I'm going to post this commentary from our dear friend and super-patriot, Harry Browne, without any comment.

[size=4]Isn't it time for the truth?[/size=4]

[b]It is time for President Bush to stop cheerleading and speak the truth.[/b]

He said last Thursday, "This great nation will never be intimidated. Life in America is going forward."

Who is he trying to kid? Last Friday, at Los Angeles airport, I saw people trying to check their baggage – standing in a line that was at least 200 yards long. I stood in five separate lines to identify myself and my carry-on luggage. The soldiers in fatigues with sub-machine guns reminded me of a Third World country.

The politicians live in their own unreal world, with no idea of what's happening in America. How many times has Air Force One been late taking off? How many security lines have Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and Dick Cheney stood in?

They care little about the traveling businessman who now must cut his work short at lunchtime in order to catch a 5 p.m. flight. Or the individual who must get up at 4 a.m. to catch a morning flight.

Has the president noticed the hundreds of billions of dollars being added to federal, state and local government budgets – spending piled on top of previous budgets, spending that's causing huge deficits and tax increases, spending that's coming out of the hide of American taxpayers?

When will he say straight out: "America rules the world by force, and the price of that is for you to pay high taxes and live in a nation that looks more and more like a police state."

[b]No neutrals[/b]

President Bush says, "You're either with us or against us."

Does that mean he'll bomb neutral Switzerland – the island of freedom, privacy and security in the midst of socialist Europe – if it doesn't confiscate private bank accounts and otherwise act on every whim of our president?

Why doesn't he simply tell the truth: "America rules the world and I rule America. You will do as I say, or I'll kill your people."

[b]Opposition[/b]

The president keeps telling us that the world supports the American war against Afghanistan. But the truth is that he has bought the support of foreign leaders with your money – while public opinion polls show people in foreign countries are overwhelmingly opposed to American military attacks.

Why doesn't he just tell the truth: "We are destroying the last vestiges of love for America around the world – but that's the price we must pay for me to become powerful and popular at home beyond my wildest dreams."

[b]Time for the truth[/b]

When you know some of what politicians tell you are lies, you have to wonder how many of their other statements are lies as well.

What I want is the truth. I'd like to think I'm mature enough to handle whatever that may be. And I could prepare for the future much better if someone told me the truth – instead of all this rah-rah stuff.

America isn't leading the world. Leaders lead by example. And America is providing no example of individual liberty, personal responsibility, small government or peace.

America rules the world. Rulers rule by force. They may succeed temporarily, but at an awful cost.

It is long past time for the truth – the truth that many more Americans will have to die to satisfy the politicians' lust for power.

See srticle at: [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25304[/url]

Eric The(JustDoingMyPart)Hun[>]:)]

He has a point there, and in most of this article.

Too bad he's lost nearly all credibility...

The rules and regulations typically found at [b]El Al[/b], the Israeli commercial airline company, will become the standard soon.

But just think, no successful airline hijacking since 1971, with El Al!

Eric The(WelcomeToTheBraveNewWorld,You'veBeenHereAllAlong!)Hun[>]:)]

What is he trying to suggest by this? does he honestly think that these guys, or the president, should go through the same security or checkpoints, when they don't even fly domestic flights?! or is he just pointing out that they don't have to be inconvienced like we do, and we should thus have some sort of hate for them? does harry browne think we are that childish, or is he that childish?

I like Libertarian ideas about how to run a country. I like Libertarian ideals. I consider myself libertarian. I agree that the long lines are needless, but how does Harry suggest we deal with terroristic nations? In this instance, Harry isn't dealing with the world the way it [i]is[/i] right now. I think that is more important than spouting ideals - dealing with things the way they [i]are[/i]. And the way that it [i]is[/i], we have to go kill some terrorists no matter what anyone else thinks. If they don't like it, we should kill them too.

Bitter, because he is not, nor ever will be taken seriously, politically, he jealously lashes out at those who are.
He does without regard for his country.
It's all about him.

Soldiers with automatic weapons are in airports ALL THROUGH THE WORLD, including "First World" Europe.  Harry Browne should get out more...although that would be hard to do with his head planted so firmly up his ass.

Overheard at the 'Browne for Prez [s]1992[/s][s]1996[/s][s]2000[/s]2004' Campaign Headquarters -

'Mr. Browne, good news! Your proctologist's office called - they found your head!'

Eric The(BaDaBing)Hun[>]:)]

I have been to countries where troops carry arms in the airports, and on the streets.  
I don't want to see my america come to that.  
He does make some vaild points, the money is being spent,your rights are getting flushed down the toilet even quicker.   Example the US Patriot act.  
At least the man has the balls to speak up now-a-days.

c-rock

If Harry Browne has no realistic suggestions on how to deal with the present situation, and can only harp and bitch, he oughta shut his piehole and let the adults deal with the bad guys.

Browne has been smoking too much of his own b.s.

Harry Browne is not jealous.  He's desperately trying to offer an alternative viewpoint.  As far as his ideas for solutions, he has *plenty*.  It's just that, like Nader, none of the fit in with the kind of imperial, corporatist control-freak utopia that Bush and his ilk are trying to create through a clever reconstruction of reality.  

Why do some of you call this b.s. but then go right along with this foolish war like that was the thing to do?  Does it ever occur to you that there will be a price to pay maybe 10 years from now?  

Eric, sometimes I wonder about you.  I guess you can't go through law school and not get brainwashed at least a little, huh?

It seems to me that libertarians are the ones who behave as thought hey have been brainwashed.
They ignore reality while pining away for a Utopia that does not/can not exist

I agree with most of what Browne says, but sometimes he just seems like a dickweed.

First off, Mr Browne's statements do show a concern for the problems we are facing... He is concerned with the inconvienience of travel during wartime.  Yes, it is an inconvienience, but more than that it is simply cosmetic.

The problem is, does he offer an alternative?  No. except "tell us the truth"

He is concerned about the expense the war is costing - any suggestions?  "Tell us the truth"

He is concerned about rights being usurped - any suggestions?  "Tell us the truth"

Hmmm, for a libertarian, he certainly wants the [b]govenment[/b] to do a lot for us...

I think (and here's my own suggestions) that we need to inform [i]ourselves[/i] and be involved in letting our representatives in Washington (D.C.) and at the other levels know what we think are appropriate solutions.

Part of what got us to this point (US PATRIOT act, etc...)is the sheeple (if I may borrow that term) became dependent on the government for the "truth" - that "they" know whats best for us.  We need to be pro-active, not re-active.

Mr. Browne is just full of himself - which would be full of Brown(e)... follow [b]that[/b] where you will [;)]

I don't think that Finnair has [b]ever[/b] had a hijacking.  Shouldn't we be imitating [b]their[/b] security policies instead? [;)]

You mean he's desperately trying to stay in the political spotlight at a time when no one has time for his BS.

I agree that the Libertarian ideal may be an impossible to obtain Utopia, but shouldn't we try to get closer to it rather than farther away.  Having politicians that tell the truth would be a good start.

i concur [:\]

i have been brainwashed? by who? i ignore reality? Libertarians support a Utopia?

thanks for labeling us.

i should check-in with Libertarian HeadQuarters for my regular "education" classes.[:D]

cantthinkonhisownlib

"Eric the" I don't believe the El Al comparison quite stands up.  Israel, I believe has one airport and about thirty aircraft - if memory serves me correctly.

The business traveler is being HOSED  and the HOSING of the business traveler is going to HOSE some of the airlines - fatally.  This feel good bullshit with bag searches/delays confiscation of pizzas with sharp crust and the rest of the idiotic crap will eventually drive the business traveler away.

When the two day business trips takes three days whole bunches of two day business trips taking three days are going to be ruled unnecessary.

You guys are wrong, plain wrong about libertarian thought.  There is no hope of achieving any sort of utopia, in fact all libertarians I know view the reach to achieve utopia as incredibly destructive.  Libertarians accept that the world is and always will be a screwed up place and they seek to find KISS type solutions wherever and whenever possible.  It's about relinquishing preconceived notions, it's not about utopia at all--just being rational, skeptical, and utilitarian and realizing that everyone always acts in their own self-interest all of the time (altruism is an illusion).  It's also about respecting others and their right  to life and to property.  

What Browne is saying (in my view) is that there are two distinct classes of people now--the elite who own their own planes, and the rest of us, who serve the elite and get little or nothing in return.  We're the proles.  

And I do think that greater accountability in government "telling the truth" would result in some amazing and nearly earth-shattering, changes.  Not that I ever expect that to happen, of course.  I've pretty much given up on that.  But a little sunlight goes a long, long way.  

But I'm telling you it isn't right to bash Harry Browne.  Between the choices that the lefties offer and the ones the neocons are offering (none, no hope for individual automony, sovereignty, property or freedom in either case) libertarianism looks pretty damn good in contrast.

A good post, but Harry Browne deserves criticism for not providing examples of US foreign affairs screw-ups that would bring us to our current war on terrorism. istead of blaming govt as a whole, i only see blame on the shoulders of Bill Clinton. i agree with ErictheHun on pointing this out. if your going to critisize something you should be able to explain why your saying what you are saying. i severly disagree with Major-Murphy saying that we are not in touch with reality.

here is some "reality" for you. there is no Republican organization the espouses a constitutional republic. if there was one i would be as happy as a lark and would be glad to stand with'em. just once; just once i want to hear a Republican president say this nation is supposed to be a republic. too bad Ron paul is not running for president in 2004 or 2008.

the central core philosophy behind Libertarianism is personal responsibility for ones self and actions. if this makes us Utopic and brainwashed in oulook, then maybe there is nothing wrong with some brainwashing. such as putting values into the heads of young'ns.

is it Utopic to want less taxes? if we simply went back to the tax system in the constitution that our for-fathers set forth for us, would that be bad? or de we have to have inflation and income tax? this country existed before they came about. it existed with a gold standard.

is it Utopic to want to own firearms for self-protection and protection of a way of life?

im not as skeptical as Harry Browne on how George Bush has handled the situation. the only two issues im wary of are. 1. Tom ridge as head of the dept. of homeland defense. i just do trust someone who believes that my rights are privlages granted by govt. 2. a war on terrorism is about as effective as a war on stupid people. i fully support punishing terrorist organizations, espicially any terrorist organization working against the US.

[:D]

I never knew very much about Libertarians, but in the past few months I've been following the links posted here and have come to the conclusion that their two primary talking points are as follows:

1. America is imperialist.

2. Switzerland is utopia.

Did I miss anything? [:|]

LOL! can anybody say"neo-commies"[:D]

I like this one"The soldiers in fatigues with sub-machine guns reminded me of a Third World country"

This guy is not dumb,he looks at an old A1 with no mag and sees a SMG[rolleyes]
He has may vote[thinking]

nope....looks like you've been paying very close attention......jackpot

I don't know did you?  Please point out were anyone among us can be quoted as saying that Switzerland is utopia?  Unless of course you have some alternate method of coming up with conclusions.




Neo-Commies?  Please libertarians despise all things communist far more than your pathetic Bush family, and the Republican Party.  They can't seem to find an expansionist program they don't like.
Hey carbine,  How do you know he didn't see anyone with an MP5?  Did he say he saw an M16A1 and call it an SMG?  No of course not, your powers of observation are as lacking as most of the lickspittles and cowards here.  Too bad there aren't more willing to stand up and face the truth.  I see a few on this thread, I wish I saw more.
rDAm

My powers of observation............he said he was in LAX right? do you know what the NG at LAX have?
I do,we even talked about in on this site.

Now you on the other hand,what did I say about Bush?
Do you not back him now?

If I did not say anything about Bush whats the point......Unless of course you have some alternate method of coming up with conclusions.
[:D]

Anyway you guys are LIBS and thats all there is to dude.
Just one more buch that knows how to do things better them everbody else but never really do anything but b!cth.

Libertarian,  if you want examples of our international meddling try this:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=69766&page=1[/url]

I doubt the examples of our wrongdoing will be acknowledged by the fire breathing so called patriots calling for carpet bombings of innocent people from the comfort of their Laz-E-Boyz.  Too bad we couldn't export all the fat-ass loud mouth's who want to kill to Afghanistan to put up or shut up! It would get awful quiet around here.
rD(But then we would miss you!)Am

I suppose that there are no MP5's in the National Stock System and therefore unavailable to the Nasty Guard?  I suppose that some of our illustrious "Poe-Lice" couldn't be hanging around with an MP5 and in full cammies?  It would be easy to conclude the cammie wearing ninjas are soldiers wouldn't it?  Not that there is an honest distinction in a police state anyway.

And just what is a "LIB" anyway?  Some kind of insult?  I am sure you could do better.

It is too bad that the libertarians aren't in office right now, they would be doing something if they were, and it wouldn't be making a police state.  I suppose you would like them to do something else than to exercise their first amendment rights?  Well thanks to the police state it's probably a privilege now.
rDAm

The infantry division in the Amry and NG don't really use MP5s that much[rolleyes]


You guys are soooooo funy,bla bla bla!
Freedom this and freedom that,you guys don't know what freedom is!

I bet you still tell your mamy and Dady that if they really love you they will let you eat junk food befor bad time[:D]

Freedom is not being able to do what ever you want and there must be rules,if you want to call it a police state then fine.
If you are talking about the big beef up at ariports after the 11th them you a dumb a$$.

Freedom is not free and I don't just mean going to fight in a war,you have to be a good boy every day.

Try to just cool down and you have my word the feds will not come to your house and kick you butt.....really just stay right there[:D]

Quoted:
"I doubt the examples of our wrongdoing will be acknowledged by the fire breathing so called patriots calling for carpet bombings of innocent people from the comfort of their Laz-E-Boyz."

Oh, so its all OUR damn fault? well screw you, hippie! Typical liberal response, shrilly accusing the US of killing children whenever you don't agree with something, except that libertarians add the "you also aren't a patriot" garbage. I have no doubt one can find all kinds of "wrongdoing," but the next "save the children" screecher would whine and moan if we didn't do anything. Its real easy for folks to sit back in the "Lay-Z-Boy" and bitch all day, but when we ask them what one should do about it, no solution can be given. thats just not what libertarians are about. and if you don't agree with me, you are a republocrat non-patriot capitalist.

Post from Invictus -

Well, since you included the Bush Family and the Republican Party, I'll have to go to bat for both!

First off, go to [url]http://internet.msmnet.net/msmnet/election_president.cfm#l[/url] and discover that Harry Browne has [b]no military service[/b] whatsoever. This is not a huge problem, but it must be considered when pitting his patriotism against the 'Bush Familiy.' [i]N'est Pas?[/i]

Papa Bush? Well, we all know of his military service to our country, and how at 18 he was the youngest pilot in the U.S.Navy at the time.
George W. Bush was a member of the Air National Guard, which should count for something, unless you feel that such service is....

Now insofar as the Republican Party is concerned, where the hell were you during the 50s when President Eisenhower was forging international alliances to keep communism at bay, and rebuilding America's military?

Or in the 60s, when it was the Republican Party that put anti-communist Goldwater up against LBJ? I think that under President Goldwater, the war in Indochina would either have not been fought, or fought in such a manner as to achieve victory. LBJ was the master of half-measures in fighting the Vietnam War.

Or in the 70s, it was the Republican Party, and it only, that actively opposed communism.

Well, the 80s belong to Reagan, and just ask the citizens of any former Soviet republic or former Soviet bloc country, how they feel about him! In Tirana, Albania, just outside the National Assembly, where democratically elected representatives of the people sit, there is a statue of two people, arm in arm. It is Reagan and Lady Thatcher, and underneath is the inscription 'The Liberators'! 'Nuff said!

Well, Libertarians may despise communism as much as any Republican, they just haven't been able to do much about it!

Eric The(ButInYourHeartYouKnowThey'reRight!)Hun[>]:)]

Well I think that the National Dept was created in Reagan's area? Or will that be blamed on having other parties in Congress!!(Tax cut initiated by Reagan)

Both parties are to be held responsible for the mess we are in, along with the people that voted for them. Since the early 70's it seems to me we have voted, NOT for presidents, but trying to select the least of the two evils.

One statement I read was about LBJ, and yes he was not really into the war. Even he fought the war, thinking we could not win.

I have found that trying to change anyones mind on religion or politics is usually a waste of time, since there is so much wrong with both. I have found that there is good and bad in both. A fanatic is a fanatic, either religious, political, or anything.
What makes this country GREAT is our ability to listen to all sides. This creates hard feelings and at times anger; usually it makes us stronger. It is only when we forget this does the shift change to the extream. No one, no religion, no political party is correct all the time. WE just need to be able to see that. If we become so blinded as to think they are perfect5, then I am afraid we are doomed as a free state.
I will end with a quote.

[It] isn't so much that Liberals are ignorant.
It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan (1964)

Tell me, ROYAL_LANCER, how many people you think voted for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984, because they felt that he 'was the lesser of two evils'?

Since you quote from our beloved President Reagan, what party do you believe that he would want you to support were he 'with' us at the moment? Hmmmm?

Heck, even now, in his declined state, he most likely has more sense than the entire DemocRat contingent in Congress!

Eric The(RepublicansGotUsThisFar,TheyWillGetUsThrough,IfWeDon'tStartTo'GoWobbly'!)Hun[>]:)]

Did you guys notice something about this article.  It speaks of US political action followed by Islamic action.  Each instance follows the same pattern, and does not accept the wider picture of Attempted Soviet Influence in the anti-western regimes in the Middle East.  Harry Browne tries to lay the blame and responsibility for the whole of the Law of Causality at Americans feet.  But we all know that the US has AIms and interests in the middle east and that those interests must be acheived and also that reactions by groups within the middle east cannot be stopped.  But even with their reactions the US must still achieve its goals. So you end up with this Chess game that Harry Browne says America created, but what is really true is this Chess game is the natural and real result of two parties clashing for some goal.  If there had been no other party oppossing the US interests then their would be no problem.  Never mistake Harry Brownes FORCE for what would have been by those involved a perception that helping the US government in the Middle East would be in their own best interest.  But the continuation and struggle for an Ideal is exactly what you have here with US foriegn policies.  

I am not saying that American Foreign Policy has been the smartest, but I am saying that they took any route necessary to try to form some pro-western governments in the middle east. In some cases the route they took was the only route available because often it is two small groups vying for power in the middle east.  I think what you saw in earlier generations were the very large waves caused by the US. vs. Soviet struggle. Capitalism/Individualism vs. Socialism/Collectivism.  Things didn't heat up in this region to the temp. they simmer at now until the Soviet Union collapsed and Soviet influence diminished.   Harry brown is not looking at the big picture or putting what he is seeing now in some sort of logical framework.  The war we have now is directly linked to weapons proliferation and the fall of the Soviet Empire.  Although A terrorist who doesn't give a rats ass about any Middle eastern Government (even if he says otherwise) started this War.

Benjamin

Eric The(RepublicansGotUsThisFar,TheyWillGetUsThrough,IfWeDon'tStartTo'GoWobbly'!)Hun

I voted for Reagan in 80 myself. As I said, I do not believe he was a 100% correct on everything he did.
And yes Bush is better than Gore would have been, but since there is no way to know that, it's just a guess; a good guess.
But was it not the Whitehouse that allow the Terror's bill to include the right for the US to take back all military items that they once owned?
So all is not perfect..

Royal(ItToTheValleyOfTheFiveHundred)Lancer...

I think Harry Brown is a man who has never had to act for some goal that effects the world on a global scale (such as the US does every day) The problems are as big as the world because they involve the world.  Literally.  As such either America attempts influence or the other Super Powers would have. But small countries produce small change and Large ones can shift the balance on a much larger scale.

What Harry Brown also does not realize is that individual conflicts (say two kids fighting) is the same as two countries fighting. And that although the scales may change Nature employs here rules at all levels pretty much the same way.  Two parties fighting of any age/size/caliber will always produce the back and forth of a struggle. No matter what, it has nothing to do with Libertarian or Collectivist. It has to do with Nature and Reality. I am a Objectivist/Libertarian in Republican clothing. But I do understand that Struggle is the result of Two parties clashing not of Some particular Ideology.   And never hold the US responsible for anything but the US's actions themselves not what other people/groups reactions are. That is solely within the context of Who's responsible.  The responsibility is assumed when the goal is taken and acted for. Not when something doesn't go right as Harry tries argu.

Benjamin

Sorry, but I lost what little respect I had for Harry Browne when he tried to explain that it was actually the United States that was responsible for Hitler's rise to power and Nazi Germany.

Post from ROYAL_LANCER -

Yes, it was. I blame that kinda stuff, along with Reagan's signing of the Firearm Owners Protction Act of 1986 (which included the DEMO amendment that banned future NFA weapons), to the fact that none of those guys were truly raised in a 'gun culture' environment.

I doubt anybody other than Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes has ever even been to a gun show!

So when someone says 'military surplus' their minds do not race back to [u]their[/u] childhoods and the fascination of a young boy in an 'army-navy' surplus store, the way OUR minds do!

So they can be misled into thinking that military surplus is something Bin Laden may be interested in, but not American civilians!

And insofar as a perfect government on this Earth is concerned, that will only happen 'when the Sun begins to rain' if you catch my drift!

Eric The(ThinkAboutIt,IMeanBothLiterallyAndFiguratively)Hun[>]:)]

this is the most intelligent and interesting viewpoint i have seen yet so far on this topic. this makes sense to me.

actually this is not without some credence. i cannot go into specifics at the moment, but it has been said that US involvement in WW1 led to Germany's rise to power. this would make an excellent topic to discuss in the future. i'll comb through my books and articles.  start it next week. see ya then [;P]

It seems to amaze me that i have to defend Libertarianism more from Republicans then i have to from Democrats. Libertarians are not much different from "rank-and-file" Republicans, but we wast time bashing eash other.

There is nothing wrong with critisism. critisism is a helpfull and healthy thing. but name calling and presenting misinformation about each other is childish and shows no level of maturity.

I respect ErictheHun for at least presenting a valid point on a topic, but Major-murphy, A2carbine, and Mattj have lowered themselves to the level of a 10 year old. plus have the gall to label us as having no touch with "reality" or are "brainwashed" followers of some "Utopic" dream of liberty.

I know that you guys are better than that. and the same goes for Libertarians who wish to paint all Republicans with a broad stroke. i used to be a Republican, now im a Libertarian only because they present a more cohesive philosophy. a philosophy of conservative smaller govt., less taxes, pro-gun, sovergn protection, personal responsiblitity for self and action and preservation of the Bill of Rights. does not a Republican support these things? i want them to. i really do. i recieve letters from Republican groups. they dont present to me a cohesive political philosophy. i want them to. i am waiting for them to. if i had more brains, charisma, and willpower perhaps i could found such a thing.

My own father blasted me for voting for some piss-ant political party that does nothing? it does do something, something i want to see from my former party...

i am not anit-Republican! i am for a Republican form of government. i want Republicans to be for a Republican form of government.

Harry Browne is a man, George Bush is a man, Bill Clinton is an Man. a man does not make a party, people as a whole do. Libertarianism is Republicanism in different clothing. yet we are called "neo-commies" by people who have a "comicbook" view of us.

i wont tell you what to say or do, but please stop bashing us, i promise that I as a MAN will not bash you in return. feel free to critisize us and people in our "party". we will do the same of people in your "party". adopt true Republican views (support a republican form of government) and our "party" will be ONE with your "party".

Republic, Republic, Republic

"It isn't so much that Liberals are ignorant.
It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan (1964)"

Dude that says it all,there is nothing to talk about now.

I can not believe anyone would vote for this turd.  He would be much worse than Neville Chamberlain.

It is strange how the far left and the far right converge.

The biggest shame is that guy is going to discredit people who are against intrusive government.

Would Gore have suggested elimination of Miranda rights? Torture? Warrantless search?Sabre rattling to the point that all nations either side with us or become our enemies? We're going to have more enemies not friends! This is bully in the schoolyard shit.It always ends up bad for the bully.

"I cannot recall".  The words of the "perfect president" being questioned about Iran/Contra.Captain Zodiac lied.

Post from grimshaw -

Well, grimshaw, let me ask you a few serious questions when you're 83 years old, and only four years away from being diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimers, and we'll see how well you do!

President Reagan was about as perfect as they come, when the discussion is about Presidents.

Who can forget his platform?

1. Restore the economy!

2. Cut taxes!

3. Rebuild the military!

Let me see how your handle on history is, grimshaw, did he accomplish those clearly stated goals?  Hmmmm?

And yet when the 'smartest woman whose feet ever touched soil' was asked questions concerning Whitewater, the Madison Savings & Loan debacle, Vince Foster's papers, Rose Law Firm billing records, cattle trades, and the firings at the White House Travel Office, she answered 'I don't recall' or 'I'm not certain' an incredible 130 times in a two hour deposition!

Save your ire for [u]that[/u] unbelievable performance and leave the greatest President of your lifetime alone!

Eric The(WantSomeMore?)Hun[>]:)]

And they all said.......

Iran-Contra hearings July 13, 1987

[url]www.webworldinc.com/bwada/rex84.wav[/url]
(followed by commentary by Representative Henry Gonzalez- Texas)

REP BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

BRENDAN SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman?

SEN INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch on that.

REP BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that [b]there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution.[/b] And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was the area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

SEN INOUYE; May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session