Rodchester

"at what point is a complete disregard for the truth a lie" From the President and assuming full knowledge of the truth, I'd say a complete disregard for the truth is pretty much a lie. However, if done so openly, it isn't a lie...it is simply a complete disregard for the truth. So it becomes a lie if a story or something else is used to mask or hide the disregard for the truth.

if in spray debates is it ok to lie? Is it really so bad to tell a lie to further something you truly believe is in everybody's best interest? ___________________________ Ask Col. Walter E. Kurtz and Cpt. Willard. they struggled with a similar topic...

"Since Bush and Co were telling untruths why don’t we expose directly the untruths?" You mean this? Well what are the untruths? tenet admitted that he gave the intel to Bush...I don't se at all how this is an untruth. being wrong in hindsight is not the same as a lie or an untruth. Did i miss your point PP?

"My question is, do you think it was justified? " Yes...In the norms of international law and the law of nations, any attempt to assinate the leader of a sovergin (not in wartime) is basis for war on the offending nation. there is no statute of limitations on the issue. In the early 1990s Iraq attempted to assinate Bush I. Enough said for my needs. "is it justified to lie to the public in order to promote something as serious as a war?" Specific to Bush: This assumes he lied. Further, the main lesson learned from 9/11 is to err on the side of caution and overstate the danger to prevent a surprise. In the shadow of 9/11 and with incorrect intel its easy to see how such a decision was made. That is not a lie. Its easy to see Bush believing this. Remember, most of the other intel services around the world agreed with the MAJORITY of the intel that Bush was using. The disagreement came in accessing the threat, i.e. how imminent it was. Same question generally: It is almost always improper to purposely lie to your constituents. That’s easy.

"the CIA never stated that there was an imminent threat" I agree with you that there is no reason to argue this point. So does the President, and the congress, and most intel and NSPS people. Tenent stated this for reasons apparently not very clear to the general public. If you notice, that statement has caused very little uproar. That is because is not the job of the CIA (more specifically in this case the DCI) to do so. The intleignce community is not supposed to make this type of conclusion. That is for the executive, which happens to now be Bush. The CIA (DIA, NRO, NSA, Etc.) assembles intel, analyses it and packages it. For the President's consumption intel is packaged into what is called an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate"). The NIE is put in front of the executive and it is used to form policy and make decisions. They are usually only about two pages long. In this type of a situation, briefing from the DCI and his assistants will usually follow. I realize many assume that the CIA makes such findings, or conclusions, however that is simply incorrect. Declaring something to be a "clear and present danger” or an "imminent threat" is a political job or label given by the politicians. Such a label is always based on intel. Whether that intel is good or not often remains to be seen. In this case its pretty clear that portions of it were not. This isn’t the first time or the last time. That said, Tenet's statement on this point was not shocking in the slightest to anyone familiar with the role of intel and understanding the role of the executive in the process (which includes the Intel Oversight Committee).

Looking for beta on the road to the Trailhead...how far can one drive? Thanks in advance

So even if he got in on his family, which you seem to think is a done deal without any back up, this gentelman's statements (as a student there at the time and then later as faculty) make it clear that no one can just coast through the program. And what do GWB's grades (or anyone's for that matter) have to do with anything? If you graduate, you graduate. When is the last time you asked your doctor what grade he/she got in gross anatomy? Ever hear of anyone asking thier lawyer what grade they got in first year torts? Remember, Clinton failed to complete the Rhodes Scholarship program he was in. Also, I recall that Colin Powell graduated from undergrad with less than a 3.0. In fact if my memory serves me correctly, his average was something like 2.6. (Admittedly, its been years). And what's witht he frat boy hatred? I was never in one nor did I want to be. I had friends that were, including one that was the son of a retired cop, hardly blueblood. Further many other presidents and politicians, both left and right, have been in Frats. Others, both left and right, have taken advantage of thier positions. All Gore was at first able to avoid service in Vietnam becuase his father was still the Senotor from Tennesse. However after lossing an election in which he panned the war in Vietnam and the Pentagon, he lost his seat, the privilege that goes along with it, and off to Nam went Al. However, his last few connections kept Al out of harms way as a reporter for the military press. Can't say I blame dad for doing that. Yep, I'm naive. I usually stay out of the partisan politcal spray, because I'm not very partisan. Again, I'm not supporting GWB. That said his opponents would be best served by shedding thier belief that he is stupid.

MYSTIC: Where are you located? I'm in ballard and I have a copy of the book and the map...you can always borrow it and burn your own copies. If you're in Ballard, or near to it, send me a PM.

Where he was born has nothing to do with if he can get into a top MBA Program. Sure it helps because it USUALLY means that one born into wealth and standing get a better education than the avergare working man, but you'd be very surprised how many people at Harvard, and Kellog, Chicago, Mich, Wharton, etc. are from non-patrician families. These schools are very focused on performance as well as test scores, and undergrad grades. I have friends that went to top notch grad schools (One at Harvard) and they grew up in blue collar side of the midwest in very normal working class and lower middle class homes. Sure, I think GW is deceiving in that soo many people dimiss him as a simpleton. I make no comment on his politics.

Maybe we can invade them in a preemptive strike to save the environment...obviously this is an imminent threat.

GWB is way smarter than he is given credit for. Too many people confuse being smart with being articulate.

Good price...but as far as warmth-to-weight ratio goes, its not that good. There are many 2lb or sub two pound bags on the market rated at 15-20, and a bunch of sub two pound at 30 degrees. But not for that price.

Nice rope ... mmm ... great for alpine rock. But, I don't need one yet, the old 9.8mm x 60m is still cranking. But to anyone interested it is a great rope.

About the Bush girls....most say that my parents did a great job with thier seven kids....and yet we got into WAY more trouble than the Bush girls. Come on, so what if they got busted for drinking some beer while underaged... ...Jesus Christ. If that's the only trouble they've been in that's nothing. Are you one of those right wing christain southern baptist types that think the wine Jesus made was actually grape juice? Al Gore's son just got sentenced for drug problems...does that mean he is a bad parent? I think you should look more at how they handle the problems (the parents) than the actual problems.

Oh yeah..and let me say that I suck. I simply assumed we were talking about the US SUpreme court. So shoot me. Canada's system is a bit different. Never mind.

Keep in mind that we are a Republic with certain powers given to the Federal Branch and certain powers reserved by the states. Generally, laws regulating the family (divorce, marriage, adoption, child rearing, etc.) have been laws reserved by the states (10th Amendment). This means that state law controls in these areas. Generally, state law interpretation can go no higher than the state supreme court, unless of course, there is a federal issue. The 14th Amendment has basically opened up many issues to federal interpretation and the line between has been blurred ever since. So while it makes social sense that a federal court would be concerned with these issues, it is questionable whether they CAN (jurisdiction) legally become involved and whether they should. Though I am not totally agreeing with PP, he has a strong legal point. The proper way to state it, is not whether the US Supreme Court should address the issue, but whether it is the best court to address the issue. 2 cents...ok, that's a bit more than 2 cents, but you get the picture.

Sounds like 7% to me!!!

Reagan? My memory, which could be incorrect, was that he did not serve and I'm fairly certain that he did not serve in combat. Also, keep in mind, there is a huge difference between JFK and Bush Sr.'s experiences as young Lt.s and the experinece of Clark or Eisenhower, or Grant, or Washington. Not saying the little guys don't count, but there is a big difference.

In a "party" or partisan sense you may call some of them ineffective. But in a historical sense both Clinton and Reagan are generally considered effective. Whether or not one likes the policies does not speak at all to the effectiveness of the man. Carter, while VERY well intentioned, was pretty ineffective, though not for lack of effort. FDR's economic plan was pretty ineffective (though certainly well intentionaed) but his forgin policy was pretty effective. Though as a pressident he was clearly effective. Lincoln aslo had more than his share of troubles, but history has proven him to have been an effective President. Correct me if I’m wrong, LBJ became President after Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. LBJ then easily WON an election in 1964 against Republican Barry Goldwater. Then in 1968 he decided not to run after problems arose. Considering his Great Society legislation and the war in Vietnam, LBJ was effective as a President. Now I am not saying that he made right decisions, only that as a President he was able to formulate policy and execute it, that is being effective. (Personally, LBJ was SO SUCK). Anyway, a non-partisan review of history shows that few Presidents had or needed true military experience. (Ike, Washington, Jackson, Grant, and a few others). Clauswich's statment is as true today as when he made it in the early 1800s.

Dean is considered a front-runner?

"From what I've seen (no I wasn't in the military), these former generals badmouth each other all the time, so I'm not suprised." That is not true at all. It is in fact RARE for generals (even former) to openly criticise each other. (Though Patton did so a few times). Further, the "rank and file" as they say disliked Clark intensely. Clark was referred to as a "ticket-puncher" furthering his carrer on the backs of the enlisted men and women and the Junior Officer Corps. Sure he did a good job in Kosovo, but I'm with Gen. Shelton on this guy. He is nothing more than an opportunist Republican in a Democrat's clothes. "I believe the commander and chief should be someone of significant military background." Like Lincoln, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Reagan? Need I go on? Few if any US presidents have had signifigant military experience. Clauswich says a political leader can get by without military experience so long as he/she surrounds himself with those with knowledge and experience.

Whether you are actually threatened or not is a question that gets answered by a jury (sometimes by a Judge). Did you feel that your life or someone else's life was threatened? Did you you fear bodily injury for yourself or another?

"Is it illegal to kill a neighbors dog?" If you or another are actually threatened, yes. If not there are two issues: 1. Criminal, And the answers would depend on the laws of the locality and the willingness of the prosecutors office to file and pursue charges (if any). 2. Civil, And the answers are (basically) that you are liable to the owner for the fair market value of the dog. There is no loss of effection (consortium claim when a pet dies). Usually shooting a gun in the city limits is an offense, though I have no idea if it is a felony. But if you do so in defense, it is usually allowed. Check with a local attorney in your area. If you are actually serious (this is in spray afterall), send me a pm and I can recommend an attorney that with experience in animal cases.

Post deleted by Rodchester