Please explain to the audience, you being an expert on constitutional law (NOT!), how Bush broke the law by authorizing wire taps on American citizens?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

“The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals…”

i.e. it’s LEGAL to wire tap in when it involves foreign nationals.

“For more than four years, the NSA tasked other military intelligence agencies to assist its broad-based surveillance effort directed at people inside the country suspected of having terrorist connections, even before Bush signed the 2002 order that authorized the NSA program, according to an informed U.S. official.”

i.e. the Clinton adminstration knew about the NSA program and used it multiple times during his administration…again it’s use is narrow in scope but legal. BTW, just because the NY Time SPECULATES that hundreds perhaps thousands of American citizen’s had their phone or e-mail conversations monitored, doesn’t make it so.

“YOUR president lied to go to war”

Which panel, court, or committee has come to that provable conclusion?

“…and Bill Clinton can walk the streets of any country in the world and people will greet him as a hero…(your cheerleading wus can’t do that can he?)”

A hero for doing what?! He didn’t do anything for TEN years! LOL! BTW would he be a hero walking down the streets of Belgrade after bombing the crap out of that city, or the streets of Kartoum after mistakenly bombing an asprin factory while screwing one of his interns, or the streets of Baghdad after killing many civilians with various bombing raids?

“This means that the foe should pose such a threat or embody such evil that one is willing to use brutal force and tactics sufficient to make that foe incapable of ever rising up again.”

If you are suggesting that a weapon unused is a useless weapon you are wacked. The fact that the U.S. never had to use nukes on the Soviets made the arms race during the Cold War a useless exercise and had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of USSR? LOL!

“Bushiva can’t do that (morally) because the Iraqis have done NOTHING to us.”

The invasion of 2003 was not about trying to kill Iraqis. BTW why if this insurgency in Iraq today is all about ousting the coalition from Iraq in order to restore Iraqi pride by expelling a foreign force (i.e. their cause is noble), then why don’t the Shiite’s comprise the majority of those insurgents…why are the vast majority Sunni’s? Answer, because the insurgents are sympathizers of the Baathist party that brutally ran Iraq for 30 years!

“Over 30,000 lives (yeah right wink wink), and $2-300 billion dollars to catch and have a show trial for ONE man, who’s the fool Trite?”

If that is as insightful as to the MULTITUDE of long run benefits that ousting Sadamm will bring then you should understand why liberals won’t be back in control of Congress or the Presidency for decades to come. Your insight is about a long as your attention span when dealing with world wide beneficial long term solutions that might take years if not decades to realize.

I don’t care for his MULTIPLE BS excuses especially when it comes to why Al Qaeda was able to carry out 9/11 even though he had seven years to shut them down. His LACK of regret is about as genuine as his regret for the fact the he didn’t shut down Al Qaeda for seven years…it’s NON- EXISTANT. 9/11 happened because Clinton didn’t respond to the Al Qaeda threat. BTW the U.N. and the pussy French (you know the occupying force in Rwanda in 1994) let the genocide happen. The U.S can’t take care of every problem that happens in the world and the U.N. needs to for once, step up and do it without the U.S. having to hold their hand. Where was the corrupt U.N. when the genocide in Rwanda was going on?

“But pray tell- with hindsight being what it is, why hasn’t your god (Bushiva) moved to stop the genocide being perpetrated daily against the tribesmen, women and children of Sudan?”

As soon as you explain why Clinton didn’t do anything to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. BTW the Bush administration has done far more to mediate peace in the Sudan than Clinton ever did in Rwanda…oh I forgot he didn’t do ANYTHING.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3211002.stm

“Sudan (unfortunately for those victims of the infamous Janjaweed mass murdering scum) isn’t sitting on strategic oil reserves.”

Oh, there are rather LARGE oil reserves in Sudan. Do some research before making such dumb statements.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

“Secondly, they’re just a bunch of dirt poor, Black beasts of burden relegated to the trash heap of humanity by your European gods of corruption and evil!”

If you want to be a racist please go join some Nazi skinhead party.

By the by,
I realize that “creditability” could be used in place of “credibility”, but it (creditability) is a term that carries too monetary a connotation (guess that’s the republiscum in you) for my tastes. “Credibility” seems to me to be the more appropriate term when discussion is of a philosophical nature relating to “trustworthiness” and “believability”.

I fully understand why you can’t even spell the word: “credibility”, because the dark force you serve (the Bushite junta) has none; having said that, Bill Clinton (who is NO LONGER PRESIDENT) has spoken on more than one occasion about his regret at not responding to the RWANDAN genocide (and God will judge HIM for that). But pray tell- with hindsight being what it is, why hasn’t your god (Bushiva) moved to stop the genocide being perpetrated daily against the tribesmen, women and children of Sudan?

I’ll tell you why, number one: Sudan (unfortunately for those victims of the infamous Janjaweed mass murdering scum) isn’t sitting on strategic oil reserves. You see to the right wing scumbag Bushites “freedom and democracy” are reserved only for those who can pay for it! Secondly, they’re just a bunch of dirt poor, Black beasts of burden relegated to the trash heap of humanity by your European gods of corruption and evil!

Let’s talk more about “credibility” sometime when you’ve learned both its meaning, and THEN how to spell it!

http://www.radstats.org.uk/no069/article3.htm

You need to come up with a different list in order to have creditability.

Comment by Tracy

“Trashy”,

In former Yugoslavia

No insurgency
No ieds
No daily bloodshed
No torture
No abductions of foreigners
No beheadings
No foereign terrorists/ism
No civil war
No link to Iran
No radical Islamic state
No fake misinformation scams
No collateral damage
No credibility problems
no daily spin (right wing talking points)

…need I go on?

Were we in a “just” society we’d have impeachment hearings scheduled for next week, because there’s no doubt the mr. Danger broke the law when he circumvented the courts to authorize spying on American citizens.

But American “justice” is exclusive to people like Stanley “Tookie” Williams, Bushites are exempt.

If you slimy, inbred, right wing, Al Cracka, Bushites remain in power for mush longer mother nature or internecine conflict will destroy this nation.

Personally, I’m from the Sherman school of war. If the dogs of war must be unleashed, one should be sufficiently contemptuous of one’s foe as to be willing to render that foe totally inert! This means that the foe should pose such a threat or embody such evil that one is willing to use brutal force and tactics sufficient to make that foe incapable of ever rising up again.

Bushiva can’t do that (morally) because the Iraqis have done NOTHING to us.

Over 30,000 lives (yeah right wink wink), and $2-300 billion dollars to catch and have a show trial for ONE man, who’s the fool Trite?

I see you brought along a friend this time.

“Trashy” #s 241-44

You “won” the election, YOUR president lied to go to war, and Bill Clinton can walk the streets of any country in the world and people will greet him as a hero…(your cheerleading wus can’t do that can he?)

Get over it inbred!

“Clinton had International support for getting rid of Milosivic. Bush lied to the UN.”

Bush lied to the U.N.? Do you have some proof of that? Bush had international support to get rid of Sadamm but apparently they didn’t have the guts to enforce their own resolutions.

They critized him for not acting sooner!

“Believe me, if Bush had successfully put a stop to violence in Iraq he would have much more support for his war”

The only way there wasn’t going to be violence between the Sunnis and the Shiite’s was if the invasion and the removal of Sadamm’s regime didn’t happen. Then there would be just a continuation of the slaughter of the Shiites by Sadamm and a further continuation after his sons took over. The types of democratic political changes that are taking place in Iraq don’t come about peacefully. Do you know of any free society that came to be without a violent revolution or civil war?

BTW NATO peacekeeping forces are STILL in former Yugoslavia, i.e. an occupying force, so why are so many people whinning about coalition forces still in Iraq?..only three years so far.

“NATO did that, and it wasn’t Yugoslavia”

Serbia, Croatia whatever…please don’t get into semantics. The U.S. led the way as they did in the 1990-1991 Gulf War and did most of the work for that puss European’s who couldn’t seem to take care of problems in their own back yard.

“Yugoslavia had already fallen apart and civil war was going on.”

What Milosivic and the Serbians were doing was NOT civil war…it was systematic slaughter of civilians.

“Now there is civil war going on in Iraq when there wasn’t one before.”

So stoping genocide committed by Milosivic and the Serbians was the right thing to do but stopping Sadamm from doing the SAME for thirty years was not?

“Are all trolls this stupid?”

You must be the troll because you asked the question:
“What do you mean we, white man?” and then gave a dumb answer: “NATO did that…”

“Yea? And what has your big bad tough guy done to North Korea.”

Do you actually think that the U.S. would attempt doing anything to N. Korea militarily considing that they have nukes? Do you know what a nuke is and what it can do?

“Remember, he thought Iraq had them, and he bombed and invaded.”

Bush didn’t think that Iraq had nukes before the invasion and never said Sadamm did. Where are do you get your news from? He said he was trying to produce them.

“He’s a puss. A paper tiger. He picks on the kid in the class who can’t fight back, and he ignores the ones who can fight back”

If Bush Jr. would have been in office back when his father was in 1990, not only would he have demolished the 3rd largest army in the world at the time, he would have finished the job and taken out Sadamm…as should have been done nearly fifteen years ago.

BTW Clinton was and is the biggest puss of all time considering he vowed to take care of the Al Qaeda problem for seven years after the 1993 WTC bombing and in turn we got 9/11 and over 3,000 dead. The deaths of those in NYC lie squarely at the feet of Dick Clinton.

Comment by big papa

You sir are no historian or gentleLord have mercy, if Abraham Lincoln did one thing wrong (like Papa Bush) he didn’t go all the way. Dana Rohrbacher is a textbook case of why the inbred traitors should’ve been finished off during the Civil War!

Comment by big papa

You sir are no historian or gentleman. Speaking ill of the men on either side of the fight proves you are not fit to lick my boots let alone the men who served this great nation. My guess is the only thing you know about the Civil War is the name of the Union President. man. Speaking ill of the men on either side of the fight proves you are not fit to lick my boots let alone the men who served this great nation. My guess is the only thing you know about the Civil War is the name of the Union President.

I think Lynn would be satisfied if the kiddies simply didn’t turn out brain damaged. She must have missed you.