# Traitor Jane



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

I got this in an email which said to pass it along...I know there is no way to verify its authenticity but if even a fraction of what this message says is true then it is worth it. It sure sounds about right for Traitor Jane.

IF YOU NEVER FORWARDED ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE FORWARD THIS SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW!!!!!!

She really was a traitor

A TRAITOR IS ABOUT TO BE HONORED KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA

This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do not remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century." By Barbara Walters.

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during the Vietnam War.

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot

The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the "Hanoi Hilton."

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away.

During the subsequent beating, he fell forward on to the camp Commandant 's feet, which sent that officer berserk.

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the "Hanoi Hilton," the first three of which his family only knew he was "missing in action."

His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.

His group too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit.

They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived.

Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it, in the palm of his hand.

When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed Babies?"

and "Are you grateful for the humane Treatment from your benevolent captors?"

Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, She turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper.

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.

I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi.

My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam , whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. 
(My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi , I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her.

I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received...and how different it was from the treatment purported by
The North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as "humane and lenient."

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released.

I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV.

She never did answer me.

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women."

Lest we forget..." 100 Years of Great Women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.

Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can.

Maybe it will eventually end up on her computer, so she knows that we will never forget.

RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF 
716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of
Maintenance 
DSN: 875-6431 
COMM: 883-6343

PLEASE HELP BY SENDING THIS TO
EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. IF
ENOUGH PEOPLE SEE THIS MAYBE HER
STATUS WILL CHANGE


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2007)

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hanoijane.htm


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

So is that suppose to be then end all site for truth or fiction?

Either way, Jane Fonda is an IDIOT..... TRUTH


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Whatever, Hanoi Jane is Hanoi Jane and always will be Hanoi Jane


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I can tell you POSITIVELY that from a POW that was there told me the same story about the SS#'s and said men were killed because of it and I believe him, and he also told me with tears in his eyes "that he could never ever forgive her for that".


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

ive heard several nam vets talk about her, but i never actualy heard what she did. wow. if thats true, she should be exiled, not honored.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Now you get it...


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2007)

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Don't misunderstand me. I can't stand the Btcih! She is a traitor in my mind, she did not perform as an American citizen should and she should have been taken to court and jailed or at the very least kicked out of the country. But Nixon was looking to get re-elected. I was just playing the devils adv. The above snopes site give another version of truth/myth and is worth reading.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

?????? Is snopes the gospel :eyeroll: Just asking.
Are they always biased or liberal slanted?


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2007)

nope, I take it all in. look her up in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

or try any other. they all say the same thing. zogman, why shake your head? did you read the snopes article throughout?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> did you read the snopes article throughout?


I did.............. did you? Read it again. First read the claimed fabricated story that is being debunked. Then drop down and read the story that snopes claims is what really occurred. Remove the names of the POW's and slips of paper handed to the guards from the debunked section and you will see the two stories are actually almost identical. There's not a nickels worth of difference in the reality of results of the two stories. The ***** should have been shot.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2007)

I agree she she at the minimum have been kicked out of the USA.
my only point is that if the note story was true, "The POW camp visits also led to persistent stories - widely circulated on the Internet and via email - that the POWs she met had reviled her or attempted to sneak notes to her, which she had reported to the North Vietnamese, leading to further abuse. These false accounts have been discredited by the former prisoners who are directly mentioned in the accounts.[14]" from wikopedia
Anyway if it had been true and men died due to her actions, I have a hard time believing or understanding why she isn't in jail today.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I have a hard time believing or understanding why she isn't in jail today.


If that part of the story were true, which apparently it is not though it really doesn't matter, she wouldn't be in jail for the same reason Sandy Burger is not in jail. In my mind they both committed treason.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2007)

Yup, Sandy just might be Hillary's next campain manager! :wink: Both should have been wearing stripes. but the politics in Washington stink worse than the river bank downstream from a meat packing plant in July! My ONLY point before was just that the one part of the story had been debunked. In no way shape or form was I ever trying to defend Ms Fonda. I did think she was hot when she did the Barberella flick but I was pretty full of hormones about that time of my life.


----------



## Hardsell (Jan 29, 2007)

Irish Mick, 
I want to thank you for you service and undying loyalty to the US. Being a soldier, I understand were you are coming for. Few people will understand the true service and sacrifice that is provided by the military. My father, who is a history teacher told me about Hanoi Jane when I was younger. I couldn't believe that a person would betray her fellow countrymen in such a way. The only name that can describe the actions she performed over there is treason. There is no way her actions could ever be defended by a logical thinking person. Just take comfort in the fact that she will get what's coming to her, in this life or the next.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Jane did look pretty good in the bubble suit in the movie Barberella! Some of you are probably not old enough to remember the turmoil in the country when Jane went Hanoi and though I didn't agree with what she did I understand where she was coming from. There were a lot of things going on in our country that either supported the Vietman war or protested the war. As things progress or regress in Iraq, depending on your perspective, some of us that are old enough can see some similarities. Just because people protest war does not mean they are un-american. It only means they do not agree with the war. No more, no less!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am half way with you Rooster. It depends on how you protest the war that determines if you are anti American or not. Going to Hanoi = un-American, calling our soldiers baby killers = un American.

As to the similarities of Iraq and Viet Nam one stands out in my mind so strong that it partially masks others. That major and defining similarity is the micromanagement of the war by politicians. The difference within that context is that Viet Nam was micromanaged by the people in charge, and Iraq is micromanaged by politically motivated adversaries of the executive branch.

That is why it is such a disaster to the world perceived unity of this nation when Nancy Pelosi goes to the mid-east. The formers of this nation in their great insight took steps to avoid this problem. Within the constitution they ensured a division of powers, and clearly defined the role of the Executive, Judicial, and legislative. Nancy doesn't understand her role. Let me rephrase that. I think Nancy understands her role, it's just that she is so arrogant she thinks she is above any control including the constitution.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Jane, does what Jane wants to do! Just ask Ted! I was at game six of the world series when Kirby Puckett hit his home run and of course I had to check Jane out with my binoculars and do a little fantasizing? She did look good in her Braves hat!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

As far as showing the world a unified front on the war on terror, the world knows that the US is divided by it's president and the current leadershipl. This is no secret. Does this show weakness. I suppose it does for people that believe in bombing the hell out of anyone that disagrees with our country but a little diplomacy can go a long ways towards a peacefull solution to conflict. This is the message that Nancy Pelosi brings to the world. I disagree that is shows weakness. She is a very powerfull woman in our country and I can't see where she should just stand silent on issues she does not agree with along with a large segment of the American population. She is representing America and not George Bush. George Bush has chosen not to go by his own accord. If he could tell her to shut up and stay at home we would not be considered to be a free and democratic country. She is a very smart and powerfull woman and she knows exactly what she is doing and the only reason she is doing it is to help America in its time of need!!! Somebody has to do it!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, you have to ignore the constitution to have the belief you do. I know you wouldn't do that intentionally, but you have ignored the separation of powers. Nancy has no right to represent the United States in the diplomatic sense. That falls to the executive branch of government, and she is in the legislative. But I have explained that. What do you not understand about the constitution tells Nancy no?

She has avenues to oppose Bush, but not this one. Not constitutionally or legally anyway. The world knows that we do not all agree. The world knows that not all members of the house of commons in Britain agree, but they don't have multiple politicians going to foreign countries carrying different messages and supporting different agenda's. Nancy is creating a great disservice to our nation, and in particular our men and women in uniform. She is endangering them with weakness towards terrorism.

Try to remember diplomacy was tried for years and years, upon years. Through our own nation, and through the United Nations. How can some people not see this? I think you do, but you have a political agenda that includes win at any cost, legal or illegal, and the constitution be damned.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Plainsman, come on, if she was breaking constitutional law she would no longer be in the postion she is in as speaker of the house. Don't give me that kind of a line. That is weak!!


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Rooster, if Nancy had her choice, every gun owned by every private citizen would be turned in tomorrow. What more do you need to know about her?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, who sets the foreign policy for this nation? What branch of government does Nancy belong to? The separation of powers in the constitution was designed specifically for this situation. The vice president has referred to her visit simply as bad behavior. 
A hundred years ago she would face charges, but today liberals tell us the constitution is a living document. That is there excuse every time they violate it.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Now we are blaming the most screwed up war in our history, on opposition from "free" thinking Americans. I am afraid to tell you, Plainsman, that this war was supported for two years, before people started to speak up. Time to quit passing the buck. The war sucks, it was wrong, it was ill planned and miserably run. It was a total screw job. Accept it and quit trying to blame everyone else. It was Bush, Rummy, Chenney and Rove...nobody else. I think we are all tired of hearing the excuses and misplaced blame, at least 75% of us are, there are still you 25% who haven't caught on, or aren't man enough to admit a mistake.

Have a great day :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You better reread what I have posted over time. This war was begin by our president, and supported by nearly everyone. It started with information from our own CIA and the intelligence sources from many other nations. 
It has not been screwed up by Bush. Like all other wars, both sides have plans on how they will win the war. Some battles you win, some you loose. But it has been a hard war to win the past few years, because liberals look on the terrorists, like the ones at Al Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay as victims of mean old America. Also, any collateral damage is unacceptable to liberals. While conservatives don't like to see innocent people hurt it is unavoidable in some situations. 
There we go with the play on words "free thinking Americans" it is like the "progressive party". Both are a fallacy. There is such a thing as free thinking of course, but the people you currently think of are trouble makers trying to throw a wrench into the gears, because a victory would be counter productive to their power play.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

The CIA information was a small portion of information that Bush and Chenney would accept. They coerced their employees to give them the information they needed. They basically said, give us what we need, we don't want to hear anything else. The CIA information argument was washed a long time ago. Come up with something better than that. Because we are Americans, we see the war was wrong, we speak up, that is what this country was founded on. We speak to correct wrong doing. By playing lapdog, we do no service to anyone, much less our selves. You can bury your head and make up reasons, but it is a failed war because of the administration, not because I said it was bad. Would that be the Christian right wing, does it condone "collateral damage" in the Bible. I guessed I missed the psalm where it taught us to harm our neighbors and friends, because that is the way it is when people don't follow OUR rules. Wow, just wow. God fearing warriors scare me, they use their religion to condone every anti Christian agenda they can. Keep em coming skipper, you are loading my .50 cal. for me. :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They coerced their employees to give them the information they needed.


Really, you must have some inside information. How do you know that? They should have been given the correct information without coercion.



> They basically said, give us what we need, we don't want to hear anything else.


No kidding, now why did they tell you that and not me?



> The CIA information argument was washed a long time ago.


That remains to be seen, but if our CIA was duped so was the entire world. Still you liberals blame the nasty old United States bully right?



> but it is a failed war because of the administration


Speaking of a worm record.
I would say it is a failed war because the liberals want it to be a failed war. They own defeat. They have invested politically in defeat. If we cut and run they are at political advantage in 2008. They don't care about security now, they care about political victory. Then they can kiss up to the terrorists for four or eight years until we are hit again. That will perhaps put a republican in office and we can start the same old crap all over again.



> Would that be the Christian right wing, does it condone "collateral damage" in the Bible.


Oh, not only is America a bully, but it's the fault of those darn right wing Christians again. The same ones that New Jersey was using for training in their terrorist attack on schools I would suppose?



> I guessed I missed the psalm where it taught us to harm our neighbors and friends, because that is the way it is when people don't follow OUR rules.


Did you also miss the one where Israel marched around the walls of Jericho. How did that go again, when the walls tumbled down the Israeli all rushed in and kissed them into submission. That one must have been led by Jimmy Carter.



> God fearing warriors scare me, they use their religion to condone every anti Christian agenda they can. Keep em coming skipper, you are loading my .50 cal. for me. :sniper:


Boy, do we have a lot of people loosing it lately. So are you going to shoot me fireball? Oh, I get it, just a poor analogy. Fireball, you will have to come up with some facts if you think that is a 50 cal you are shooting. From my point of view it looks like a BB gun with a broken spring.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> Plainsman, come on, if she was breaking constitutional law she would no longer be in the postion she is in as speaker of the house. Don't give me that kind of a line. That is weak!!


Actually, there is some question as to whether or not she violated the Logan Act, if so, she commited a felony.

Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

She certainly didn't have the permission or approval of her Government to do what she did.

As to Hanoi Jane, can't stand the sight of the treasonous *****. She should be stripped of her citizenship and exiled to........lets see, maybe somewhere in the middle east.

Anyone who does crap like this during a war does not deserve to be called an American:










By the way, this is her at the controls of an NVA anti aircraft gun.

If this ***** were on fire I wouldn't piss on her to put it out.

huntin1


----------



## Hardsell (Jan 29, 2007)

Well said.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Thanks for the info Huntin 1
Double dittos from me on the Jane comments :beer: 
Does that mean I'm a Huntin 1 ditto head :lol: 
As far as Nancy goes this house has to be a laugh uke: 
If brains were ethanol she would not have enough to power an ants go cart around the inside of a cherrio...............


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Zogman, it's time to come out of your cave. Just because they don't have republican labeled all over them they are already a joke. Just keep sleeping with Bush. Ya, he has done great things for your party and our country. America has escaped the spell that George W put on them when he first came on the block and most American's awoke from that trance but some of you have yet to wake up. The ship has sunk and you keep running the pumps. Are you loyal or are you blind??? If you are loyal then you also must be blind. The world does not believe a single word that comes out of George W's mouth. He had the potential to be a truly great leader but he has ****** it down his leg. Let's get over it and get back to making America the leader of the free world and not the most hated country in the world.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, it's clear you want to talk about Bush. I thought we were talking about Nancy. Deflecting debate is an old tactic. If you want to continue with the mantra Bush lied (which is blind liberal loyalty) your free to do so. Your free to start a bash Bush thread if you like.

Meanwhile are there any liberals out there that would like a nice burka for your wife for Christmas. For you far left liberals that would be the aaahhem holiday season.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I told my self I wasnt going to get involved :lol:

DJ my man

Come on now this is how it works most people like the home team. (Country U Come from)

Some people like the Underdogs. (France and other crying liberal countries that will role over and wait for someone to save them)

But everyone hates the team that will never lose. (USA) Its hard to be #1

And people dont hate us its envey


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Jane Fonda went to Hanoi over 40 years ago. I'm not sure that I see the parallel between her going to Hanoi and what?? The war in Iraq? Pelosi going to Syria?? Does this somehow indicate that protesting the war or our foreign policy make those that disagree with what we are doing un American?? Only true Americans believe in the war? Whoa, this is not the American way!!! We have let our President and his buddies set our foreign policy and quite frankly we don't have a big enough army, navy and air force to continue down the same path we have taken for the last 8 years. Pretty soon we are going to have to rely on nukes to cover all our bases. We need to step back and find some allies that we used to have until Bush started writing our foreign policy and rely on diplomatic solutions instead of bombing the heck out of anyone we don't like. There are those in the political forum that would love for George W to started carpet bombing Korea, Syria and Iran until they submit to the "American" way. That sort of intellect has gotten us into the position that we currently are in so now the House has said enough is enough because no republican led majority had the nerve to say maybe we have a flawed policy. This is still too much for the republican party to admit after they self proclaimed their greatness when George W first took office. With the majority control of all branches of the government there was great opportunity to lead our country but I'm afraid that the last eight years have woke up the American public and the party is over. The American people have had enough and it is time for George W and his cronies to move on and let someone else have a turn. They blew their chance! Let it go Zogman!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, I see there is some misunderstanding in what you think we conservatives want. One enemy is one to many, I wish everyone was my friend, and I wish every nation on earth cared about us as much as we care about the rest of the world. I also think diplomacy should always be the first avenue of settlement. 
I am sort of a mind your own business kind of guy. I think our nation and all nations should be the same. If they leave us alone, leave them alone. If they respect us and support us support them, and be willing to lend a helping hand. However, cross us, kill those we love, and I would hunt them to the ends of the earth. I could be their best friend or their worst enemy and the choice is theirs.

Surely you remember the years and years of diplomacy with Iraq. It went on for a decade after the first war. The United Nations, that most liberals worship, sent 17 resolutions and still Sadam thumbed his nose at the world. Clearly diplomacy to a mad man is only a stalling tactic.

Korea is simply trying to blackmail the world into food and money. Still they are dangerous if they sell nuclear materials to terrorist groups. They are a little nuts in Korea, but not nuts enough to think they are going to get 70 virgins for their own imminent death.

It's not if I agree with Bush, it's that he is doing exactly what I would do. He may not be going about it right that's hard to tell, because the liberal politicians impede everything he is doing. I sincerely believe that they see cut and run as a political advantage. I don't think Nancy gives a crap about anything other than her power. Yes, I see the comparison of her and Hanoi Jane. We can debate all we want within our boarders, but we must speak to the world in one voice. If we do not speak as one voice our allies can not trust us. Example: Bush says one thing, Nancy says another. Result: Who is going to stick their neck out for Bush and have Nancy win within our political arena? Who is going to stick their neck out and have Bush win within our political arena?

Currently the world sees us divided and not to be trusted. That perception will be spotlighted to the world now by Damascus Nancy, even more so than it was by Hanoi Jane who was not a political power within our nation, like Nancy.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Jane Fonda went to Hanoi over 40 years ago. I'm not sure that I see the parallel between her going to Hanoi and what?? The war in Iraq?


Don't you ever pay attention to what is going on around you. She has been in the news recently blabbering the same bs that she did back then.



> Pelosi going to Syria?? Does this somehow indicate that protesting the war or our foreign policy make those that disagree with what we are doing un American??


Yes, if it is done on the soil of a country that we have cut off diplomatic ties to and especially if it crosses the line of separation of powers. I don't think you have a clue what that means. Get real.



> We need to step back and find some allies that we used to have


Like who...... France and Germany? You actually believe they were our real allies. Charles Degaul once said France has no allies, just adversaries. Some friend of ours he was.



> That sort of intellect has gotten us into the position that we currently are in


And just what position is that....... oh, that's right....you think we lost some friends around the world. We have a country that no government would dare risk attacking. The economy is booming with lower taxes, higher home ownership than ever before, lowest unemployment than ever and you think we are in a bad position? Name another country that wouldn't want to be in our position.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

I'm sorry. You're right let Iran and North Korea have their nukes. Well leave Afghanistan so the can rebuild the Taliban. They will just use the nukes for riot control within their own boarders. And the Taliban trainees will just be a local auxiliary police force. Hey we let thing go in the past. Let's see. Mr. Clinton let the bombing of the Cole go. That stopped the terrorists. Oh yeah, didn't they try something on the World Trade Center before. But we just went after a few select individuals. Good job Mr. Clinton. Boy they never attacked us again on our soil. WRONG. The very same site was attacked and decimated by these fanatics a few years later. Every time these extremists attack a US Embassy they are attacking US Soil. You don't get it. These people are extremists. You cannot reason with them. The only way to stop them is to eliminate them. These Iranians are now helping Iraqi insurgents build better IEDs. Why? To kill and wound more American men and women. We have to stop them. You think if we pull out of the Middle East it will stop. Absolutely not! I know, lets remove all ties with them send no aid of help. Take all the oil wells we built for them and let them all fight with each other. After a few years there will be nothing left. I don't know


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

In my opinion the more of these people we kill the more we make a new wave of insurgents. Countries have been trying to bomb these countries into submission for centuries and look at the end result. It just brings a new wave of killing. Your right guys, just keep killing as many of them as you can and the rest will finally get the right idea. You almost have me convinced. If Nancy Pelosi wants to try a little diplomacy, go for it! The whole world knows that Washington has lost confidence in Bush. This is not classified information. Let me ask you this question. When do you forsee the day that the US no longer has to have ground soldiers doing the dirty work for the army and police of Iraq? Give me a timetable. As long as it takes? Is this your answer? If this is your answer then I am afraid we are in another Vietnam. And when the body count gets to 50,000 will you have had enough??? Is it up to the USA to fight Islamists for the rest of the world?? Is that our job? We should be building coalitions but Bush is not the man for that job as we have already seen. No, we all know that a street bully has no true friends and when the bully gets a bloody nose that his friends will no longer cover his behind. That is where this foreign policy has gotten the USA. We are on our own and quite frankly it is not working. It's like throwing more money at bad cards. You are going to lose. Bush has tried to be a bully but now he is a loser in the polls at home and throughout the world. This is bad foreign policy, period. It is time to try something new like perhaps a little more diplomacy to make a few friends instead of bombs and rhetoric and that little smirk with a bad joke. People are tired of that! Give the American people a new ballot and lets get on with making America the envy of the world instead of the bully of the free world. I have noticed that you rarely see Rice in the news anymore. Poor girl, she has one tuff job trying to work under Bush. Nuf, said!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Some times you guys are lemmings headed for the cliff.....When Bush jumps off....you're all going along right??

We should not be in Iraq.Biggest mistake our gov't has made.Sadamm was an evil no good killer.....but he was a buffer to the more important enemy...Iran.What's that old saying....."My enimies enemy is my friend."

Now we are sitting over there in a war that will never end,never end,never end.All we did was give Iran a way to get in.This is nothing but a civil war that will get worse......there are hundreds more Iraqis getting killed than Americans over there.

George Herbert Walker Bush knew this back in the first Iraq war.That's why he didn't go to Bagdad and force out Sadamm when we had the army there the first time.....to bad Bush the younger didn't pay attention.

We have to get out and let them settle it themselves.All we should do is protect the Kurds in the north and let the Sunnis and Shia fight it out.My prediction is that is exactly what is going to happen.

Afganitstan is different.....I am all behind Bush on this one.....we knew that AlQuida and the Talliban were behind 9/11.We had no choice but to go after them.

Neither one has any thing to do with Jane Fonda and Vietnam.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> Countries have been trying to bomb these countries into submission for centuries and look at the end result. It just brings a new wave of killing. Your right guys, just keep killing as many of them as you can and the rest will finally get the right idea. You almost have me convinced.


 Thats good thinking bombing doesnt work. But guess what has keeping troops on the ground. Since 911 has there been an attack on US soil. HMMMMM NOPE. Why because we are keeping them occupied in there own country. They are mindless killers. There maybe no good answer on whats going to stop them but right now I feel plenty safe Knowing the red white and Blue is taken the fight to them over on their own soil. But Hay here is a good idea lets pull out let them regroup and wait for them to kill a thousand more us civilians. Right on Brother You should run for Pres.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> That's why he didn't go to Bagdad and force out Sadamm when we had the army there the first time


Ken, I know you are smarter than that and that you know what you said is not true. At best you are being dishonest with yourself and at worst dishonest with others. George Bush ( the first ) did not go to Bagdadd because the UN mandate was to free Kuwait only and agreements with Saudi Arabia was that we could use their air bases but going to Bagdad was not to be done. He may have wanted to go but he kept his promise to Saudi Arabia and didn't go.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Not from what I have read in the past.We had the people there to take out the Republican Guard w/o going to Bagdad.The Air Force said it would have been a turkey shoot as they retreated north along Hwy 1.But Bush senior chose not to because we had no way of replacing Sadamm and Iran would have filled the gap.

The present situation will prove him right.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> If Nancy Pelosi wants to try a little diplomacy, go for it!


That is the problem with the way you and the rest of this nation's liberals think. Listen Closely, IT IS NOT PELOSI'S JOB TO ACT AS A FORIEGN DIPLOMAT WITHOUT THE BACKING OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Get it?

She has gone way beyond the scope of her duties and has taken it upon herself to make nicey nice with one of our enemies. As far as I'm concerned that is an act of treason. Doesn't matter what party she is affiliated with, she had no business going to Syria. She should be prosecuted and thrown out of the House.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If Nancy Pelosi wants to try a little diplomacy, go for it!


So it's ok for her to circumvent the president and the constitution, and speak for America when that is not her place to do so?

Rooster, you will not address one of my statements so let me ask you straight out, how many years did we try diplomacy? How many sanctions from the United Nations did Sadam ignore. How long do we try diplomacy before we consider it failed? Now we see Iran with a short time to go before they have nuclear capability. This is very important Rooster, and I would like your opinion now. How long should we try diplomacy with Iran? Do we wait until they are one year from a nuclear weapon, six months, a week? Do we ignore than until a small WMD goes off in New York? I'm not being facetious, I would seriously like to hear from everyone. Do we back Israel when Iran's nuclear reactors and centrifuges go up in smoke? Ignoring this problem will only give it time to grow. What to do??????

We argue about the past, but that's what it is the past. I have a new question how do we deal with the future. I don't think any of us have enough information to know what to do. We can't just up and pull out. The worst part of that is the rest of the world would see that after we get innocent Iraqis to stick their neck out for their country we pull out and let them die. I don't think we need to be there forever like in Japan and Germany. 
We do hear that the new increased offensive his having some good results. I think coming up with a time schedule for withdrawal will have mixed results. I understand the viewpoint that it will put pressure on Iraq to prepare to stand on their own. Unfortunately it will also give the terrorists hope. This telegraphed to the world including the terrorists is a two sided sword. 
It is hard for all of us not to think like conservatives or liberals, but somehow we need to look at this as Americans. That can only happen if we are honest with each other. Look at the debate about Nancy. There should be no debate, our constitution spells out her role, and she is going far beyond it. The entire nations should be upset, but liberals are not. Bush is screwing up on border security, and Nancy is screwing up being in the middle east. If conservatives and liberals on here can't admit that to themselves what chance does Washington have? If this is true America has seen it's best years.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Before I critize what she did.....I would like to see what law she broke.....what are the laws about congressional junkets.What can they legally do or not do?

And if she broke a law.....why aren't the republicans trying to get her indicted?


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

If you look back in history this country sarted a down trend in the 60's with the hippy (AKA Liberals) movement. Some of the older democrats were good leaders for this country it sad to see a good party crumble because of liberals. Read some stories from WW2, people were proud to be Americans. Hitler Saddam they are the same person. Saddam learned all of his tactics from studying hitler. So why is this war any different. Maybe we didnt find WMDS but whos to say they are not in Iran right now we gave him plenty of time to move them out.

And I agree with plainsman I support our president but his border patrol policies are crazy. We should have those suckers locked down.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Before I critize what she did.....I would like to see what law she broke.....what are the laws about congressional junkets.What can they legally do or not do?
> 
> And if she broke a law.....why aren't the republicans trying to get her indicted?


Good question. I think republicans are often guilty of the same thing, just not to the extent Nancy is currently doing it. I think they have gone to other countries, but I don't think they have gone to enemy nations and tried to influence our foreign policy, or speak for our nation unless with executive permission.

I am not familiar with what law this would be. I do know that the constitutional separation of powers is not being followed. How that interprets into law I do not know.

I think foreign policy is much like raising children. Mom and dad might not agree, but never let the kids see that. Those little suckers know exactly how to manipulate that situation and so do countries like Syria and Iran. It's just basic knowledge of human behavior.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The Logan Act.

I posted it back on page 1.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's right you did, thanks for the reminder.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm not sure if the Logan Act fits or not. I've been watching a few other forums and it has been speculated that this would apply, however, I am not a lawyer so I'm not entirely sure.

Either way she defied the President, from what I have read on CNN and MSNBC she took it upon herself to engage the Syrian President in diplomatic talks even though President Bush told her not to.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I understand that you fellows that are slightly left want to protect Nancy. However, let me point out that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing. 
It's a shame that at times we all fall into the mental mode of us against them. The odd thing is we all want the same thing, but see different roads to the same objective. That is the reason I often refer to things as conservative and liberal rather than democrat or republican. It's kind of humorous in a way, I'll bet if I asked everyone to rate themselves from 1 to 10 with 1 being liberal and ten being conservative most people would say they are a five. How many of us can be honest with ourselves. Tough thing to do. I guess I would put myself at a 6.5 to 7. I have a lot of environmental points of view. I would think environmental protection and firearms rights would be the two most important things to sportsmen and women. My two big concernes are slightly politically polar arn't they?

If we can put political allegiance aside for a while for two points. I will admit that I am very displeased with Bush on boarder security. Is there no liberal that can see Nancy is wrong in what she is doing? We hold fourth the constitution and the Logan act. Doesn't this take it out of the realm of political conjecture, and into the realm of realty? This really isn't us against them, and there are no losers. When the truth is unveiled we are all winners. If I support Bush, for example, and you prove he is bad for America do I loose? No, I may be embarrassed, but we all still win, because we are all still Americans.
I say all this because I see so clearly why Nancy shouldn't be doing what she is doing and am baffled why some do not understand. I suspect you do, but can't bring yourself to see who you perceive as a team member politically chastised.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

This is a excerpt from a essay "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" written by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft. These are the words from the mouth of the first Bush President........ BTW, The Republican guard remained in Baghdad during the Gulf War. They were not part of the Iraqi army trapped on the highway of death.



> "We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting".
> 
> "As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid".


As far as waiting to see if Pelosi broke any laws, since when do you have to break a law to be accountable for stupidity, crossing the line of the separation of powers and simply acting in a despicable manner just for self power. Tom DeLay didn't break any laws either but I guess Pelosi being a Democrat makes it okay.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

WOW, Rooster where did I post I love Bush. At my age I don't rembember things too well but If you kindly find my quote please have at it and shove it through ciber space to me. I don't go in a cave but I do work most of my day and I will not cheat my employer by playing with this at work. But after being gone for 22 hours I se you have had way to much fun. Later.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I understand that you fellows that are slightly left want to protect Nancy. However, let me point out that doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing.quote]
> 
> I'm not trying to protect Nancy.If she was legally wrong.....then she should be indicted.Is going to Syria or Iran illegal?
> 
> ...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The travel ban to Cuba is a joke. US journalists, government employees, professionals attending conferences, researchers and athletes--can travel as individuals or in groups, providing the visit is related to their professions. People can also visit close relatives in Cuba up to once a year. Americans can sign on to a trip organized by an educational, religious or humanitarian group that has obtained what's called a "specific license," granted by OFAC for trips related to the group's purpose. IIRC Jimmy Carter visited with Fidel Castro not to long in the distant past. So yes, Pelosi could legally visit Cuba.

Pelosi had the legal right to visit Syria as does anyone else as long as it was a fact finding trip which usually pertains to a particular incident. What she didn't have a right to do was to attempt to convey administration policy, discuss policy or make policy concerning the US. That's what she apparently and openly did. However as a person in such a high position as she is, it is also a normal and proper procedure to send delegates or other party members for that job who report back to you in order to avoid appearance that you are crossing the line of separation of powers, which she did.. Yesterday there was talk that she and Tom Lantos might even consider going to Iran. As the first woman speaker of the house she is setting a new record as being the dumbest and most inept speaker of the house in history.

This has nothing to do with whether Bush and conservatives like it or not as to why there is a uproar over this visit by Pelosi, especially when every liberal newspaper in the country has condemned her actions. How any educated person can come to that conclusion is unbelievable.

I actually had hopes and thought there was a possibility that when the Democrats took control, they would want to show the people that they were the right people to lead the country, reach across the table, shake hands, and actually get something done for the country. What do we have so far&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; two dozen or more oversight investigations (witch hunts) started, no bills have reached the President, and the Speaker of the House trying to act as if she is President. From where I stand the Democrats not only didn't learn a damn thing but have sunk to even lower levels.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> She could not go to Cuba,right?Because there is a ban on travel to Cuba.
> 
> I'm not trying to protect Nancy.If she was legally wrong.....then she should be indicted.Is going to Syria or Iran illegal?


Yes, it is illegal, There is a ban on going to Syria, and North Korea, just like there is a ban on going to Cuba. I think it is Syria, anyway it is one of the countries she went to.

What would any of you guys think if one of the Supreme Court justices was doing the same thing? They have no right to be there because it is the responsibility of the executive branch of government. Why then can you not see that someone from the legislative branch should also not be there. To think she has that right you must disregard the constitution and the *Edit: sorry Logan act.*

There is little chance she would be indicted. She probably will not even get her hand slapped. It will not be because she didn't break any laws, it will be because there is no one in Washington with the guts to do it. She will get by with this and more, and she knows it.

If we had a democrat president and a republican house leader I would think the same thing. As little respect as I had for Clinton it would have been wrong for the republican house leader to go to Bosnia and visit with their government without executive permission.

Tell me how you can think this is right when it violates separation of powers? When she goes to a country with restricted no travel, no negotiation, no recognition. It would be no different than going to Cuba or North Korea. I think the official term our nation has been using for years is no diplomatic recognition. I think other nations often bring our message to them, but we make no official contact. There are stipulations before we ever speak with Cuba, Syria, North Korea (are there others).


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

First of all, Jane Fonda is harmless except to those of you who have all that paranoia. She is a nobody on the world political scene. Someone said that no civilians have been killed since we went to Iraq, well the body count is around 3000 dead and X000's wounded but these people could be civilians if they were alive so don't tell me how we are saving so many lives by sending troops over there to be killed. How stupid do you think I am?? A US citizen is a US citizen even if they come home in a body bag. Whenever I see that logic it makes me want to uke: .[/i] Someone also said that Pelosi should only do what the President wants her to do?? Did I really read this?? You must be assuming that the president is competent!! Whoa! That is a pretty big assumption on your part!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> How stupid do you think I am??


Since you asked............ no....... I'm not gonna do it..... :lol:

You really do need to try to understand the difference between civilian and citizen. The military is a group of non-civilian citizens. Does that help?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Someone also said that Pelosi should only do what the President wants her to do??


Well, that would be wrong. I'm not going back to see who said this, I'm to lazy this morning. I think I said something like that, and if that is presented as my statement I am betting it is a misquote. When it comes to travel to foreign nations and representing the United States that is the job of the executive branch or someone he appoints. Nancy should not be where she is at without executive approval. That doesn't equate to she should do only what the president wants. I guess when your right the only way to make a person look wrong is to misquote them.

Also, if someone said we are saving lives over there I would agree, if they are speaking in the long term. Of course many people have been killed. I would guess who ever said we are saving lives was thinking a little more in depth. If we look at the thousand dead at Adam's bloody hands (50,000 Kurds) our stopping him has saved lives. Initially we will loose some, but think of the next 20 years. There is no way to ever put a number on this. Sadam may have died before the year was up. We will never know, but conventional wisdom tells us that in the long run tens of thousands of lives will not be lost as was more than likely under Sadam.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

First off, if you think what Fonda did was "harmless" I would love to answer the question you posed. But mostly, several of the lefties are accusing some of us for jumping on the band wagon. I don't know whether we should be there or not. It's really easy to say now," I told you so". Back when all this took place we were under the impression the Sadam did indeed have WMDs. OK, that being said how could have this been resolved. Maybe if the murderous letch allowed UN (not US, UN) Inspectors to do their jobs and not thrown them out we could have seen they weren't there. Which I'm still not completely convinced something was going on or Saddam just wanted to be a martyr. But all this is moot. We are there now. We can't just pull out. We would be abandoning the Iraqi people and all the "US Citizens" that gave their lives for this cause.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." MADAME Pelosi may be in serious trouble!


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)




----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Whistler31 said:


> The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." MADAME Pelosi may be in serious trouble!


Wouldn't the Speaker of the House be one of those authorituies?After all she is third in line to be president.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Whistler31 said:
> 
> 
> > The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." MADAME Pelosi may be in serious trouble!
> ...


That is precisely why it is so dangerous. It makes America divided. Also, that authority is within the executive branch, and the executive branch only. 
After all the things I posted yesterday on the constitution and the Logan act I know your having fun with this.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

That's why Bush is so dangerous because he makes us so divided!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > Whistler31 said:
> ...


 :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> That's why Bush is so dangerous because he makes us so divided!![/quote
> 
> It is dangerous to be so divided. I don't put the blame on Bush as many do. He didn't have a chance in my opinion. His first election was so close that the democrats can't live with it. They have been frustrated and nasty ever since. Nancy's visit to the mid-east is just the latest in a barrage of obstruction attempts. I see the democrats these past years as far more partisan and hateful than conservatives. I sincerely believe that they are doing everything to make us fall on our face in Iraq.
> At first they supported the war, and soon after it was underway they changed their mind. Was it a mistake, or a tactical maneuver for political gain no matter the expense in lives. I see no action below the current Washington far left democrats. I think 70 percent of them are decent people, but the radical 10 percent is dominating the party.
> ...


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Hell, forget about all these candidates. I'm writing Plainsman in on election day! :beer:


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Plainsman, my whole family come from a long line of Democrats. When I registered to vote on my 18th birthday I registered as a Democrat because that was the thing to do back then. In order to get a job with the state back then you had to be registered democrat. But I thought it kind of odd most of the candidates I voted for were Republican. It is tough in the town I came from though. Our Politics got all screwed up back in the 70 and most of the Democrats also ran under the conservative ticket. Boy if that don't make your head want to explode. But on all else I couldn't agree with you more. For someone who does interject a lot you keep your temper. Some of the typical 'Liberal" responses just confound me. That's the main reason I don't like to respond. It does no good what-so-ever. I am no where near to North Dakota but if I were I would definitely like to buy you a beer and I don't even drink that often.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

You don't blame Bush. It's everybody elses fault! He didn't stand a chance!! Now that is some funny stuff!!!! Poor, George W! He can use that for his book title when he writes his memoirs, "The President Who Didn't Stand a Chance!" That should sell a million!


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Your right Clinton was such a stand up guy. His book could read "I committed perjury to a Federal Grand Jury and the People of the US and got away with it." The man was a coward. He should have acted against the tyrants when he was in office. No he was just enjoying "fine cigars". Give me a break. Or how about Gore, "I invented the internet and discovered "Global Warming" or better yet, "I'm a raving lunatic".


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is Bush's problem and his fault.No one else's.He led the way into this war.In the future,no one else will be remembered as a failure or success other than Bush.I distinctly remember him standing on an aircraft carrier just a smiling away saying...."Mission Accomplished." :lost:

This war has completely overshadowed everything else in his presidency.And if it continues till the next election.....say hello to a Democratic President.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken I can't wait for you to come over and spend a day in the boat, but we have to make one rule: no politics. :thumb:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Ken I can't wait for you to come over and spend a day in the boat, but we have to make one rule: no politics. :thumb:


Can I bring my dog.....he is ferocious and a DEMOCRAT.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you clip his nails so he doesn't scratch up the wifes boat, and his doesn't wear a turban.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> In the future,no one else will be remembered as a failure or success other than Bush.


This is just like the hot air the Democrats spewed before the election. Now that the election is over and they have control they are running around with their thumbs up their butts with no idea what to do. You really think no one else but Bush will be remembered if this a success? If it is a success, every Democrat in town will be willing to sell their children or their parents for a chance to stand beside Bush and declare with a wink and a nod....hey buddy I was really with you all along.


----------

