newbie

Convenient defense. How about the name of the clergy that abused him and proof thereof. I'm afraid his credibility is as shattered as his career.

None of these acts were done in the name of the Church. Nah, just done in Parish offices and living rooms.

And who dragged their heels with anti-terrorism laws? link I think some folks are forgetting their history.

Hicksey, it's not all black and white.. I would probably be considered left if you held a gun to my head I guess, but I am totally against all premeditated death. I also believe though that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Those are cases that should be dealt with on an individual basis and remain with the woman and her doctor. I am also against war, but I live in Canada and must abide by the dictates of the govering body. We agreed to go to Afghanistan but we will have lives lost. I am against the death penalty, but if the majority of people voted for it in a referundum, then I would have to accept that. Right and left can blur from time to time. I just don't want to be locked into a label.

But now he's with another ballbreaker. Condi Rice. <heh> Yep, and gone where no man has gone before.

I think you're guilty of the "hindsight is 20/20" syndrome. The U.S. couldn't make a case in 1996 for extradition. And Clinton did set the record straight. Review your history.

Fine. You find me another book from someone as close to this topic and as impartial as Richard Clarke and I'll read it. Until then let me update you on this man's resume: Starting in 1985, Clarke served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. During the presidential administration of George H.W. Bush, he coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the subsequent security arrangements. He also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda . His positions inside the government have included: * United States National Security Council, 1992-2003 o Special Advisor 2001-2003 o National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000 o Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003 * United States Department of State 1985-1992 o Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, 1989-1992 o Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, 1985-1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Richard Clarke is hardly a "fan." He worked for 4 presidents and I'll take his word over yours. How about a credible link?

I would like to see him give a full apology to the world regarding the conduct of his subordinates. And Ill bet some of those perpetrators are Cardinals as well. Time will tell how he will handle this matter. I'm just a little leery however, based on my experiences with this organization.

Try watching the entire clip. He did try, in the midst of the Republicans saying there was no threat. Look back, you'd be surprised at what the neocons said at the time. They were all busy trying to nail Clinton on Lewinsky. And read Richard Clarke's book. It's all in there. Plus, Clinton, IMV, acted completely appropriate considered he was set up on Wallace's show. I applaud him finally getting a chance to set the record straight. And I really like the fact that Bush abanonded Clarke's plan and did absolutely nothing for 8 months. Some partial Clinton ideas: The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

In other words, you're more than willing and quick to pass judgement....condemn...and give a guilty verdict on anyone based on hearsay. Besty, in my experience, I know that Bishops used to protect and coddle their pedophile priests. I had a bishop basically tell me that prior to his death. So it is no surprise that the Holy See would want to keep the tradition going. That's obstruction of justice as far as I'm concerned. Given all the cases (Boston, New Mexico, etc.) that have exposed peodophile priests, just imagine what lie beneath the surface. People don't come forward (civil cases) because of the manipulation of the law that the Church's lawyers play. I became a recovering catholic because of it. I refused to put money into the plate that ultimately supports this nefarious activity and provide counselling and or money needed to heal the victims they produced.

Let's hear if for White Supremacy.

Give it up Argus. He's out of office.

deleted

Plus there is apparantly a statute of limitation on civil cases. It's too bad because there are plenty of victims that will never be able to bring civil actions forward.

You tell me. I know for a fact the ex-bishop of our parish did move priests around when they got into trouble abusing children. He told me at a meeting that "we didn't know any better." When he was named in a law suit, his lawyers kept postponing the discoveries and other legal meetings. Records are hard to get from the Catholic church. Cops don't seem to do anything unless a victim complains or lays a charge. I think the Bishops use their canon law to justify most of their illegal activity and hire fancy lawyers to stall litigation and settlement. The amounts of awards are kept confidential in order to deter others from filing "false" claims and to not set precedents. That to me is their justification. I am currently under a restriction not to reveal the particulars of a recent settlement but I have a lot to tell if I could.

We have laws on hate speech (re Keegstra, Zundl). And we can't yell fire in a theatre. Why would we want to incite a group of people we know would be outraged to the point of causing damage to people and property?

You got my vote.

So patient that they will wait, plan, accumulate material to carfully set it up in a foregn land for years, set up operatives here, then, in secret, make sure the stuff is loded onto a container, bribe the right people to have it shipped in secret and then, contact all involved to wait for the stuff to arrive. Then, when they are ready to recieve it, hope that none of the hundred or so people involved have been compromised they risk a one in eighteen chance the whole two year long operation will be dicovered simply by a physical inspection. Got it. Consider the planning done for 911. We all have opinions. Edit: Krusty, many of us on the left has opinions and beliefs that can align with some thoughts on the right.And we don't have to "toe the party line." I don't believe everything the left presents, but I favour them over the right. Just more things in common I guess.

When has the Catholic church ever turned over pedophile priests to the cops? Victims have to come forward and the cops have to do the investigation. Remember Cardinal Law of Boston. What a joke. He obstructed justice by covering up the abuse in his diocese and was not held accountable. Oh, he resigned but he still remained Cardinal. In the case of civil claims, the church will have victims sign a letter of confidentiality not to disclose outcomes or amounts of awards on threat of lawsuit. I have first hand knowledge of the latter.

As for not being safer, I see that in the years since 911, with every terrorist wanting to harm the US at home, not one has done so. I would say that the deterence is sucessful. I think you have to look at the big picture. When I say "we" I'm talking about western society. Al-Qaeda is on the move all over the world. Since 911, there have been attacks in Britian, Bali, and Spain. There wasn't this on this magnitude before 911. Our ports (North America) are extremely vulnerable. To say that Al-Qaeda has been deterred is premature. Like I said earlier, they are a very patient organization.

I think you missed the point. How safer are we when only 6% of containers are inspected? I don't care if its drugs, bombs or poison gas, etc. We aren't any safer and in fact we are more constricted and a lot less freer.

How do you know? Maybe G-d wants nothing from us. We'd be a blind society.

I don't think it's that simple. This essay sums up what a lot of the world thinks of the U.S.A.

I don't know how old you are Argus, but in my day manners, tact and respect counted for something. And what does your rant have to do with respecting the victims of 911?