did you just lecture all the time?
    Same principal...
    You mischaracterize me when you assume I disliked President Obama from the start. I have been raised and trained to evaluate leadership based on the merits and results of the actions, not the actor. It's how I ran my own work career. I see a whole host of leaders in name only in DC, and elsewhere. not just POTUS. He's simply perfected the art of avoiding responsibility and assigning blame to a level greater than anyone in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, but even Nixon didn't give speeches nearly every day saying he was in trouble and it was because of the other party, not his own wrong-doings.
    Fecklessness?
    It would sure be better and nicer for us all if it wasn't true.....[wink][wink]

     
  • pflinn posted at 3:50 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    Mr. gecroix, I get the points that you made. Some of the same things you ascribe to President Obama, other presidents have done. But, I also get that the Prez. has played the blame game and acted imperious, sooner and more frequently in his Admin. than the others. I noticed that during the Bush and Obama Administrations communications and daily observations have improved exponentially, that one cannot say what one thinks without it being reported immediately (even if it is said under one's breath, supposedly with the mic off)! The President is constantly being monitored.

    I think that even the amounts of exhaling and inhaling are also recorded somewhere, if you are president. (No pun intended for Pres. Bill Clinton). I think that with LBJ eating so many beans at his Bar-B-Q's, they had a different bodily function accounting. (Just a joke!)

    However, I can see where you are coming from on the POTUS never "owning " his administration and saying, "The Buck Stops Here!" like Harry Truman did. Whether you liked Truman, or not, there was never any doubt that he "owned" his administration and was a decisive president.

    64 Thousand $ word today : "fecklessness" I like that word!!!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:30 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    meb3, Randy has always asked me for my input, are you really out of the loop are just clueless? If you can log on to the GDN then you can contact the congressman
    at
    http://weber.house.gov/
    While you're at it subscribe to his newsletter, check with him on facebook, etc.
    Get with it, the 21stst Century is leaving you behind or do you just like to gripe?

     
  • Diane4630Brodie7486 posted at 2:24 pm on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Diane4630Brodie7486 Posts: 7

    meb3, Congressman Weber has a phone number. It's (202) 225-2831. He is referring to those of us who tell him directly what our concerns are. If you want to be "heard", you have to call his office.

    SueEllen Brown, POTUS says he doesn't care what anyone thinks. He will do as he wants, including "going around congress". You may happily approve but that's not how our constitution was written and you would not tolerate the same behavior from a Republican president. We who disagree want a say in the running of our country too.

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:41 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    But, aren't you going to ask the President to stop his daily 'bashing' of anybody who disagrees with him?
    Where's that 'fair share' attitude when we need it....[beam][beam][beam]

    In YOUR job try lying to your boss regularly, performing your job abysmally, badmouthing your co-workers, skipping work a lot to go recreate, ignoring anyone else's suggestions, telling the business's competitors that your business should apologize for itself, welcoming people off the street to come in and help themselves to the cafeteria and the supply room, offering to work with a comittee then after walking out the door loudly proclaiming they all suck and only you knwo what is best to do, and ignoring the company rules and regulations and just using your pen and phone to do whatever you want to do.
    Do ya figure you'd get to finsih out your first contract period, much less get it renewed?
    Perspective, please.
    In this country, it used to be a bad thing to support incompetence and fecklessness, and flat out bald faced lying.
    Why isn't that the case anymore?
    That's the 64 dollar question...or, is it the 17 trillion and climbing, fast, dollar question... [wink]

     
  • Jbgood posted at 10:19 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    If 2-3 of his supporters would own up to what I have said in post communications on this forum, weather he does or not, I will forget about all my donations they mishandled under false promises, false pretenses, and call it even.

     
  • meb3 posted at 10:17 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    meb3 Posts: 7

    Well done, SueEllen Brown! Congressman Weber has never asked many of us what our opinion is on any subject. How can he be representing his constituents?

     
  • Jbgood posted at 10:14 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    A constituent can cry all he/she wants to, which anybody is able to do in this country, but it is a spiritual law which states unless Mr. Obama stops bashing others, OTHERS are not going to stop bashing him. He has been blaming the Bush Administration every since he has been in office without ceasing! Nuff said "rat" there. ( I thought I did a good job saying it to, if I do say so myself! ) [smile]

     
  • pflinn posted at 9:14 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    pflinn Posts: 238

    By your own posted definition, carlosrponce, nowhere does it say bashing = "evaluating his performance". You posted bashing = criticizing his performance harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly. I am just saying there is a difference.

     
  • lgrahamtx posted at 9:03 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    lgrahamtx Posts: 6

    Yep, you said it well, Suellen Brown.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:39 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    Look up "temporary" in the dictionary, lisablair. It is just a legality with the United States Government as legal guardian of the illegal immigrant children until a hearing can be held. Otherwise they could be sent immediately back across the border they crossed which is not their patria (home country).

     
  • lisablair posted at 8:01 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    lisablair Posts: 80

    Once the children are taken into custody they are granted "temporary legal status" until their cases are adjudicated. They are not here illegally, look it up.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:13 am on Tue, Jul 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2257

    "Bashing" seems to be in vogue term nowadays. No one is "bashing" the President. We are evaluating his performance as all good citizens have done since 1787. What did the DNC do, send a memo to accuse all who disagree with the current president of "bashing"? And about the children, what part of "illegal" don't you understand. Time for a vocabulary lesson:
    definition of bashing: the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing, a decisive defeat, To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, AND threateningly
    definition of criminal:One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime
    definition of illegal: in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity
    Randy Weber is doing a great job. Keep up the good work!