A David Icke link for Spideygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
A link for Spidey - the recent Jeff Rense radio link is pretty up to date on Clinton's antics in Yugoslavia and plans for us over the next few years - God help us all.http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index.html
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 03, 1999
I notice that David Icke still displays blatant factual errors on his web site despite having been notified of them three times and having been given a URL at which he could doublecheck for himself. Apparently, redesigning the buttons on his web page has higher priority than correcting these errors.In his article "Y2K: Incompetence or Genius?" he lists six Executive Orders (#10995, 10997-11000, and 11002) which, according to him, "are just a few of the powers that will become law when the Y2K 'state of emergency' is introduced".
But nowhere does he mention that every one of those EOs was revoked in either 1969 or 1970. Not one of them actually is or could be in effect. None of them could "become law".
(You can check this out for yourself at http://www.nara.gov/fedr eg/eo1962.html which lists the legal disposition of all EOs issued by President Kennedy in 1962. Mr. Icke was informed of this resource in February.)
I know that Mr. Icke did in fact read my message informing him of these things, because I received a direct reply from him which quoted portions of my message. On two later occasions, a member of his staff responded, saying she would bring it to his attention. In one of them, she added that they had been doinbg extensive work on the web site.
I recommend that one treat David Icke's statements with high skepticism as to their factual basis.
Clearly he values a polished appearance (just look at what he presents when you first view his site!) more than accuracy of substance.
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 03, 1999.
I remember you pointing this out before No Spam - and I'm surprised that David has not retracted his position on the minutiae. All I can say is that he is in the middle of a massive book tour at the moment. I don't want to disregard what you've said, as it IS extremely important, but the general thrust of his argument is not changed one iota - in that there are an excedingly high number of EO's that allow Clinton (and they have been passed at an alarming rate over the last few years on his "watch" HA!) to basically do what he likes with impunity.There are no consequences for him - he can do what he likes.
He can virtually declare war now without congressional approval - what do you make of THAT? He has interfered with other countries 33 times since he started in office in 1991/2.
The USA since 1946-91 got involved 8 times. This ratio is staggering.
Let me see 45 yrs = 8 wars/skirmshes/acts of aggression.
Clinton = 8 yrs and 33 entanglements.
And people wonder why the USA is unpopular and regarded as a bully throughout the world...
However your point is well taken.
later, Andy
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 03, 1999.
Andy (and other anti-Clintonites),Okay, you've done it. I'm going to spout off now because I've just seen too much anti-Clinton ignorance, exaggeration, and propaganda recently.
>minutiae.
I dwell on those because they are easily-summarized concrete examples of the general factual carelessness I've seen over and over and over in arguments like his.
>All I can say is that he is in the middle of a massive book tour at the moment.
My experience makes me suspicious of the substance of such books.
>but the general thrust of his argument is not changed one iota - in that there are an excedingly high number of EO's that allow Clinton (and they have been passed at an alarming rate over the last few years on his "watch" HA!) to basically do what he likes with impunity.
On the contrary! His argument (which I think originated elsewhere because he seems to have copied his factual errors from other sources I've seen) is based on the supposition that the facts he presents in support of it are correct.
"an excedingly high number of EO's" -- (I've seen another site claim that Clinton has issued more EOs than any other president. Wrong!) If the people who are making these anti-Clinton arguments were to restrict themselves to the actual numbers, they'd have to admit that the number of EOs issued by Clinton is in fact less than the number issued by four of our previous seven presidents.
Yes, in number of EOs issued so far, Clinton ranks only fifth among the most recent eight U.S. presidents.
"an alarming rate over the last few years" -- _Reagan_, not Clinton, ranks first in number of EOs issued per year. Was it all right for Reagan to issue more EOs per year than any other president in the past four decades (probably the past five, but I don't have figures on Truman -- probably the past seven, but I don't have figures on FDR)? Is it all right to state or imply that Clinton has done so, when in fact he hasn't?
Were you alarmed at the rate at which _Reagan_ issued EOs? Were you alarmed at _Reagan's_ all-time record number of vetoes in his first year of office?
What's your definition of "exceedingly high number" in the context of EOs?
>There are no consequences for him - he can do what he likes.
B*llcr*p. That his critics accuse him of bypassing the Constitution does not make it so -- it only shows their [ignorance or malice - which?]. If your statement were true, why did he get impeached?
>He can virtually declare war now without congressional approval - what do you make of THAT?
Exactly what practically-war-declaring power does Clinton have that any other recent president has not had?
>He has interfered with other countries 33 times since he started in office in 1991/2.
Clinton did not take office until 1993. Bush was president during the entire calendar years of 1991 and 1992.
See? That's another way of inflating the anti-Clinton figures. Just redefine the presidential term of office.
>This ratio is staggering.
[Skipping, for a moment, that the implied ratio of 33 to 8 is totally bogus ... !]
(a) That's what you get when you end the Cold War wherein each superpower kept the other restrained.
(b) Any reasonable comparison, I think, has to count the U.S. involvement in Vietnam (i.e., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, for those who love to count up the subdivisions a la Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Serbia) as significantly greater than any other in the periods you mention.
Even counting Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Serbia all put together as equal to just South (or North!) Vietnam is purely political crapola. Visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC to get proper perspective. Find a source for number of POWs and MIAs in North Vietnam alone.
>The USA since 1946-91 got involved 8 times. -- Let's count. ("Involved" apparently means simply any time U.S. troops are present in another country, since that is the only way to justify any count of over a dozen for Clinton. And you DO agree that we have to use the same definitions for 1946-1992 as we do for the Clinton era, don't you?)
This is going to be only approximately chronological order...
Japan, Germany (occupying forces). North Korea, South Korea (remember, since the Clinton era count includes every possible subdivision, so does the pre-Clinton era), China (yes, some of those fliers did stray). Philippines (major naval base), Guam (ditto), Marshall Islands -- here there are several other Pacific Ocean entities (bases - ditto) but I won't bother looking them up unless you're going to seriously insist on a recount later so temporarily they're not counted but if you quibble I'll haul out my atlas and encyclopedia and go to work. [Hey, we got eight already!]
Haiti (most people forget that we've been there more than once -- I'll temporarily count it only once, but in case of recount...), Dominican Republic, Panama Canal Zone. SouthVietnam/NorthVietnam/Laos/Cambodia. Nicaragua, Guatemala (Reagan may not remember, but they happened anyway.) Panama outside the Canal Zone (remember, when you start counting subdivisions on one side of the argument, ...). Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (remember the SCUD missile casualties?). Iran (helicopters in a sandstorm). What's the count so far -- 22? Whoever came up with 8 for 1946-1991 vs. 33 for Clinton clearly did not have a good reference almanac handy.
Shall I continue by actually opening my almanac, or will you concede my point that this mythical 8:33 intervention ratio is a bunch of hooey?
>Let me see 45 yrs = 8 wars/skirmshes/acts of aggression. >Clinton = 8 yrs and 33 entanglements.
Let's see. Historical facts vs. vicious political lies.
>And people wonder why the USA is unpopular and regarded as a bully throughout the world...
And anti-Clintonites wonder why there's any backlash support for him.
>However your point is well taken.
Yours, or rather the ones you've been misled by without doublechecking facts, are not.
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 03, 1999.
Andy,May we have a list of the 8 involvements in 1946-1991, the supposed 33 interferences/entanglements of the Clinton administration, dates for all those that occurred in 1991 and 1992 (and the first three weeks of January 1993) so that we may properly transfer credit for those to the pre-Clinton era?
Also, for the sake of making sure that the same standards have been applied to the computations for pre-Clinton and Clinton eras may we have precise definitions of "virtually declare war" (apologies for getting that wrong in my preceding post) "interfered", "involved", "wars", "skirmishes", "acts of aggression", "entanglement", and "bully" (the last is optional)?
(You DO agree that when throwing around numbers like 33 and 8 it is only fair to use the same definitions on both sides, don't you?)
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 03, 1999.
No Spam,Thanks for taking the trouble to investigate this piece and I will answer you as best I can. I can see I've touched a nerve - apologies if I've raised the old blood pressure but what is being played out here is not pleasant.
Andy (and other anti-Clintonites), Okay, you've done it. I'm going to spout off now because I've just seen too much anti-Clinton ignorance, exaggeration, and propaganda recently.
>minutiae.
I dwell on those because they are easily-summarized concrete examples of the general factual carelessness I've seen over and over and over in arguments like his.
####### I know you do No Spam - I'm sure it comes from being a programmer. However, sometimes when dwelling on the minutiae (sp) one can miss the wood from the trees. It's important to look at the big picture, the broad context of history, what REALLY happened, what is happening NOW and what is PLANNED. #######
>All I can say is that he is in the middle of a massive book tour at the moment.
My experience makes me suspicious of the substance of such books.
####### Now No Spam you have got my dander up! Your comment above "such books" indicates that you have not even read them have you? Come on, admit it. His last two major books are weel worth reading and I would appreciate your comments on them - why, No Spam, you could even spring for his new one as I have. At the very least you would do well to listen to david on the Jeff Rense archives to understand where he and I are coming from. #######
>but the general thrust of his argument is not changed one iota - in that there are an excedingly high number of EO's that allow Clinton (and they have been passed at an alarming rate over the last few years on his "watch" HA!) to basically do what he likes with impunity.
On the contrary! His argument (which I think originated elsewhere because he seems to have copied his factual errors from other sources I've seen) is based on the supposition that the facts he presents in support of it are correct.
"an excedingly high number of EO's" -- (I've seen another site claim that Clinton has issued more EOs than any other president. Wrong!) If the people who are making these anti-Clinton arguments were to restrict themselves to the actual numbers, they'd have to admit that the number of EOs issued by Clinton is in fact less than the number issued by four of our previous seven presidents.
####### I am no expert in these matters, being but a humble and lowly Brit living in these strange and forbidding climes, so i bow to your superior knowledge. The thrust of my reading on this subject indicates that Clinton is way up their in the EO stakes - perhaps more importantly he is way up there from what I have read in the substance of what he has signed off on, the impact to the populace of the power being gathered. If you are correct, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, it indicates that executive power has already been firmly prepared by previous Presidents. #######
Yes, in number of EOs issued so far, Clinton ranks only fifth among the most recent eight U.S. presidents.
"an alarming rate over the last few years" -- _Reagan_, not Clinton, ranks first in number of EOs issued per year. Was it all right for Reagan to issue more EOs per year than any other president in the past four decades (probably the past five, but I don't have figures on Truman -- probably the past seven, but I don't have figures on FDR)? Is it all right to state or imply that Clinton has done so, when in fact he hasn't?
Were you alarmed at the rate at which _Reagan_ issued EOs? Were you alarmed at _Reagan's_ all-time record number of vetoes in his first year of office?
What's your definition of "exceedingly high number" in the context of EOs?
####### See my comments above. Perhaps I am indeed wrong - I would suggest to you that there are a number of sites and individuals out there who would vehemently disagree with you! again, No Spam, remember the wood from the trees. #######
>There are no consequences for him - he can do what he likes.
B*llcr*p. That his critics accuse him of bypassing the Constitution does not make it so -- it only shows their [ignorance or malice - which?]. If your statement were true, why did he get impeached?
####### Not bullcrap No Spam. Clinton has gone in, according to my sources, and I stand by them, 33 times without consulting the American people. That simple. Was this the intention of the founding fathers? I think not.
As for the Iimpeachment - it was a disgrace. He got off. Guilty, but got off. reminds me of the recent Lennox lewis / Evander hollyfield fight :) #######
>He can virtually declare war now without congressional approval - what do you make of THAT?
Exactly what practically-war-declaring power does Clinton have that any other recent president has not had?
####### You tell me but 33 times is a little excessive isn't it. My god this country is sticking it's oar in in so many places that the citizenry now couldn't care less - it happens so often that people are inured (sp) to it! is this not so? Seen many demonstrations a la Vietnam lately? #######
>He has interfered with other countries 33 times since he started in office in 1991/2.
Clinton did not take office until 1993. Bush was president during the entire calendar years of 1991 and 1992.
See? That's another way of inflating the anti-Clinton figures. Just redefine the presidential term of office.
####### I'll say upfront that I got my figures from the March 29th Jeff Rense radio show - listen to it yourself - broadcast to plus or minus a million or so people (I don't know how many lsiten) - I trust Jeff Rense to be accurate with his figures so there you have it. 8 and 33 were quoted several times. Why not write to him yourself for a breakdown - I know that you are going to listen to the archives aren't you so you will be able to take Jeff on too. #######
>This ratio is staggering.
[Skipping, for a moment, that the implied ratio of 33 to 8 is totally bogus ... !]
####### Bogus says who. You write to Jeff rense and accuse him of being a liar - I'm not going to do it. Come back if you get different figures. #######
(a) That's what you get when you end the Cold War wherein each superpower kept the other restrained.
####### the "Cold War" was a sham designed to generate wealth for the elite by escaliting armamemt production and worldwide conflict. As I said No Spam read the books and then debatye me on this. Until you do you can't take apart Icke's views can you? #######
(b) Any reasonable comparison, I think, has to count the U.S. involvement in Vietnam (i.e., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, for those who love to count up the subdivisions a la Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Serbia) as significantly greater than any other in the periods you mention.
Even counting Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Serbia all put together as equal to just South (or North!) Vietnam is purely political crapola. Visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC to get proper perspective. Find a source for number of POWs and MIAs in North Vietnam alone.
>The USA since 1946-91 got involved 8 times. -- Let's count. ("Involved" apparently means simply any time U.S. troops are present in another country, since that is the only way to justify any count of over a dozen for Clinton. And you DO agree that we have to use the same definitions for 1946-1992 as we do for the Clinton era, don't you?)
This is going to be only approximately chronological order...
Japan, Germany (occupying forces). North Korea, South Korea (remember, since the Clinton era count includes every possible subdivision, so does the pre-Clinton era), China (yes, some of those fliers did stray). Philippines (major naval base), Guam (ditto), Marshall Islands -- here there are several other Pacific Ocean entities (bases - ditto) but I won't bother looking them up unless you're going to seriously insist on a recount later so temporarily they're not counted but if you quibble I'll haul out my atlas and encyclopedia and go to work. [Hey, we got eight already!]
Haiti (most people forget that we've been there more than once -- I'll temporarily count it only once, but in case of recount...), Dominican Republic, Panama Canal Zone. SouthVietnam/NorthVietnam/Laos/Cambodia. Nicaragua, Guatemala (Reagan may not remember, but they happened anyway.) Panama outside the Canal Zone (remember, when you start counting subdivisions on one side of the argument, ...). Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (remember the SCUD missile casualties?). Iran (helicopters in a sandstorm). What's the count so far -- 22? Whoever came up with 8 for 1946-1991 vs. 33 for Clinton clearly did not have a good reference almanac handy.
Shall I continue by actually opening my almanac, or will you concede my point that this mythical 8:33 intervention ratio is a bunch of hooey?
####### No I won't concede this. You write to Jrff Rense and accuse him of the above and I'll accept his reply. Fair enough? #######
>Let me see 45 yrs = 8 wars/skirmshes/acts of aggression. >Clinton = 8 yrs and 33 entanglements.
Let's see. Historical facts vs. vicious political lies.
>And people wonder why the USA is unpopular and regarded as a bully throughout the world...
####### I'm very serious about the USA being regarded worldwide as a bully. Do a little travelling and you'll soon see. #######
And anti-Clintonites wonder why there's any backlash support for him.
>However your point is well taken.
Yours, or rather the ones you've been misled by without doublechecking facts, are not.
####### We'll see soon enough when you get your reply. #######
Andy, May we have a list of the 8 involvements in 1946-1991, the supposed 33 interferences/entanglements of the Clinton administration, dates for all those that occurred in 1991 and 1992 (and the first three weeks of January 1993) so that we may properly transfer credit for those to the pre-Clinton era?
Also, for the sake of making sure that the same standards have been applied to the computations for pre-Clinton and Clinton eras may we have precise definitions of "virtually declare war" (apologies for getting that wrong in my preceding post) "interfered", "involved", "wars", "skirmishes", "acts of aggression", "entanglement", and "bully" (the last is optional)?
(You DO agree that when throwing around numbers like 33 and 8 it is only fair to use the same definitions on both sides, don't you?)
####### See my comments above. i was trying to be PC with my labels above rather thans say what I really feel about the use of the "big stick" constantly by the USA.
Enough already.
Leave the rest of the world alone. #######
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 03, 1999.