Calling all Belgians

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bret said:

The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
whatever the local customs dictate.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

He sure loves that recess appointment trick, doesn't he?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bret said:

The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
whatever the local customs dictate.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Apr 5, 6:41 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bret said:

The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
whatever the local customs dictate.

Quoted message said:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Does this mean you'd agree with blocking everyone who's donated to
MoveOn.org too? They've done more than their share of attack pieces
too.
Bill C

On 5 Apr 2007 04:13:10 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Apr 5, 6:41 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bret said:

The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
whatever the local customs dictate.

Quoted message said:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

Does this mean you'd agree with blocking everyone who's donated to
MoveOn.org too? They've done more than their share of attack pieces
too.

Well I didn't comment on Fox but rather on Bush, but I'll answer your
question anyway.

Every large organization will have some members of it that tell lies
or mislead. Moveon, NRA, RNC, Democratic Party, NOW, Catholic
Church...the list goes on.

I don' think supporters of any of these should be kept out of
government service.

The Swiftboat Veterans were 100% about lies designed to influence the
presidential election. The role of Congress in appointments is to
look at the overall picture of nominees. Sure, someone who funds
explicit lies to influence a presidential election and then pretends
he didn't realize how bad it was while speaking to Congress doesn't
deserve to serve our country.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On 5 Apr 2007 04:13:10 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Apr 5, 6:41 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 4 Apr 2007 20:21:29 -0700, "Bret" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
>Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
>whatever the local customs dictate.

>http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

Does this mean you'd agree with blocking everyone who's donated to
MoveOn.org too? They've done more than their share of attack pieces
too.

Well I didn't comment on Fox but rather on Bush, but I'll answer your
question anyway.

Every large organization will have some members of it that tell lies
or mislead. Moveon, NRA, RNC, Democratic Party, NOW, Catholic
Church...the list goes on.

I don' think supporters of any of these should be kept out of
government service.

The Swiftboat Veterans were 100% about lies designed to influence the
presidential election. The role of Congress in appointments is to
look at the overall picture of nominees. Sure, someone who funds
explicit lies to influence a presidential election and then pretends
he didn't realize how bad it was while speaking to Congress doesn't
deserve to serve our country.

"(E)xplicit lies to influence a presidential election." sounds a lot like the
Kerry campaign. You know the guy who was running guns to the Khmer Rouge on
Christmas of 1968 at the orders of Richard Nixon. When a guy who says [censored] like
that is praised as a war hero then you're damn right people will pay money to
oppose him.

On Apr 5, 7:58 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 5 Apr 2007 04:13:10 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Apr 5, 6:41 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 4 Apr 2007 20:21:29 -0700, "Bret" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
>Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
>whatever the local customs dictate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

Quoted message said:

Does this mean you'd agree with blocking everyone who's donated to
MoveOn.org too? They've done more than their share of attack pieces
too.

Well I didn't comment on Fox but rather on Bush, but I'll answer your
question anyway.

Every large organization will have some members of it that tell lies
or mislead. Moveon, NRA, RNC, Democratic Party, NOW, Catholic
Church...the list goes on.

I don' think supporters of any of these should be kept out of
government service.

The Swiftboat Veterans were 100% about lies designed to influence the
presidential election. The role of Congress in appointments is to
look at the overall picture of nominees. Sure, someone who funds
explicit lies to influence a presidential election and then pretends
he didn't realize how bad it was while speaking to Congress doesn't
deserve to serve our country.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unfortunately flat out liars have been a huge part of our political
process forever. I agree that he shouldn't have even been nominated
for the post, but it's pretty typical of taking care of donors and
activists. Bill Clinton did a great job of it too.
There's so much [censored] going on that's based purely on political
character assasination and not merit it's ridiculous.
I've got a little different spin on the US attorneys mess too. While
it's obvious that just about everyone from the administration that was
involved is pretty sleazy at best, and Gonzales is a criminal scumbag
the issue itself is BS.
Traditionally when a new President takes over, and most have done it,
they fire the previous ones and replace them with their politcal
supporters who meet their particular political litmus test, wholesale.
Based purely on ideology and cronyism, just what they are accusing
Bush of, except that Bush kept far more of Clinton's democratic
appointees on and waited, evaluated, and replaced a handful based on
the same criteria that usually caused the wholesale dismissals without
any evaluation at all.
There's no way you can argue that ideology today isnt THE basis for
legal positions that are appointed today either. The Courts, right up
to and including the Supreme Court, and the confirmation process make
that clear as it can be. One of the things that gets glossed over is
that the Democrats, during this adeministration have blocked more
nominees to court positions than were blocked by a Republican
controlled Congress did to Clinton, and by a huge margin.
There are definitely out of the norm things in Kerry's military
record and I suspect that it is the typical inflation for somone who
had connections.
Bush sure as hell got away with a lot more, and I can't stand Kerry,
but in the end you can't say he didn't do his job, and fairly well
while in service.
You really have to dig to find it now, but the Naval investigating
board had, initially, actually recommended that JFK face charges,
including dereliction of duty for the PT109 incident. That changed in
a hurry due to the pressure his father brought to bear, and the fact
that we really could have used a "Hero" story at that point in the war
and noone denies that JFK was heroic after he got his boat cut in half
so it wasn't too hard, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he as
commander he was asleep with noone standing watch, which is why they
recommended the charges. It's was actually exploited similarly to
with what they did with Pat Tillman.
The great naval historian S.E. Morrison had included the whole
incident in one of his books, but the rest of his works follow the
"new" official Naval version.
If you are connected you get treated differently, in the civilian
justice system too.
Bill C

Bret said:

The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
whatever the local customs dictate.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

Bret

Great troll, well formed and with good potential. Tailor
made for guys like Bill C and Kunich. Good work.

Shame you didn't cross-post the [censored] out of it to maximize
the audience. I think that'll cut down the run time, but
we'll see.

Bob Schwartz

On Apr 5, 11:18 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bret said:

The USA is sending Belgium a new ambassador and I don't mean Jonathan
Page. Please give him the welcome he deserves. Please TP his house or
whatever the local customs dictate.

Quoted message said:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002952.php

Quoted message said:

Bret

Great troll, well formed and with good potential. Tailor
made for guys like Bill C and Kunich. Good work.

Shame you didn't cross-post the [censored] out of it to maximize
the audience. I think that'll cut down the run time, but
we'll see.

Bob Schwartz

Nah, JT got me in. Not much to really talk about here. They all reward
their donors no matter how sleazy so what's to discuss other than
maybe Tom going off. Realistically, how tough a job is ambassador to
Belgium?
Bill C

Bill C said:

Realistically, how tough a job is ambassador to Belgium?

You have to (learn to) speak French and Dutch.

--
E. Dronkert

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:58:43 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Realistically, how tough a job is ambassador to Belgium?

Quoted message said:

You have to (learn to) speak French and Dutch.

Can't you just speak English louder and louder until they understand?
Listening mode is probably irrelevant.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

That could well be the strategy of the new ambassador, along with
complaints that you just can't get a good American beer there.
Bill C

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Bill C said:

Realistically, how tough a job is ambassador to Belgium?

You have to (learn to) speak French and Dutch.

Can't you just speak English louder and louder until they understand?
Listening mode is probably irrelevant.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 5 Apr 2007 13:07:20 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That could well be the strategy of the new ambassador, along with
complaints that you just can't get a good American beer there.

That's not funny. Anyone that gets sent to Belgium should be required
to demonstrate a working knowledge and appreciation of doubles and
triples.

If not, I am available. I can't speak French or Dutch, but I have
watched a lot of Hercule Poirot.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

RonSonic said:

"(E)xplicit lies to influence a presidential election." sounds a lot like the
Kerry campaign.

You're so full of it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 5 Apr 2007 05:59:56 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

There's no way you can argue that ideology today isnt THE basis for
legal positions that are appointed today either.

Ideology is one thing. Blind loyalty to individuals is quite another.
Bush isn't even following his own expressed ideology in government.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Apr 5, 6:25 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 5 Apr 2007 05:59:56 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

There's no way you can argue that ideology today isnt THE basis for
legal positions that are appointed today either.

Ideology is one thing. Blind loyalty to individuals is quite another.
Bush isn't even following his own expressed ideology in government.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Agreed, That's why his "unfavorable" is sky high even with his own
party and Gonzales, still has a job.
He, and a handful of his faithful are convinced that history, and
god, are going to find he was our best President ever. It's similar to
what a shrink wrote about Joan of Arc, who he's clearly channelling.
He said that "If she were alive today she wouldn't be leading a
country, she'd be in a psych ward being treated for schizophrenia."
I'm betting history treats Bush a lot more like Grant, Hoover, and
Nixon, than Lincoln.
Bill C

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

However, he does recognize the role of the US Constitution. See:
Article II, Section 2.

In any case, Clinton did it so why can't Bush? Payback's a [censored].
Kerry takes it on the chin again.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:16:42 -0400, Jack Hollis <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

However, he does recognize the role of the US Constitution. See:
Article II, Section 2.

In any case, Clinton did it so why can't Bush?

Clinton did what -- appointed someone who gave $50K to help a group
propagate specific lies about another candidate and nothing else? No
policy positions, just straight up lies about a veteran?

Quoted message said:

Payback's a [censored].

Who is Bush paying back?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:16:42 -0400, Jack Hollis <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

However, he does recognize the role of the US Constitution. See:
Article II, Section 2.

In any case, Clinton did it so why can't Bush? Payback's a [censored].
Kerry takes it on the chin again.

One other thing. The problem with your comment is it's the lame
relativism: "Everybody plays politics, so it's not so bad." Or
"Everybody plays poltiics, so you can't complain."

Baloney. Yeah, everybody plays politics, but some are more corrupt
and more political than others, and BushII and Cheney have played it
more extreme than any president since. Well maybe ever. Surely since
Nixon. The most corrupt and the most contempt for the rule of law and
the role of other branches over government in a few decades.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

However, he does recognize the role of the US Constitution. See:
Article II, Section 2.

In any case, Clinton did it so why can't Bush? Payback's a [censored].
Kerry takes it on the chin again.

Clinton fired 92 Federal prosecutors including 2 or 3 of them who were
investigating corruption in the Arkansas governors office during Clinton's
administration. Not one word was said by any Liberals. Now we're seeing this
silly screaming about firing some prosecutors who were in fact ignoring
direct orders to prosecute illegal aliens and it is being made out to be
something else altogether.

I do find it interesting that Clinton installed some highly dubious
ambassadors, that he side-stepped Whitehouse security precautions and
actually brought in Chinese secret agents who THEN handed over large sums of
cash money to him and again - forgive me but did any Liberal complain about
that?

In fact, after Al Gore was caught carrying in paper shopping bags full of
cash, not a single charge was brought and Liberals admired his hutzpah so
much they ran him for President.

So let's not cry that Bush appointed an Ambassador to Belgium who is better
qualified than most Democrats.