Inchon worked. If you knew military history at all you would point to Anzio - it didn’t. Same principle different outcomes.
You are “blissfully unaware” of the traditional split between the north and the south of Vietnam going back thousands of years.
Do some searching, terms: Trieu Da, Wu Ti, Champa, Nam Viet, Funan, Khymer, Trinh, Nguyen.
When you understand any of this, get back with me. Start your own thread. I understand Vietnamese history - you obviously don’t understand even the basics.
elucidator, much of what you believe about Tripp is not so. However, you are more-or-less correct about her being a “loathsome harridan.” That is, she had an ugly face and was detested by many. Isn’t that the type of person most in need of defence?
When I was a liberal, we rooted for the underdog. When liberals stopped doing that, I became a conservative.
<<“for partisan gain”. I’m stunned at the vapidity of that criticism.>>
He was anti-war (as I was). Releasing the PP’s was a gain for our side.
<<What the Pentagon Papers showed us was not only was Viet Nam unwinnable, the Pentagon knew it was unwinnable, as did the Johnson and Nixon administrations. Our leaders gulled us into years of bloody savagery on a futile mission.>>
Yes. And what the Tripp tapes showed us was that our President was a perjurer.
<<You will recall, I’m sure, that Ms. Tripp had been attempting to foist off a “tell-all” book about her days at the White House, how she had seen such shocking things as staffers without ties!>>
Many people wrote books about that scandal and made a lot of money. Tripp could have made millions by writing a book (or having one ghost-written. Monica sold handbags and was on TV. Linda was the one player who didn’t write a book and didn’t make money.
Besides which, why is writing a book evil? Al Gore wrote a book. Hillary Clinton wrote one. JFK wrote one. Cecil Adams has written a bunch. Writing a book is praise-worthy, not a sin.
<<Ms. Tripp betrayed her friendship with Monica L. for pecuniary gain and nothing more. The taping of that conversation had sordid motives and sordid ends. >>
Actually Monica tried to get Linda to commit perjury. It’s on the tapes. Linda had been subpeonaed to testify in the Paula Jones case. She had 3 bad choices:
– Commit perjury, by lying about what Monica had told her
– Tell the truth, but without evidence. That would have destroyed Linda’s career, since she would be branded a liar.
– Tell the truth using the tapes as evidence.
What would you have done in her place?
No. Not true at all. Read the actual decision before shooting your fingertips off on the matter.
Yout left out:
– Tell the court she couldn’t remember what Monica had told her.
I tried, waterj2, to read your cited decision. I got hoplessly lost as to how it relates to your opinion and that of ElvisL1ves’ statement. 
So please, tell me how it’s not true at all.
Peace,
mangeorge (fingertips intact)
Uh, since she did remember, that would have been perjury, and a rather unconvincing effort at that.
“Ms. Tripp, did Ms. Lewinsky tell you that she gave blow jobs to the President of the United States in the Oval Office?”
“Sorry, Your Honor. I just can’t seem to remember.” :smack:
I don’t care about Linda Tripp, and I don’t think the Pentagon papers say what elucidator says they say (and we’ve had the discussion before,) but that’s for another thread.
I don’t know much about the ACLU. What have they done recently, and what are they doing right now that deserves support?
Sorry, [m]mangeorge**, I’ll quote the relevant sentence from the opinion:
Just annoyed me to have someone come in after I had posted a correct explanation and post an incorrect one. Basically, the BSA (in New Jersey) would have fallen under the scope of New Jersey’s public accomodations law if it were not for the fact (according to the USSC) that allowing a homosexual to be a Boy Scout leader would be contrary to the values that the BSA teaches.
The BSA does not have an unlimited legal right to discriminate however it wants. Laws, such as the public accomodation law in New Jersey, could be enforced on the BSA, provided they did not abridge the BSA’s freedom of speech.
As for the ACLU, my original point was that they should not have taken the BSA’s side, as, in my opinion (based on my experience with the BSA), the BSA was merely claiming a free speech issue when they should have been claiming an ignorant bigot issue.
Yes…they’ve supported such “liberals” as Oliver North, Phyllis Schafly, and the NRA
It worked for Reagan during Iran-Contra…
This statement is true, but in political issues, the ACLU supports liberals a lot more often than conservatives.
Did Linda Tripp ever ask for help from the ACLU? And if not, why would you complain that she didn’t get any? Moreover, what civil liberties issues that the ACLU supports were implicated by Tripp’s case?
This thread has reminded me of a story from RI when I lived there a few years ago. I found an old link to it.
The town of Lincoln, RI had a tradition of doing a mother-son baseball game and a father-daughter dance with 10 year olds. A divorced mother felt the dance was discriminatory because her daughter had no father to bring her. The ACLU supported her attempts to end the practice.
I don’t recall how this all ended. Anybody know if they still do the dance and ballgame?
I also fail to see how this is a constitutional issue. The dance and ballgame are on town property and such, but no one is being excluded, IMO. Stepdads and Stepmoms are welcome to these events, IIRC.
I think it is rather silly stances like this that the ACLU takes that lose them credibility.
I don’t know.
I didn’t complain. On the contrary, I said it was “OK.” By and large, liberal civil liberties groups give legal support to liberals and conservative CLGs do the same for conservatives.
I answered that in an earlier post, but I’ll repeat the checklist. [ul][]Illegal use of personnel file material to smear a subordinate. []Abusing the power of the White House to smear Tripp in various other ways.[]Protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.[] Felonies that may have been committed by a high governement officials (perjury and conspiracy). []Sexual harassment. (Note that under Federal guidelines, the affair between Bill and Monica constituted sexual harassment even though it was consensual.) []Government favoritism to Monica, because she was the President’s girlfriend. Selective prosecution by the state of Maryland.[/ul]Maybe some of these were never proved, but there was enough of an indication so that any one of them could have been grounds for ACLU involvement.
OK, I have to ask; is it good or bad to be hung like a reindeer?
It depends on how horny you are.
I was going to post some stupid pun about “Laplander dances” but I’m too distraught about the merciless persecution of poor Linda Tripp and the ACLU’s craven failure to rush to her aid.
Just as december says, this clearly indicates some involvement on thier part in the murder of Vince Foster. But will you hear anything about that from the Liberal Media!
“Dear Ms. Coulter…”
I am unaware of any case where the ACLU has litigated such a claim on behalf of a government employee. I see no possibility of liberal hypocricy here until you demonstrate that they have done so for other government employees.
Ditto. Plus, your non-specific complaints here and above make it darn hard to evaluate whether there’s anything comparable to what the ACLU has litigated in the past. It’s like arguing that the ACLU says it opposes bad stuff, here’s some things I think are bad stuff, so why don’t they oppose it?
Ditto.
Since when is the ACLU a branch office of the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the Office of the Special Counsel? This complaint is just ridiculous.
Please provide even a single instance of the ACLU providing legal assistance for a sexual harassment claim where the “victim” wasn’t claiming sexual harassment. And before you refer back to Paula Jones, allow me to repeat the question, but with regards to an alleged victim who already had a team of very expensive hourly lawyers working her case at no charge to the client?
Again, show me where the ACLU has ever gotten involved in a similar case.
To my knowledge, the ACLU’s only atatcks on “selective prosecution” have been entirely dependent on the reason that the case was selectively prosecuted. That is, they hate it when a case is prosecuted because the defendant was exercising liberties that the group otherwise supports. Your “selective prosecution” argument just doesn’t hold water, because the ACLU certainly does not support anybody’s “civil right” to secretly record other people.
Like Freedom of Speech? 
After all, Linda Tripp was selectively prosecuted by the State of Maryland because Democrats didn’t like what she said.
Seriously, minty, I think the ACLU is a swell civil liberties organization with an orientation tilted toward liberal issues and toward Democrats. If you want to claim that the ACLU is non-partisan, I’m happy to debate the point. Otherwise ISTM we’re just quibbling.
Stoid, congrats. I recommend picking up a copy of What’s a Nice Republican Girl Like Me Doing in the ACLU?. The author is a former professor of mine, who was the director of the Indiana CLU in the early 90s.