Stumped: Condi Unable to Explain What Gave Bush Authority to Eavesdrop Without Warrant
Stumped: Condi Unable to Explain What Gave Bush Authority to Eavesdrop Without Warrant
This morning on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Condoleezza Rice a simple question: what is the specific statute that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant?
She had no answer:
RUSSERT: What Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, what is the authority that you keep citing? What law? What statute? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order?
RICE: Tim, the President has authorities under FISA which we are using and using actively. He also has authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority. Now, I am not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions.
Rice said several times this morning that she’s “not a lawyer.” That is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Advisor when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bush’s decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So this is what it looks like when a house of cards collapses…
December 18th, 2005 at 12:15 pmFor a lengthy breakdown of the pertinent FISA and Constitutional code matched with the NYT reports and Bush’s speech that answers the question of whether Bush’s order was legal or constitutional please see:
The 10,000 Things: He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
December 18th, 2005 at 12:19 pmI’m no lawyer, but trust me, me selling crack cocaine is in the best interests of the nation.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:19 pmDarth Filibustrous,
December 18th, 2005 at 12:29 pmand you are correct. as long as it is $$Profitable$$.
Its the Economy that kills humanity.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:30 pmI Created Humanity, Not Economy.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:31 pmI Created You! I Am Your God!
December 18th, 2005 at 12:32 pmFinally, DUHbya has let his alligator mouth overload his hunningbird brain (or ass as the case may be). Start the drum roll, bring in the dancing girls, strike up the band, commence the impeachment, Bushco is going down!
December 18th, 2005 at 12:33 pmI AM Your KING! Not your President!
December 18th, 2005 at 12:34 pmI Am you Master and Your FATHER!
December 18th, 2005 at 12:34 pmYou are my Children AND My Servents!
December 18th, 2005 at 12:35 pmGod (in this thread) = nofreedom!. Stay on topic at least… you’re just contributing to the noise level not the discussion.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:37 pmNico, “Rice said several times this morning that she’s “not a lawyer.†That is irrelevant.”
Yeah, being a lawyer is irrelevant to answering specific questions about statutes. Because Nico says so. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 12:38 pmAnti-God. ANd/or Anti-Christ. Hhhmmm…
December 18th, 2005 at 12:39 pmI,ve, been told such Evil Exists.
This is merely Bush fulfilling his pledge, just before taking office when he said:
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator…”
–Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
George W. Bush, selling democracy down the river for his dream of empire and permanent Republican majority, laws and constitution be damned.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:41 pmWhat is happening in America is not a laughing matter at all. As senator Edward Kennedy puts it, “this is big brother run amok”. Too true. More people should be reading Orwell’s 1984. The political irony of the Age is that common citizens think they know everything about big brother; the TV show, that is.
Huey Long, governor of Luisiana and a politician of relevance until his assassination in 1935, once said: “Of course we will have fascism in America, but we will call it Democracy!” Now his prophecy is on the verge of fulfilment.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:42 pmTimmy knows that Condi,Rummy and Dick/George are big picture people. This minutia is handled by the staff. Just because they may have overstepped the limits really isn’t the fault of big picture people. Everybody at that level knows that the President of the Free and Democratic World is allowed to do anything that assists him in spreading/protecting/enforcing (please select one and only one for each issue raised) Freedom and Democracy.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:44 pmGranite State, you’re just spouting crazy paranoia. This helps Republicans, so thank you.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:44 pmThe tortured rationalized rhetoric coming from the mouths of this Administration’s personnel is deafening. Will anyone in the legislative branch wake up fast enough to bring the executive branch back to earth? Impeachment is the tool that needs to be employed in 2006. If the Republicans (my party) in the legislature continue rolling over during this time of executive ascendancy, they will bear the burden for the demise of our democratic system here in America. It has become painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that the Bush Administration plays fast and loose with the rule of law – the very foundation of our democratic society. In fact, what I have been able to discern is that this Administration sees the rule of law as a mere obstacle to policy implementation. -Kevo
December 18th, 2005 at 12:51 pm#16
Until 1984 is turned into a made for television movie that does not compete with Desperate Housewives or any reality show, that knowledge will be lost to we progressives.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:52 pmRice was the National Security Advisor when President Bush authorized the NSA program
wwwallace, If Condi is not privy to law then she should never have been our National Security Advisor. If Condi is not privy to law, she shouldn’t be authorizing something she doesnt understand legally.
Read the entire article for once.
By the way, what are you doing out from under your bed?
December 18th, 2005 at 12:56 pmWaaallace.
This is a quote from George W. Bush.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator…”
–Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
-GSD
That is the mental caliber of the man leading this nation.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:56 pmThe really scary thing is that Condi did cite specific authority, the Commander-in-Chief power stated in Article II of the Constitution.
Of course, if the C-in-C power was as broad as Bush thinks it is, then he would have unlimited power, to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to do it. And we we thought the American Revolution was about ending monoarchy.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:58 pmGranite State, you’re just spouting crazy paranoia. This helps Republicans, so thank you.
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005
Bush spouts crazy paranoia about evil doers. That did help Republicans… once.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:59 pmBush clearly seems to forget that the legislative and judicial branches are equal to the executive branch. Unfortunatley, the legislative and judicial seem to have forgotten as well…
December 18th, 2005 at 1:00 pmGood news. The Chicago Tribune put Bubble boys crime on the front page of this mornings paper.
This story hit Friday and usually by Sunday it’s old news.
It’s good to see that this crime is being kept on the front page on the day papers have its highest readership.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:00 pmThis is a quote from George W. Bush.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator…â€
You can hear the audio on my radio show.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:02 pmSusan,
Thanks, that is great news! Nice to be getting some for a change!
December 18th, 2005 at 1:02 pmGSD,
The difference is most of the right wing don’t think you are spouting paranoia. Keep it up, it will help bring bush down by further splitting his base. And wimpy knows that. Whatever he says, always do the opposite. Until he starts making sense, like that would ever happen.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:03 pmGSD, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier”
Isn’t that just an undeniably true statement? He didn’t say he wanted to be a dictator, just that it would be easier, which of course is true. Loosen your tinfoil hat a bit, it’s good for teh circulation. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 1:03 pmWallace, your always the first to jump on people who don’t use google, maybe you should learn to use it yourself. Oh, I forgot, the world according to Bush doesn’t saying wrong. He’s just misunderestimated.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:05 pmShe has lots to respond and be guily. Such as derelict of conduct while Natiol Security advisor to the president She kwowingly contributed to the debacle in Iraq. She speaks too fast to be credible . Like Shakespeare said : Me think the lady protest too much.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:05 pmLadies and gentlemen, this is exactly the price society pays as a result of the Sixties.
Unfortunately, it will be my generation bearing the brunt the cost. Just go to any college campus or surf the Internet.
It shows up everywhere–from the MSM to movies to the popular clothing to the carefree, near-invincible attitudes. I lament on how the Feminazis’ and the womyn’s movements have pervaded our society and made our culture and our nation into a den of filth.
And, the fact that these same idiots want God out of our schools. That’s just exascerbating the problem. While putting the Good Book and God into our schools won’t solve the problem, it might very well strengthen moral values in a wide variety of kids.
That said and with the self-evident moral bankruptcy of our culture, should any of us be surprised? Absolutely not.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:07 pmIraq is not a debacle. They just had a quite successful election last week.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:07 pmif we survive, we have to thank these clowns for destroying their (grand old, neither) party, and making everyone in the world very suspicious of the US for our actions. And now ever more suspicious of our words. (if this is possible) we are likely to see a mandate of a different kind in congress, one that they people again speak, except for one thing. will the people running for congress capitilize on that, sure. will they actually represent, that is a good question. my bet is no.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:08 pmmaybe, if the 11-06 elections are held, and that is of course in great doubt right now, we will see a lot of people removed from office. we will see a congress without most of it’s leadership. They will be voted out as well as those lost to legal trivialities such as bribery and money laundering.
sadly, the people that should begin impeachment proceedings, won’t. They are frozen in fear right now. doing nothing. Those are the ones that need to go, watch them.
How can she say “it’s within the laws and Constitution”, implying she KNOWS it is, and then turn around and say “I don’t know what laws, specifically”????
Isn’t this like me diagnosing cancer in someone, and then when someone questions my credentials, I just say “well, I’m not a doctor, but I just KNOW”??
How can she say so assuredly that she “knows”, but then feign ignorance of the statute that explains it?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:10 pmGSD, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easierâ€
Isn’t that just an undeniably true statement? He didn’t say he wanted to be a dictator, just that it would be easier, which of course is true. Loosen your tinfoil hat a bit, it’s good for teh circulation. LOL
Comment by wwallace
A perfect example of what I’m talking about. You communists have gotten out of control. We need a man of iron in these times. We need to put the both of you in re-education camps.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:10 pmIraq is not a debacle. They just had a quite successful election last week.
Comment by wwallace
You bleeding heart liberals just don’t get it. Those sand fleas do not deserve democracy. wipe them out like the heathen pestilence that they are. It’s them or us.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:11 pm“Rice said several times this morning that she’s “not a lawyer.†That is irrelevant.”
Really? Why don’t we ask Judd if that’s irrelevant? It’s my understanding he has a fairly expensive law degree. Let’s ask him how he feels about non-jurists waxing eloquent about something as amorphous as the Powers of the President under the various and sundry acts from which they are derived. I think she answered the question perfectly.
“Tim, the President has authorities under FISA which we are using and using actively. He also has authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority.”
This is terrible. One dog of an issue after another. If it weren’t for Ryan “FMFB” Neat’s little essays that deal strictly with foul mouthed nincompoopery most of these threads wouldn’t get second read.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:11 pm#33
You’re in the wrong blog. This one is for people who think. Try http://www.theinquistion.com
December 18th, 2005 at 1:13 pmFred Eper called wwwwallace a liberal! hahahahaha…
December 18th, 2005 at 1:14 pm#34: “Iraq is not a debacle. They just had a quite successful election last week.”
They’ve had a number of elections and yet we’re still there. We will continue to remain there because that is how Bush and his cronies justify the wiretapping of innocent Americans without having to go through the courts. Their only argument is that as long as we’re at war, Bush can do whatever he wants without being accountable for the consequences.
They say we will revisit Bush’s expanded powers once the war ends, but they know perfectly well that he intends to keep this country in perpetual war, so any discussion of making Bush obey the Constitution when the war is over is meaningless for them.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:14 pm#13 – I’m not a lawyer either but I can read english, even lawyerese english, and the claims of Bush and Rice here are patently false. One does not need to be a lawyer to see how clearly and blantantly against the law and the Constitution the actions of the President are.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:15 pmIt’s them or us.
Comment by Fred Eper — December 18, 2005 @ 1:11 pm
The world is big enough for us all Freddykins… In fact some wingnut sent me an email on how the whole world could fit it the state of Texas. Granted it was illogical and I-RIGHT-I might not be happy ’bout sharing his ranch with foreigners, but no one has to choose. We all have the right. Now go read the Declaration of Independence…
December 18th, 2005 at 1:17 pmPunchy, “How can she say “it’s within the laws and Constitutionâ€, implying she KNOWS it is, and then turn around and say “I don’t know what laws, specificallyâ€????”
Because the decisions were thoroughly vetted by people who are lawyers, you moron. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 1:17 pmThe story is big, but the biggest part is still to come. The reason IMHO why the court was bypassed was because this was political. We will find it was done to gain insider political weapons on the Dems. This was to check on American political operatives of the other side.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:18 pmAndrew, anyone can see the President didn’t violate the law. Only partisan hacks like you are claiming otherwise.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:19 pmIRI – I read the acts and articles cited by bush and rice and they very specifically DO NOT allow their actions.
Face it… your littler godling boy is a criminal with no respect or understanding for The Constitution of the United States of America. He has failed to fulfill his duties under The Constitution “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
December 18th, 2005 at 1:20 pmKefa, “his was to check on American political operatives of the other side.”
Thank you for admitting the Democrats are working for the other side.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:21 pm#47 – and you can defend this ridiculous statement?
Read the link I provided at the top of this thread. It lays it quite clearly with specific references to the law and the Constitution. Bush’s actions are wholly illegal and unconstitutional.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:21 pm#47,
Actually, the President did violate the law. He was required to get court permission for these wiretaps and didn’t do it. That is illegal.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:22 pmAndrew White is a criminal with no respect or understanding for The Constitution of the United States of America.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:22 pmWe will find it was done to gain insider political weapons on the Dems. This was to check on American political operatives of the other side.
Comment by Kefa
No doubt about it. When we get enough evidence of treason against them we’re gong to hang their asses too. Stock tip:
ACME Hemp and Razor Wire Co. Get it while it’s still cheap.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:23 pm#52 – and again I ask you to provide proof and specific references to back up your claim?
I did. Can you?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:23 pm#50 Andrew,
wwwwallace is off his meds. Best not to take him seriously. He’s just looking for a fight. No rational person could mean what he actually posts.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:24 pmAndrew, no you didn’t. There are legal circumstances when warrants are not required. Prove those specific conditions were not met.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:27 pm#55 – I don’t take him seriously. He clearly hasn’t a clue what he is talking about. If he provides an actual argument to back up his ludicrous statements then I’ll take him seriously. In the meantime he appears to be just one more sadly uneducated looney on the right that has no clue what makes this country so great and no clue how much damage the Bush administration is doing to the American people and way of life. It is sad. Truly sad.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:28 pmunbelievable, #55 contained only ad hominem and did not address the topic. Thus, it violates the site Terms of Use.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:29 pm#56,
What are those legal circumstances? The point of this thread is Condi doesn’t know what they are and neither do you.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:29 pm#13 – I’m not a lawyer either but I can read english, even lawyerese english, and the claims of Bush and Rice here are patently false. One does not need to be a lawyer to see how clearly and blantantly against the law and the Constitution the actions of the President are.
Comment by Andrew C White
Well that’s what I said when Clinton traded the technology to target multiple war head missiles to the Red Chinese …(Clinton gave the Red’s a twenty year jump in their ability to match us weapon for weapon. Fortunately Clinton wasn’t ‘told about the “really bad stuff” we’ve got or they’d have that too.) …and later pardon dozens of criminals on his last day as President. Boy was I wrong. You’re wrong too.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:30 pm#58,
Good thing for you this wasn’t an ad hominem attack either:
“Andrew White is a criminal with no respect or understanding for The Constitution of the United States of America.” –by wwallace
December 18th, 2005 at 1:30 pmAndrew, your ad hominem attacks in #57 will never change the fact that you can’t back up your assertions.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:31 pmunbelievable, #55 contained only ad hominem and did not address the topic. Thus, it violates the site Terms of Use.
Comment by wwallace
Cut her some slack. She has large breasts.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:31 pm#56 – Indeed. I spelled them out in my post that I linked at the top. The President himself said Saturday that he did not follow the proper procedures.
So tell me… is the President a liar? Or does he not know what he is talking about? Or did he purposefully break the law? Those are your options. Take your time figuring out which one you want to use as your defense.
In the meantime, understand that his order to the NSA was illegal to begin with. He did not have the authority to order illegal wiretaps. FISA makes clear what the procedures are for such surveillance. Congress makes the laws, the President executes them. Congress made a law. The President ordered it ignored. This action alone puts him direct deriliction of his duties as President to ensure that the law be faithfully executed.
He did not.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:32 pmBecause the decisions were thoroughly vetted by people who are lawyers, you moron. LOL
Comment by wwallace
“thoroughly vetted” = “wave hands and casually dismiss any potential concerns”
December 18th, 2005 at 1:33 pmFight the Power,
I know speeding is illegal, but I can’t recite the specific language of the laws that make it illegal. Whether Rice can recite specific statutes from memory is irrelevant. Thus, this thread is an idiotic canard.
My comment #58 was merely a parody of Andrew’s earlier ad hominem. Try to keep up. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 1:33 pmSo I’m curious, wwallace. What LAW provides this authority to Bush? Makes no difference that “lawyers vetted it.” Arlen Specter is a lawyer, too, and he said this is “unacceptable.”
December 18th, 2005 at 1:34 pmAndrew, “The President himself said Saturday that he did not follow the proper procedures.”
This is an outright lie. The president did not order illegal wiretaps, he ordered legal wiretaps.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:35 pm#60 – when left without a defense of illegal actions – attack Clinton!
December 18th, 2005 at 1:36 pmSpecter is a liberal, so he obviously cannot be trusted. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 1:36 pm#57
Yeah, agreed. It is sad. And #58 is further proof that he has no sense of reality. He attacks at will and it’s okay, but if we ask him to provide substantiation to his claims, he invokes the rules – someting that he himself cannot follow…
I really don’t think Bush understands political science or understands the Constitution. I seriously don’t. If he doesn’t read the news, but instead has someone give him a book report of it, and in light of this new evidence showing blatant ignorance of the law, I really have to wonder…
Yale and Harvard must truly be proud that he holds their degrees.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:37 pm#70
Another ad hominem attack from wwallace. Face it, you are the only one here ignorant enough to believe the president didn’t do anything illegal.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:38 pmBringing up the truth about Clinton’s illegal actions and dereliction of duty is not an “attack on CLinton.”
December 18th, 2005 at 1:38 pm#62 – I will say yet again – read the post I linked to at the beginning of this thread. It lays out a very specific argument of the positions I am taking here. With references to US Code of Law and The Constitution as well as to the NYT articles and Bush’s own statements.
Read and learn then if you want to take apart my argument and show me in exact and specific ways with appropriate references to the law how I am wrong then I will yield the day.
In the meantime you have talked a lot and said nothing.
Back it up friend.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:39 pmunbelievable clearly doesn’t understand political science or the Constitution.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:39 pm#70 – Bush & Rice are criminals so they obviously cannot be trusted either.
Out there somewhere is a bridge missing its troll. Go home to your underbridge wacky-wallace
December 18th, 2005 at 1:39 pm#63 I-RIGHT-I
I already knew you were a pig, you can stop advertising the fact.
I can handle myself. I have a large brain.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:40 pmAndrew, your post is mere assertion of opinion backed up by no facts.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:40 pmShe lied about secret prisons/torture now she’s lying about spying on American citizens. These are old idea that have been deem criminal acts. These crimes and others are grounds for impeachment and she does know that.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:41 pmWhere are the Republican rubberstamping syncophants in Congress? Oh yeah, they’re too compromised, too scared, or in bed with this criminal administration.
From the Wahington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700992.html
“In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said “it’s a fair comment” that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and “ought to be” doing more.
“Republican Congresses tend to overinvestigate Democratic administrations and underinvestigate their own,” said Davis, who added that he has tried to pick up some of the slack with his committee. “I get concerned we lose our separation of powers when one party controls both branches.”
Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.”
Nice to see some hard facts on the Republican rubberstampers in Congress. They are the true cowards. That’s OK…their abdication of their responsibilities to do their job on investigating this administration so as to provide short term cover for the criminal enterprise known as the Republican Syndicate, will hasten their demise.
The American people understand BS when they see it. Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, despite the Republican Inquisition and the Republican corporate media’s attempts to destroy his reputation. Bush, on the other hand, enjoys a majority Congress and the same media covering his crimes…and he’s under 40% in aprroval ratings.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pm#60 – Do not change the subject by using the “blame Clinton” talking points. This is about President Bush engaging in an action in violation of statutes established by the mandates of Congress. Rice’s argument that the role of President as “Commander-in-Chief” to take certain actions has some merit for instances where there is no clearly defined powers for a particular action. However, in this case, there are clearly defined limits on Presidential powers, particularly with respect to “spying” on citizens of the United States.
This will be a Constitutional battle between Presidential powers and the “will of Congress.” It will probably be a losing battle and President Bush will have to grip with that fact.
IRI – Do you have an argument that the role as Commander-in-Chief allows the President to disregard the laws passed by Congress and the fact that the President is an elected representative of a people’s government, whose laws he is expected to faithfully uphold and execute according to the Presidential oath taken before allowing to serve office?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pmStatute? We don’t need no stink’n statute!
What makes anyone think that this administration cares about legalities? They’ve already committed some of the most aggregous crimes one could ever imagine and still they laugh at those that would even try to hold them accountable.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:43 pmFISA does not require a warrant in all cases:
December 18th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Seriously, who types “LOL” at the end of their own jokes?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:43 pmNow personally, I’d love to see president chimp and the rest of his zoo mates hung out by their tiny testicles to dry, but I am sorry to say, other than some doublesided hot air coming out of the mouths of a few spineless dems, there isn’t a damn thing that will come of this.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:43 pm#34 Iraq is not a debacle. They just had a quite successful election last week. Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
ROTFLMAOL!!!
By the way, the assertion Bush keeps making that the political developments in Iraq will influence the rest of the Middle East is ridiculous to anyone who actually talks to anyone from the region. Arabs mostly believe that Iraq is laboring under an oppressive foreign military occupation. You can’t bring up Iraq without them saying, “The Americans are doing such horrible things there.” They think of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, and of the Ministry of Interior’s secret torture cells, not of parliamentary debates. Few think the Iraqi elections are aboveboard, and few are very interested in them. In Beirut, the newspapers have been putting a short article on the elections below the fold every day since Wednesday, and that is about it. It isn’t even really positioned as important news; the New York Times puts it higher on the page than most Arab newspapers.
An American living in Egypt who was teaching out in the provinces in a major city told me about recently witnessing a student demonstration that included a skit. Thousands of students had come out, and some grade schoolers were there in the front row. On the steps of an academic hall, Islamist students enacted a play about an Iraqi suicide bomber blowing up US troops, to enormous glee and applause. That’s what most Arabs think about Iraq, on the outside. They don’t want to emulate an American-occupied country. Bush’s naive conviction that his project is exemplary reminds me of the way the Communists in Russia initially thought that all the factory workers in the West would want immediately to imitate their worker’s paradise. Of course, few wanted to give up their unions and consumer lifestyle so as to become the wards of a one-party state. Likewise, American Imperial “democracy” strikes most Arabs as paternalistic and hypocritical, masking a police state of a sort they are all too familiar with.
http://juancole.com/
December 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pmI apologize for the overbolding in #81. I suppose I did not close the bold quotes around not.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pmsarah, why do you think you Dems all seem to be so vulgar and thoughtless?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pmI’m not a lawyer! Better, I’m rich! I know there’s no statute, but, so what? We do what we want to when we want to. What part of this is hard to understand? Let me repeat it: we do whatever we want to whenever we want to. Period.
Good night and good luck
December 18th, 2005 at 1:46 pm“How can she say “it’s within the laws and Constitutionâ€, implying she KNOWS it is, and then turn around and say “I don’t know what laws, specificallyâ€????â€
Because the decisions were thoroughly vetted by people who are lawyers, you moron. LOL Comment by wwallace
That isn’t what she said though, is it, imbecile? She is the Secretary of State of the United States of America and she stated firmly in public that everything Bush has admitted doing was legal and constitutional. Now, either she thinks she knows the law, in which case the question was pertinent, or she doesn’t, in which case she is lying.
The evidence favors the conclusion that she was lying. Remember when she described the presidential daily briefing as “historical?” Last summer, during an interview at the ranch, Bush himself acknowledged that the daily briefing he receives from the CIA has to do with what is happening at the moment. I guess you missed that.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:47 pm“By the way, the assertion Bush keeps making that the political developments in Iraq will influence the rest of the Middle East is ridiculous to anyone who actually talks to anyone from the region.”
In fact, it’s already had far-reaching effects – in Lebanon, Egypt, Libya… – only a complete imbecile wouldn’t know that.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:47 pmlarryo, the August 2001 PDB contained nothing new. We had known for years that bin Ladin wanted to attack the US.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:50 pm#88 wallace, I do this because I enjoy using the speaking habits of republicans.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:54 pm#45 – FISA lays out the specific people and circumstances under which these decisions are to be made, reviewed, reported, and approved. Mr. Bush and you are stating that the decisions were reviewed by various legal councils. Unfortunately that too is a violation of FISA as the one’s mentioned by the President in his radio address yesterday do not meet the requirements of the law.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:55 pm#92
larryo, the August 2001 PDB contained nothing new. We had known for years that bin Ladin wanted to attack the US.
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 1:50 pm
So that’s why Georgie went on vacation instead of going to work after taking office? Because it was such a threatening matter that required immediate attention? Is that is?
December 18th, 2005 at 1:55 pmWwallace, this is the NSA here. You don’t mind if we listen to all your telephone conversations and just take a peek at all your emails while we’re at it, right? And while we’re at it, you wouldn’t mind us checking all your credit card records, medical records, bank statements, school records and airline travel records and asking the FBI to look into all the library books you checked out during the last few years, now would you? After all, it’s all in the name of the War on Terror, and you’re doing your country a great service by allowing us to do it. On the other hand, why even bother asking you? We’ll just do it! After all, POTUS said it was okay for us to do so, and Congress isn’t going to object either.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:58 pmAndrew, “FISA lays out the specific people and circumstances under which these decisions are to be made, reviewed, reported, and approved.”
OK, then tell us who specifically was put under surveillance, who was required to be notified under those specific circumstances who was not notified, etc. Thanks in advance.
December 18th, 2005 at 1:59 pm#96
Great idea!!! But you might not want to waste your time going to the library, wwwingnut doesn’t read.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:00 pmunbelievable, the old “the president was on vacation” canard is lame and boring nonsense. He has full access to his staff from Texas or from anywhere, you moron.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:00 pmwwallace, your a such a good little Beta-monkey/wanker.
“larryo, the August 2001 PDB contained nothing new. We had known for years that bin Ladin wanted to attack the US.”
Good, so you agree that Bush let it happen….this will be one of the charges that we will use in his criminal indictment. He knew OBL planned to attack and did nothing…leading directly to the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11.
“FISA does not require a warrant in all cases:”
In the cases that Bush is used them for, he needed a FISA. Sourcing National Review? What a joke.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/purposely-misquoting-fisa-to-defend.html
Purposely misquoting FISA to defend the Bush Administration
Defenders of the Bush Administration are resorting to outright distortions and deliberate falsehoods about the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) in order to argue that the Administration’s warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens complies with the mandates of that statute. To do so, they are simply lying — and that term is used advisedly — about what FISA says by misquoting the statute in order to make it appear that the Administration’s clearly illegal behavior conforms to the statute.
This is a real case study in how total falsehoods are disseminated by a single right-wing blogger who is then linked to and approvingly cited by large, highly partisan bloggers, which then cause the outright falsehoods to be bestowed with credibility and take on the status of a conventionally accepted talking point in defense of the Administration.
….
But here is what that section of the statute actually says, when quoted correctly and fully:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
Thus, this authorization to conduct warrantless searches is expressly limited to communications among subsection (1)-(3) foreign governments but does not even arguably extend to subsection (4) terrorist groups.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:01 pm#73 – classic right wing misdirection. When you can’t defend yourselves misdirect towards Clinton. The bottom line is that your guys are breaking the law and you can’t defend it.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:05 pm#100
unbelievable, the old “the president was on vacation†canard is lame and boring nonsense. He has full access to his staff from Texas or from anywhere, you moron.
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
Actually, it’s not the same. Bush should have been in Washington, at his job. Not at his swimming hole playing golf or hog-tying defensless baby animals. Or, oh that’s right – reading nanny goat fables to first graders.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:06 pmThis is a real case study in how total falsehoods are disseminated by a single left-wing blogger who is then linked to and approvingly cited by large, highly partisan bloggers, which then cause the outright falsehoods to be bestowed with credibility and take on the status of a conventionally accepted talking point in attacks on the Administration.
These attacks undermine US national security, but those on the left making these attacks simply don’t care.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:07 pmOh wwllace, before we forget, we’ll be evesdropping in on your Internet browsing habits too and checking out all those site that you’ve been visiting and sharing that information with the FBI. Can’t be too careful, you know?
December 18th, 2005 at 2:07 pm#66 – I understood the parody – the only problem is that mine was not ad hominen it was factually accusation based on the law.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:07 pm#68 – no. he ordered wiretaps that were illegal under the law. That is an illegal order. It was also an unconstitutional order.
No lie. No bs. Just fact.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:08 pmI asked Andrew for specifics in #98. He continues to avoid providing any.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:09 pmYes FredEper needs to go to college . Not to get degrees ,courses in western civ. comparative religion the humanities.to open his mind and keep open.Come back not as numbskull as the writer god who keeps saying i am coming back .
December 18th, 2005 at 2:09 pmWell come back alrady . enough promises , enough ” rapture ,the end is near and other slogans” come back and make right this time . Enough fraticide wars : White against white , white against black , black on black and all against thy chosen people .
Come back and chase all the nazis and all the publicans the money changeers out of the temple and God in the meantime smite a few people :Buch Cheney rummy all the neo cons bent on our destrying our country , the self proclaimers of defenders of thy faith : pat roberton , jerry falwell . jonh reed and all the corrupt sobs in congress stating with delay and all the hypocrites . You know them that should not be a problem . So god enough promises . Show me what you can do , no what you are gone do . We have all the promises we can stand from thos administration.
AND ONE MORE THING , IF YOU CREATE MAN WHOLE JUST LIKE THAT
PLEASE CHANGE THE LOCATION OF HIS PROSTATE SO IT’S NOT HARD TO CURE IT.
#78 – then you clerly haven’t read it. It is chock full of facts.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:10 pm#83 – nice try. Read FISA sections 1801, 1802, 1805, and 1809 to see how that all really works. There is more in the rest of it but those blow the cover off the idea that a warrent and court approval is not needed. In particular pay attention to 1805 as it lays out exactly the circumstances under which the AG can go about authorizing wiretaps prior to obtaining a warrent. It also lays out exactly what actions and in what timeframe they are to follow such emergency authorizations by the AG. Nowhere in there does the President have the authority to do this on his own. Nowhere.
The law was not followed.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:14 pmAndrew, prove the president did not consult the AG. Put up or shut up.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:16 pm#97 – read the link I provided at the top. Read the sections of the FISA code I posted just seconds ago. The procedures are laid out quite clearly and specifically. Even a non-lawyer can understand them.
Guess you didn’t do the research and reading before claiming I didn’t know what I was talking about huh?
December 18th, 2005 at 2:16 pm#106 – silliest thing you said yet. Just as silly as Bush’s claim saturday that the NYT article uncovering illegal actions on the part of the government aided terrorists. What a bunch of hooey.
The NYT article made clear to terrorists that the government is out to get them. I’m sure that is a real newsflash to terrorists that figured we were waiting with open arms for them. Bush and you are full of baloney.
Nice try. Care to play again?
December 18th, 2005 at 2:19 pm#110 – I provided specifics in detail in the link in comment #2 at the beginning of this thread. Specifics you have not bothered to read.
The bottom line is that Bush issued an illegal and unconstitutional order and he has now been caught. Further that neither you nor anyone in his administration, including Condi Rice the then National Security Advisor who should have known specifically under what authority such an order was issued, can provide a defense of these illegal actions.
You can attack all you want but you have yet to provide anything remotely resembling a defense of the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the worst and most destructive administration this nation has ever known.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:23 pmAndrew, citing sections of a law wihout mentioning how they apply to a particular set of facts is worthless. I asked you for specificss, which you have so fare failed to provide.
I asked:
Additionally, you must show that FISA is a or the only statute that applies in those specific cirumstances. Put up or shut up.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:24 pmIf this is Freedom, then I can understand why Some People wouldnt want it!
December 18th, 2005 at 2:25 pm#116 – read the President’s address from Saturday. I linked it in it’s entirety at the top of my post linked in comment #2. He states toward the end that he did indeed consult the AG during the reviews of the NSA authorizations. Unfortunately this does not meet the requirements spelled out in FISA.
FISA also makes clear how requests for electronic surveillance are to be made and by who. Nowhere in there is an executive order by the President specificed as meeting those criteria. Far from it.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:25 pmWell that’s what I said when Clinton traded the technology to target multiple war head missiles to the Red Chinese …(Clinton gave the Red’s a twenty year jump in their ability to match us weapon for weapon. Fortunately Clinton wasn’t ‘told about the “really bad stuff†we’ve got or they’d have that too.) …and later pardon dozens of criminals on his last day as President. Boy was I wrong. You’re wrong too.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 18, 2005
If you’re so incensed about Clinton, Reagan’s arming known terrorists must really burn you up. I mean, selling weapons to the very same people who held Americans hostage is a treasonous act isn’t it? And simply saying “I forgot”, or “I must admit that I don’t believe this, but I must admit it occurred” doesn’t work for criminal defendants does it? Ducking a treason rap by admitting that you’re too feeble mentally must really make you mad, huh? Or is your outrage selective to democrats?
December 18th, 2005 at 2:27 pmWhy, oh why does Andrew refuse to answer my questions and provide specifics? LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 2:29 pm“Why, oh why does Andrew refuse to answer my questions and provide specifics? LOL”
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 20
Pot, meet WWallace. . .
December 18th, 2005 at 2:30 pm# 120 – You really are silly and defenseless aren’t you?
FISA is indeed the section of code that applies. See the US Code supplied by the House of Representatives to Cornell Law (linked and quoted in my post that I link to in comment #2). The section of US Code that details electronic surveillance (see section 50 from the main page and drill down to electronic surveillance) is indeed FISA.
As to your question of who was being wiretapped that has nothing to do with it. The order itself is what is in question and it is the order itself that is illegal.
As to who notifes, who is to be notified, under what circumstances, in what timeframe, what reporting and subsequent review is to occur and under what circumstances surveillance is to be stopped and how information is to be used I point you again to my linked post, the Cornell Law website that displays the US Code of Law and the specific code under the electronic surveillance section.
If you are too lazy to read the information provided then you will always remain in ignorance. Very sad.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:31 pm#125 – why do you refuse to read the answers you’ve been given? Why do you insist in remaining in willful ignorance?
You have been given the link to the specific answers several times. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Do some reading.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:33 pm“Put up or shut up”
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @
WWallass hates our constitutional rights (especially free speech). Why?
December 18th, 2005 at 2:34 pm#130 – he’s made it clear he has no intention of providing anything remotely like a real defense of the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Bush and his administration and that he has no intention of actually reading and understanding the information provided.
Let me know if he actually comes up with something with fact, merit, or substance. Like most right wing trolls he has no zero ability to hold up his end of a debate.
I’m going to go get some lunch.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pmCondi will be our next President hopfully.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pmAndrew, no one denied that you posted some quotes from the statute, but doing so doesn’t begin to answer my question.
Statutes must be applied to specifics of a particular set of facts. You have provided none.
For the third time, I asked:
December 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
If your not a criminal you have nothing to worry about.Sandy Burgler on the other hand better watch out.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:38 pmI wonder how long it will take Ryan to notice that no one is paying any attention to him.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:40 pmI also wonder if Andrew will ever try to address the questions I asked. I doubt it. :()
December 18th, 2005 at 2:41 pmWhat is happening in America is not a laughing matter at all. As senator Edward Kennedy puts it, “this is big brother run amokâ€. Too true. More people should be reading Orwell’s 1984. The political irony of the Age is that common citizens think they know everything about big brother; the TV show, that is.
Huey Long, governor of Luisiana and a politician of relevance until his assassination in 1935, once said: “Of course we will have fascism in America, but we will call it Democracy!†Now his prophecy is on the verge of fulfilment.
“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage – - – -torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians – - – - which does not change its moral color when it is committed by our side. The ~~Nationalist~~(neo_kookz) not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
December 18th, 2005 at 2:42 pm-George Orwell
A government official is a man who has risen from obscurity to something worse.â€
-Pat Robertson
NOW thats FUNNY seeing AS WHO said IT.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:43 pmBOB, 1984 was about the left. People like Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy
December 18th, 2005 at 2:43 pmWhats the matter cant you libs take it?
December 18th, 2005 at 2:44 pmhe Senior White House staff is living proof that Pentecostal mongoloids regularly cohabit with chimpanzees, frogs and Norway ratsâ€
-Dr. Myron Kalbfuss, Biology Department, Stanford University
_________________________________
“Compelling”
December 18th, 2005 at 2:44 pm-George Bush Sr.
_________________________________
It WAS the PHONE GOD CHENEY
THAT TOLD
GEORGE.
Once a Republican, always a coprophile…:â€
December 18th, 2005 at 2:46 pm-Mother Theresa
Zell for President.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:46 pmYupp Ryan
December 18th, 2005 at 2:47 pmAgreed.
Looks like Andrew left without answering my questions. maybe he’s doing research. Probably not. *L*
December 18th, 2005 at 2:53 pmBut the Government’s attempts to minimise the issue are being treated with scepticism. An all-party group of MPs on rendition last night published the legal opinion of James Crawford, Whewell professor of international law at the University of Cambridge, warning the Government that it could not rely on received assurances from the US Secretary of State to avoid it being accused of breaking its international obligations to stop prisoners being sent for torture.
He said Ms Rice’s statement that the US “does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture” did “not bring complete assurance that the practice is not occurring”. Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chairman of the group, said: “It is crystal clear the UK must investigate allegations it has been complicit in torture. Checking for instances of the US requesting permission [to land planes in the UK] is simply derisory.”
Plane spotters in the UK have provided photographic evidence of CIA flights landing and taking off. Yesterday, a Transport minister told Sir Menzies that they did not take records of civil flights that may stop in the UK for refuelling. The question put by Sir Menzies had specifically identified Gulfstream 5 N379P, a private jet allegedly operated by a CIA front company, which carried, it is claimed, Saad Madni, a suspected terrorist, for questioning. Last night, the Government’s critics said the CIA flights were using private jets to avoid international obligations under the Chicago Convention to ask for permission for the flights.
Sir Menzies said it was still possible that rendition flights were still happening. “I am pretty certain it is not enough for the Government to have a kind of hear no evil, see no evil policy.”
____________________
_||_(*.*) YewNeoKooks
December 18th, 2005 at 2:54 pmGood grief there are a bunch of wacko right-wing extremist looneys here! For the last time, Bush violated the law! FISA can indeed grant the president the power to order spying on Americans, BUT A WARRANT IS REQUIRED. There must be some oversight. In the nearly 30 years since FISA I think ONE request has been denied. One, yet Bush knew his reasons were so nebulous and unfounded that he didn’t even try to follow the rules.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:57 pmNo explanation will do to make this right. He broke the law, he basically admitted as much, and even his familiars like Condi can’t come up with the BS doubletalk to sleeze out of it.
The simple fact is that Bush doesn’t care. He spies, he tortures, he operates secret CIA gulags, he refuses to hand over documents requested by the GAO, etc. He has no concern for our laws, or our legacy. He calls the Constitution, the greatest work ever written by man, a “God damn piece of paper”. That’s certainly not something that I would expect any American to say, especially the president. Even if I ever had any respect for this mindless coke-monkey, I would have lost it right there.
If you think these actions are ok because the “prezdint” says so, that doesn’t make you a good American or a Patriot. This is the opposite of patriotism, because it is completely contrary to what America stands for. What it makes you is a gutless lapdog. Someone who would be more comfortable goosestepping around 1930’s Berlin or exterminating Jews.
Since you support W, the grandson of a man (Prescott Bush) who was more than happy to supply aid to the Nazi war machine, that’s not surprising to me. But as someone who loves this country the way it’s been for 229 years, it does sicken me, and I’d be willing to place a sizeable bet that it would sicken the Founding Fathers as well.
If you want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, or a monarchy, go for it. Dust off the passport, and start the ball rolling for you to emigrate to China or Saudi Arabia. I’m sure you’d love the numbing oppression, poverty, segregation and corruption. Myself and mine however prefer living in America, the land of the free, home of the brave. Maybe you’ve heard of it, it’s a pretty great place.
Rice said several times this morning that she’s “not a lawyer.†That is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Advisor when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bush’s decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?
Hell, no! Who cares! Yer doin’ a heckuva job, Ricey!
December 18th, 2005 at 2:58 pmDubl, no, the president did not violate the law.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:58 pmWhats the matter cant you libs take it?
Comment by liberal no more
What? Power away from you, whom, like the truth, you just ain’t up to handling it? Just watch.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:00 pmDubl, no, the president did not violate the law.
Comment by wwallace
Are you a lawyer?
December 18th, 2005 at 3:00 pmBanana’s all around to the Beta-monkey’s who provide such great comic relief here -> (((((((
December 18th, 2005 at 3:01 pmSo shut the fvck up and go back to your corporate whore house. We know you don’t chase amulances, do ya? We can call you a whaaaaambulance! when Bush is impeached.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:02 pmuncurious, “Are you a lawyer?”
As far as you know.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:03 pmLooks like Andrew left without answering my questions. maybe he’s doing research. Probably not. *L*
Comment by wwallace —
See that *L*
It’s that idiot who used to flog his crappy fascist federalist society cheerleading blog that no one ever goes to.
editors, the federalist urinal
December 18th, 2005 at 3:05 pmYou are a hack.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:06 pmA political hack and we have space up against the wall for you soon, and plenty of ammunition.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:07 pmIt doesn’t suprise me (or anyone else with any common sense) that Condi, as well as most of the ninnys who run Dumbya’s government, have everything ass- backwords. Wrong is right, being stupid is considered smart, up is down, and on and on. What they do, and what they’ve done to this country in the last five years is enough to make me vomit. This crap just adds on to all of the OTHER crap this gang has pulled..! It just never ends..!
Gene Campbell
December 18th, 2005 at 3:07 pmCentral Florida
Here’s another carnival freak show. These guys weren’t predicting that the Wilsons would be indicted, just that the Fitzgerald investigation was “another rovian conspiracy” that would end up embarassing the Democrats. Freaks of nature, they all belong in cages at a sideshow. These are where out trolls come from. Where’s Tom DeLay, The Gug Man, when you need him? Oh, yeah, he’s been exterminated.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:17 pmHey, Ryan…..wwallalace is too busy chowing down on his banana’s to type write now.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:19 pmChoking the Internet: How much longer will your favorite sites be on line?
by Wayne Madsen
December 12, 2005
Internet censorship. It did not happen overnight but slowly came to America’s shores from testing grounds in China and the Middle East.
Progressive and investigative journalist web site administrators are beginning to talk to each other about it, e-mail users are beginning to understand why their e-mail is being disrupted by it, major search engines appear to be complying with it, and the low to equal signal-to-noise ratio of legitimate e-mail and spam appears to be perpetuated by it.
In this case, “it,†is what privacy and computer experts have long warned about: massive censorship of the web on a nationwide and global scale. For many years, the web has been heavily censored in countries around the world. That censorship continues at this very moment. Now it is happening right here in America. The agreement by the Congress to extend an enhanced Patriot Act for another four years will permit the political enforcers of the Bush administration, who use law enforcement as their proxies, to further clamp censorship controls on the web.
Internet Censorship: The Warning Signs Were Not Hidden
____________
Aphrodite IRI Wwallace..Bushco et al..
December 18th, 2005 at 3:23 pm(VRIL ers.)
Have you googled neocons lately? No wonder it’s not working anymore. I like this one, short and to the point and completely true and accurate.
All political persuasions agree neoconservatives are not conservatives. Irving Kristol, who accepts the title of neoconservatism’s “godfather,†has written that the neoconservative’s goal is:
“to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.â€
Two conservatives, Halper and Clarke, in their recent book, America Alone, conclude:”Neo-conservatives have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour, veering away from the balanced, consensus-building … approach that has characterized traditional Republican internationalism … and acted more as a special interest focused on its particular agenda.”
How the neoconservatives maneuvered the U.S. into the Iraq War: Neocons began promoting the Iraq “detour” in 1996 through a report explaining why Israel needed Saddam removed from power. Richard Perle delivered this report to Netanyahu, then the new Prime Minister of Israel. Perle later became a key advisor to Rumsfeld. Wurmser, another author, became Cheney’s advisor on Mid-East affairs, while a third author, Feith, was appointed second in command under Wolfowitz.
Conservatives vs. Neocons: What conservatives says about neocons and what neocons say about conservatives.
Neocon & Deceptions: Leo Strauss, the neocons’ “philosopher,” taught that the elite (the neocons) need to deceive the masses who cannot handle or benefit from the “truth.” Consequently neocons feel justified in hiding the real reasons for the war behind the WMD excuse or giving secret documents or technology to Israel, since they know better what is good for America.
A Neocon Who’s Who: Special emphasis on those in the Administration.
A Neocon Timeline: A few important events in the development of the neocon ideology and the strategy for the Iraq war.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pmShrubby the dimestore cowboy isn’t concerned with whether or not he’s following the law and the Constitution. Didn’t he say (not disproved yet) that the Constitution is just “a g_dammed piece of paper”?
December 18th, 2005 at 3:28 pmThe Beta-Monkeys have only one simple task. Protect the Alpha-Monkey. All other concepts, like transparent democracy and rule of law, are constructs that they neither understand nor require in their life. All they need, in their world, is a simple uncomplicated alliegence to the Alpha-Monkey and an unlimited supply of bananas.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:29 pmBeta-Monkeys make great Banana Republicans.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:33 pmPoor Condi. As a rightwing conservative myself, I really have to feel sorry for her. Running around, trying to cover over the lies and having her reputation being used for toilet paper by Bushco just like it happened to Colin Powell.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but some of that cowshit that is stuck to the bottom of Junior’s cowboy boots, just got scuffed onto pretty little Condi’s expensive high-heels.
Wonder if her self-respect will win out over the powertrip she’s on and resign when she finally gets her gut full of all the slime and lies?
December 18th, 2005 at 3:43 pmI love these chickenhawk neocons!
Look at em all. Scurrying around trying to defend the criminal in charge.
“Uh, uh, he didn’t do anything wrong. Bubble boy is a great leader. Condi Rice is a good lawyer”.
Why so defensive chickenhawk neocons? If Bubble boy did nothing wrong why are you so concerned about public opinion and news headlines?
I love when the chickenhawk neocons come out to play. They strenghten our case with each and every bit of nonsense they spew.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:49 pmSusan, we all have our priorities. As a redneck kind of neocon, I just wondering about Condi Rice’s qualifications. I mean, we all know she is extemely intelligent and well educated.
Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m guessing a bra size of 34C or 36B or C.
I mean, all nonsense aside, she is a little on the thin side to be much bigger.
December 18th, 2005 at 4:05 pmWhy so defensive chickenhawk neocons? If Bubble boy did nothing wrong why are you so concerned about public opinion and news headlines?
Comment by Susan
It’s simple. Left Wing lies must be countered with the truth.
December 18th, 2005 at 4:10 pmAmen
December 18th, 2005 at 4:27 pmHey, Liberal No More. That “Amen” in #183 was like something aphrodite would say. That’s how I know you are a girl, or at least a female. That’s why I won’t say anything vulgar or demeaning to you.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Liberal no more, you can call me Liberal Mo Fo. I mean, at least, I-RIGHT-I does. I’m so shamed.
(no I ain’t cause I ain’t got any).
December 18th, 2005 at 4:35 pmlol
December 18th, 2005 at 4:39 pm#Banana’s all around to the Beta-monkey’s who provide such great comic relief here -> (((((((
Comment by Innocent Bystander — December 18, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
OOO
OOO
EEE
EEE
TTT
oookie
TTT
oookie
(•.•) ‡/\‡ ‡–‡ ‡Ø‡
Perhaps You Mean
137?
…..|
*00|000000
…..|
1…3……….7
10 planets and SOn?
| |
Xena
is
10th
moon Gabriel
Phos
matter
Time
The
Imbalanced
Cross?
or
Barium 137
Makes
Fire
Water
137…
Sea7
7sea
of Sages?
Sage
or ages?
Ice of Ages?
Pluto
and Plato
Democritus
OORT
Cloud
Binarie
Kuiper Belt
Trinary
makes
Three
Gravity
A-toms
tat
ADAMS
tat
EVe
tat
E volt
Rings
thales
magnets
magi
Souls
Red
Dust
Mars
Ghorpa
Men
IRON
Light
Phaedes
Son
Cornucopia
life
shell
calcium
Mother
Pearl
Nautilus
Pyramid
As
basket
husbandmen
husbandmen
OX
Blue
Paul
Oxygen
Bunyan
space
is
Life
small
thoughts
timeless
quattrains
Four
Kune
the Old
light
dog
of
the
moon
Selene
Silica
la lune
luna
tic
tics
minae
flux
aer
aether
BABANANAAAZZZ!!!
Check and See
Zolensky
1998
T
R
O
O
OORT
O
O
R
T
Tie them in a Knot?
Tie them in a Bow?
Think Man! Think!
December 18th, 2005 at 4:44 pmDamnit JIM.
IM A BLoGGeR! NOT a Doctor.
this ought to change how we sign off at the end of a phone call…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2005/12/no-more-goodbyes.html
December 18th, 2005 at 4:47 pmdecafenated
December 18th, 2005 at 4:47 pmwwallace come back. We love your poor dumb ass.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:00 pmSee “Public Enemy” at http://gadflying.blog.com/457129/.
This President, without much/any argument from Congress, has widened interpretation of presidential powers and arrogated powers which are extra-legal and extra-Constitutional until the phrase “balance of power” has been rendered almost meaningless. At this point, I don’t look for much from Congress.
Instead, I’ve begun to pray for a lapse in the increasingly inconvenient competence of the presidential protection detail of the Secret Service.
Are you listening, NSA?
December 18th, 2005 at 5:04 pm[Comment deleted by admin.]
December 18th, 2005 at 5:08 pmHey chickenhawk neocons….
Where’s Osama Bin Laden?
I thought he was the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks?
Shouldn’t our resourses be used for tracking down Bin
Laden?
Of course not, the chickenhawk neocons prefer we live under a dictatorship. They are as anti-American as they come.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:09 pmMan, Rice on the ropes. Sorry I missed that this morning. Thank God for MSNBC.
It will be on again tonight. That is of course unless it is pre-empted by Dubya’s save-his-arse speech tonight.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:13 pmOh, and I’ll have whatever BOB is having.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:14 pmAlmost 200 comments, and all these liberals would rather post a bunch of name-calling than any evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone in the Bush administration.
If they had any evidence or any specific allegations of wrongdoing, certainly they would have posted them by this time.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:19 pmIt’s simple. Left Wing lies must be countered with the truth.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 18, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
You know, ever since Katrina showed the rest of the world what this administration is really like (i.e incompetent, selfish bumbling goons) every day has been one new revelation after the next about lies, misleading the American people, and incompetence.
The democratic President however could not get away with a blow-job, so I would not be talking about countering lies.
This year with all the crap coming out on the Bush administration, it seemed like Christmas was coming early.
But every day one more truth came out about the Bush administration after the next.
In reality, it’s more like a really long Hannakah
December 18th, 2005 at 5:22 pmHe’s not a lawyer, but James Spader plays one on TV.
But seriously, this is why Condi should never be President. She knows nothing and thinks she knows everything when she actually doesn’t. And when her back is against the wall she becomes indignant and tries to get out of it. If you have the DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11 there was a clip of a testimony in which Condi tried to get out of answering a question about the mishandling of the Bin-Laden matter and the congressman, asking her the question pressed on with a wide round of applause.
I pray to God Bubble Boy doesn’t come on ABC tonight. Desperate Housewives is on and Teri Hatcher does not deserve to be interrupted by Bubble Boy’s same ole speech about the same ole thing, like “victory”, “freedom” and “God”.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:27 pmIf they had any evidence or any specific allegations of wrongdoing, certainly they would have posted them by this time.
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
Proof? Who needs proof?
In case your televisions broken, Bush confessed already genius.
You silly guy you. :|
December 18th, 2005 at 5:28 pmWorfeus confessed to being a spy for al Qaeda, right after Bush confessed. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 5:30 pmKatrina showed the world how fouled up a city gets when Democrats run it.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:30 pmAlmost 200 comments, and all these liberals would rather post a bunch of name-calling than any evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone in the Bush administration.
If they had any evidence or any specific allegations of wrongdoing, certainly they would have posted them by this time.
___________________________
Why WOULD THEY SHOW YOU?
December 18th, 2005 at 5:32 pmJIMBO only hate Rice because she’s black.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:32 pmDuhh
December 18th, 2005 at 5:33 pmwwallace-
WORFEUS did not confess to anything that you want him to say. I think must must have either misread the posts, kid.
Also, Katrina is an example when Repuklicans respond a few days too late to a emergency call that was made by Democrats.
So, I think you have misunderstood us. Of course, that’s what you always do.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:35 pmJIMBO is lying about the Katrina response. No one is surprised. :()
December 18th, 2005 at 5:37 pm#203
There’s a word that describes you and your view on race.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:38 pmIt starts with a C and ends with a T and it rhymes with bunt.
Worfeus confessed to being a spy for al Qaeda, right after Bush confessed. LOL
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
Dude, I think your wife is right. You’re shootin blanks.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:38 pm“If they had any evidence or any specific allegations of wrongdoing, certainly they would have posted them by this time.”
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @
Evidence means investigations – why don’t republicans ever investigate other republicans?
December 18th, 2005 at 5:40 pmDuke Cunningham loved your style of politics. It kept him in luxury, driving his Rolls to antique stores, purchasing pricy knick-knacks with bribe money – while soldiers in the field died from lack of support. He loudly derided any who didn’t support Operation Fubar – while he raked in graft from defense contractors. Since you and Cunningham so strongly support the president and his policies – and since he demonstrated how willing HE was to use the troops for his own gain, perhaps the question should be asked; how much is your cut?
wwallace-
December 18th, 2005 at 5:41 pmWhere’s your proof, mac? Apparently you don’t watch Keith Olbermann or what Anderson Cooper saw. All you believe in is what the pundits sitting in their air-condition studios tell you. I guess I can understand it. They just don’t like going down to where the action is, unless it involved a few bears in a cage or farm animals.
JIMBO, Keith Olbermann? The sportscaster? LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 5:44 pmBush has already admitted he signed the order.
What evidence do we need?
The ONLY thing in question now was the legality of the order.
That’s where the constitution which grants the executive office it’s powers comes in. So the Supreme Court may have to get involved at one point.
Does that make it clearer to anyone in here why Bush wanted his own lawyer sitting on the Supreme Court, the court that decides constitutional matters?
See, the Harriet Myers selection is starting to make sense now.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:45 pmJust because Bubble Boy is President doesn’t mean everything he does illegal is supported by the Constitution.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:49 pmApparently,he hasn’t read the Constitution since Kindergarten. If he did, he must have fallen asleep at the part of free speech and right to privacy.
“What evidence do we need?”
Liberals don’t seem to ever offer any evidence to back up their slanderous claims.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:50 pm“Apparently,he hasn’t read the Constitution since Kindergarten. If he did, he must have fallen asleep at the part of free speech and right to privacy.”
Can you copy and paste the part of the Constitution that mentions a “right to privacy” JIMBO? Thanks in advance, genius! LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 5:52 pmRyan,
That’s the thing about wwallace. His problem is that if he starts to read what we know as the truth, he will deny it vehemiently or fall asleep. He prefers to hear what the Government or ass-expanding pundits tell him and he wants to believe that everything’s okeydokey and the sun will be shining and as long as we shut up and not question the unGodly, unpatriotic things that Bubble Boy, Dickless, Chicken Condi and the rest of the fourth Reich have done
to this country since January 2001.
Maybe when the CIA visit him and take his personal info for no reason and is done so under orders from Bubble Boy, maybe he’ll see the light. But I doubt it.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:57 pmJIMBO? Where’s that citation from the Constitution I asked for? You’ve read the document, haven’t you? Cut the name-calling and back up your assertion. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 5:59 pmeverything changed after 911
December 18th, 2005 at 6:02 pmwwallace,
Why? Are you afraid to look it up yourself? Try Google or Wikipedia. You got some time.
BTW: Olbermann works for MSNBC and has a newsprogram weekdays at 8pm called “Countdown.” It’s for the Anti-O’Lielly crowd.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:03 pm“everything changed after 911″
No it didn’t. The Democrats’ feckless record on national security continues.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:04 pmwwallace, if you keep saying stupid things, I am going to start to believe you really are Bob Novak.
The President already acknowledged signing the law.
That is not in question. So no, this liberal does not need any more proof.
A confession is all the proof that I, or any court will need.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:05 pmJIMBO obviously can’t paste any reference to “privacy” from teh Constitution, becase he lied about it being there. Or maybe he’s just ignorant because he didn’t read it. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 6:06 pmJIMBO, how are Olbermann’s ratings compared to O’Reilly? LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 6:07 pmYou know you libertrolls are a laugh a minute.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:09 pmMake that a laugh a second.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:11 pmDecember 18th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Need I say any more libertroll.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:12 pm#224
December 18th, 2005 at 6:12 pmYou’d think Wall-ass would get used to being proven wrong all the time… I bet the poor guy hasn’t had a good nights sleep in months. No wonder he can’t think nor argue clearly.
I haven’t been proven wrong about anything though, Jerry.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:14 pmwwallace-#235
In the words of Mr. Howard Cosell,
“What popular isn’t always right. What’s right isn’t always popular.”
Or how about from Brandon Tartikoff,
“Those who rise the fastest burn out faster.”
Go to Google or Wikipedia. You can stop picking your nose for a half hour to read it. Better yet, read what Ryan gave you. Or are you too stubborn to learn?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:14 pmlmao Heck your good amusement.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:14 pmJIMBO, I don’t need to go to Google, because I’ve read the Constitution many times. That’s how I know for a fact you’re lying and/or ignorant.
I’ve never seen Ryan post anything of value. If Judd was good on his word about banning trolls, Ryan would have been banned long ago. Lucky for Ryan, Judd is a liberal, and thus untrustworthy. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 6:17 pmAnd BTW genius, in case you forgot my little question from last night (Jepoardy music still is playing) let me ask again.
You know, the one that all the right winged tough guys have all run from, that I asked lask night?
What would you do, if the EU invaded the US to enact necessary regime change?
Understand they are benevolant, only there to help, and plan on leaving as soon as we elect a new President and Congress, from among the candidates approved by our new EU liberators.
What would you do?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:19 pmGet them wwallace.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:19 pmwwallace- Maybe you need to read it some more.
Oh, and by the way, Olbermann gets higher ratings than that Neofacist Nancy Grace. He’s also on the current issue of Rolling Stone as one of the Mavericks of the Year. Something that Condi isn’t.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:20 pmGet them? You mean RUN, don’t you?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:21 pmCome on tough guy. Answer the question.
I ask it to ANY republican or right winger in here. Answer the question.
What would you do?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:22 pmJeopardy music playing
December 18th, 2005 at 6:23 pmCome on, you’ve had 24 hours to think up some kind of answer.
What would you do?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:23 pmJIMBO, he beats Nancy Grace on CNN! WOW! Impressive! LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 6:24 pmkick their asses again
December 18th, 2005 at 6:24 pmJIMBO, he beats Nancy Grace on CNN! WOW! Impressive! LOL
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
Sorry bud, that’s not an answer.
The question is,
What would you do?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:25 pmWorfeus, of course it was an answer.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:26 pmnot to my question it wasn’t.
That’s a nice Potomac two-step but the Jeopardy music is still playing
December 18th, 2005 at 6:28 pmThe question goes to you too LibertyNoMore.
What would you do?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:29 pm#262
Oh really! You should watch Keith, then. Maybe he’ll educate you on how stupid the world has become. Then, maybe you’ll see things from our perspective.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:30 pmWhat was the question loser?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:31 pmWhat would you do, if the EU invaded the US to enact necessary regime change?
Understand they are benevolant, only there to help, and plan on leaving as soon as we elect a new President and Congress, from among the candidates approved by our new EU liberators.
What would you do?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:31 pmwinner
December 18th, 2005 at 6:31 pmkick their asses again.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:32 pmWorfeus, anyone can clearly see that I answered your stupid question.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:32 pmkick their asses again?
So you would fight them? That is your answer?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:33 pmWorfeus, anyone can clearly see that I answered your stupid question.
Comment by wwallace — December 18, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
Where wwallace. I seem to have missed that one. What number is your answer the that question?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:34 pmI’m not a wuss like you boy I fought in man 67 68.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:34 pmI’m afraid of no one
December 18th, 2005 at 6:34 pmNow I am taking notes here. I hope everyone else is too.
Now LibertyNoMore says he would fight the occupying forces, no matter how well meaning their intentions, and no matter how benevolant they are.
Can we quote you on that LibertyNoMore?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:35 pmHay dummy so did Iraq under Sadam but we kicked their asses.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:37 pmI’m afraid of no one
Comment by liberal no more — December 18, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
Sorry, but you are afraid of someone. You’re afraid of the terrorists. So afraid, you’re lilly livered crybaby self is willing to piss on the constitution to keep your fat, lazy Walmart shopping flag waving ass safe.
You’re real scared.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:38 pmLike I said I was fighting when you were still a thought in daddy’s mind.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:39 pmNot afraid of you little boy any time any place.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:39 pmThought so wuss.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:40 pmBut back to my point.
You say you would fight the occupying forces, no matter how well meaning their intentions, and no matter how benevolant they are.
Please explain to us all here how that is any different from the Iraqi people fighting our benevolant occupying forces as they have been doing?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:40 pmSure give me your address.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:41 pmHay it doesn’t have to be a occupying force I’ll fight any one.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:42 pmYou can’t even form a coherent sentence, and you think you can fight?
You need to get out of the trailer park more often genius.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:44 pmBut back to my point.
You say you would fight the occupying forces, no matter how well meaning their intentions, and no matter how benevolant they are.
Please explain to us all here how that is any different from the Iraqi people fighting our benevolant occupying forces as they have been doing?
Stop running from the question chicken, and answer it if you can.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:44 pmLNM – You impress us all with you below muster bluster.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:45 pmBTW, I notice wwallace has quietly slipped away.
What’s the matter wwallace? The Jeporady music is still playing.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:46 pmThey’re missing something buddy, that’s for sure.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:47 pmCome on WORFEUS, you had him on substance, no need to use that trailer park crack… Democrats live in trailers, too.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:48 pmer…Sorry there Beav……
Thinks not going well since the Navy ay?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:50 pmI’m just kidding Beaver, really. Man I loved that show. Still do.
Of course, I’m kinda like eddie haskel :D
December 18th, 2005 at 6:50 pmReading the posts by Liberal Jerkoff no more I have to laugh: “kick thier asses” and “loser.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but jerkoff needs to tighten up. His/her lamebrain posts are starting to read like wwallace. Except that wwallace has posts that are so wussy I think I like her. Kind of like aphrodite.
As a redneck myself, I have to wonder about wwallace. I mean, has anyone been getting into her pants?
December 18th, 2005 at 6:52 pmI think empathy is also a casualty of age, and also isolation(as is the case of the insular politician).
December 18th, 2005 at 6:54 pm#295
Of course you like Eddie Haskel, ya trouble maker. :P
I just can’t believe Wally would say such things here, what with a good home, sound upbringing, milf for a mother and good friends like Lumpy and Eddie… geeze, I better tell dad what he’s up to.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:57 pmHey, you’re not really Jerry Mathers, are you? Cause I was a huge fan of the show.
See, nowadays, we make shows to show us what life is like.
I know what life is like.
Back then, we made shows about what life should be like.
I miss that.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:59 pmWell, Ryan, that works for me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a little big is OK. I mean, as long as she doesn’t have one of those real white, cottage cheese looking butts on her.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:02 pmWorfeus, please keep comparing the totalitarian dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the United States. I’m sure that kind of talk will convince middle America to vote for your fellow Democrats. LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 7:02 pmGee wwallace, you still here? Thought you slinked away.
The Jeporady music is still playing.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:04 pmWorfeus, you hear music in your head? Does that interfere with the voices? LOL
December 18th, 2005 at 7:05 pm#300
December 18th, 2005 at 7:05 pmThis lefty was/is a big fan of Leave it to Beaver, too. Hard to believe us liberals can love such an idealistic, pro family, pro morality show. Oh the shame. I guess I better go perform a couple of abortions to get my liberal street cred back.
Hey, wwallace, me and Ryan was just wondering about you.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but he was saying you have a real big butt on you. I mean, he said it, not me. The only thing I’m wondering is if your butt looks like a rightwing trolls.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:06 pmSome people call Wally’s butt the have and the have mores- I just call it his base.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:07 pmJoe and Jerry:
December 18th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
#305 LoL.
That’s the great lie. That these bumbling incompetent chuckleheads are somehow more all American than us.
I’m from New York, and New Yorkers may speak our minds, but we love our country.
Oh and everything I needed to know about growing up, I learned from Wally and Ward. :D
December 18th, 2005 at 7:11 pmHey wwallace, Jeporady music is STILL playing.
And where’d your little trailerpark troll LibertyNoMore scurry off to?
December 18th, 2005 at 7:12 pm#308
December 18th, 2005 at 7:12 pmOh, now you care about people following the rules. Wally is a flip flopper. I’m telling dad!
Worfeus, people who love America do not ever compare it to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as you have been doing here.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:14 pmDoes that go for I-RIGHT-I for calling the liberals here “ratbastardcommiemofo’s” or just for rightwing dipshits like me?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but maybe you and the other antogonistic dipsticks who come in here to badger and putdown should read the terms yourselves.
Now about your butt?
December 18th, 2005 at 7:15 pmHell your all libertrolls later jerkoffs got to go bug you tomorrow.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:19 pmWorfeus, people who love America do not ever compare it to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as you have been doing here.
Comment by wwallace
No genius, people who love the United States would never hesitate to speak up, and compare the country to Iraq, Nazi Germany, Russia, or any other evil empire if they see it committing the same errors, and running into the same pitfalls, as these countries did.
To not do so, is to be a mindless, goosetepping automaton, and is as unpatriotic as anything I can think of.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:20 pmDecember 18th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
December 18th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Hell your all libertrolls later jerkoffs got to go bug you tomorrow.
Comment by liberal no more — December 18, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
Bok Bok Bok….see ya …Chicken…….
December 18th, 2005 at 7:24 pmThere you have it – a group of prominent rich liberals are bankrolling ThinkProgress in order for people like Worfeus to compare America to Saddam’s Iraq, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union.
That should help bring undecided voters into the Democratic party fold! Money well spent! ROFL
December 18th, 2005 at 7:24 pmWorfeus, people who love America do not ever compare it to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as you have been doing here.
Comment by wwallace
THAT’S RIGHT! PEOPLE WHO LOVE AMERICA ONLY COMPARE THEIR ENEMIES TO SADDAM WHOSESANE’S IRAK.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:25 pmwwallace. if you honestly think the framers of the Constitution, our founding fathers, did not take unprecedented, clear and articulate steps to ensure that Americans never turned into mindless automatons like you.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:29 pmthen you’re dumber than you write.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:30 pmActually Ryan, wwallace is likely one of our strongest advocates, albeit unintentionally.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:31 pmHey Ryan, another night passes where wwallace and all his cronies ran away from a simple question.
I posed it to them last night. And I posed it to them tonight.
Of course, I am being coy here. I knew they would not, could not answer it.
It’s kinda a trick question. Because either answer condemns our invasion of Iraq.
They know it, and that’s why they run away from it.
And wwallace, if you are still here, and doubt this, I’m all ears. :|
December 18th, 2005 at 7:36 pmStop Feeding The Trolls! They are here out of desperation. They are defeated and irrelevant. And welcome to the many refugees from the GOP. Welcome to liberal/progressive politics and until something better comes along, the Democratic party.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:38 pmRICE: “He also has authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country.”
December 18th, 2005 at 7:41 pmIn other words, we have a president who thinks that, because he is president, can do anything he damn well pleases. They think they are above the law. Nice.
Progressive Team Leader
I ain’t feeding them. I am shooing them away.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:41 pmI have a question for wwallace which goes right to the heart of this thread. Who said:
“Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but no it wasn’t one of the Clintons. Nor was it Michael Moore. Or John Kerry.
It was Benjamin Franklin. Maybe Condi and all us rightwingers could learn something by deep-thinking about what he meant.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:42 pmNow come on Joe. You know better.
Republicans don’t read history books, they write them. :|
December 18th, 2005 at 7:45 pm#335
December 18th, 2005 at 7:51 pmI doubt it Joe. That Ben Franklin (to paraphrase Aphroflighty in her description of freedom loving Americans) was an effeminate, sniveling, French loving, free thinking atheist, intellectual. There’s just no place for someone like that in American politics. It was a fluke, a fluke I tell you that he was one of the founding fathers.
Well, WORFEUS, as a rightwing conservative dipshit myself, I must correct you in #336.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Republicans don’t, write history books, they RE-write them. I mean, shame on you for that.
Here is another quote you won’t be reading in future Republican history books:
“Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
December 18th, 2005 at 7:56 pm——–Donald Rumsfeld
Republicans don’t write history books, they alter them to fit the lie of the moment.
One of the great themes of Orwell’s 1984 was that war became a permanent state of existence (for the convenience of the rulers). Since we are always (and will be always) AT WAR, then all things become justified: Torture, Spying on Citizens, Rendition, the “Patriot” Act.
Or, perhaps you think that Condi and the Commander-in-Chief will let us know when the War on Terror is over and our civil liberties can be restored…..?
December 18th, 2005 at 8:00 pm“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
—George W. Bush Greece, N.Y., May 24 2005
See, even Georgie admits it’s propaganda.
December 18th, 2005 at 8:04 pmI always liked General Douglas MacArthur. He said a lot of things I have come to agree with.
“Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred of an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but fifty years later and the propaganda is still the same.
And I have to add before I go, that had this hardheaded administration had military historians in charge who know something of what MacArthur and Patton did with their occupations of Japan and Germany, we would not have the mess in Iraq we have had these past two years.
December 18th, 2005 at 8:13 pmCondi is a brown nosed bitch.
December 18th, 2005 at 8:37 pmI have to wonder about a person like wwallace. I have no interest in either reading the apologist drival that passes as coherent political thought on RW boards…and I certainly wouldn’t waste my time arguing with a board full of Beta-monkeys – like wwallace,IRI, and never was a liberal…so why do they spend so much of their time here? Do they think they’ll ever change our minds? Don’t they know how well they sell our politics for the dwindling nuetrals that are trying to get the truth, which we can all agree won’t be found in the Republican broadcast media? Or are they so starved for attention that any attention, even negative, is welcome? Or are they just anti-social?
Nah, I’m betting this is more paid for RNC media propaganda. I’m sure it’s nowhere in the range of $240K/year like Armstong Williams, or $1200/weekend like Gannon, but I’m thinking $.50/post is not bad for someone who’s resume consists of manufacturing burgers at Mickey D’s….
December 18th, 2005 at 8:48 pm#343
I think it’s why they like to type one incomplete sentance drivel… 50 cents per post adds up faster that way :)
There are a couple who I think are gullible, and therefore believe that they can convert us. It’s funny to watch them try because they don’t understand that we don’t have blind faith in the system like they do. But I will give them credit for one thing – it makes me value other progressives a lot more. :)
December 18th, 2005 at 9:56 pm“Hell your all libertrolls later jerkoffs got to go bug you tomorrow.”
Comment by liberal no more — December 18, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
LNM had a keyboard malfunction, the post SHOULD read: “Hell your all libertrolls later, got to go jerkoff, bug you tomorrow.”
Comment by liberal no more — December 18, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
December 18th, 2005 at 10:11 pm312 Worfeus, people who love America do not ever compare it to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as you have been doing here.
Comment by wwallace
Saying that we are engaging in some of the same tactics as Saddam is not saying America is like Iraq. It’s comparing some of the tactics we are using like torture, rape, and other abuses that are right out of Saddams playbook and call a spade and spade. I guess the distinction is just too advanced for you to grasp.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:22 pmAnd if you’re ever in the San Diego area, lightweight, I’d love to make you squeal. Typing that you were in ‘Nam (which is not spelled “man” by the way) is as easy as typing “George Bush is a man of integrity” -it doesn’t mean either are true. Where were you posted in ‘Nam? Who was your commanding officer? What outfit were you with? What engagements were you in? Can you name ANYONE who will back you up in this? Surely a great patriot like yourself had many comrades in arm willing to vouch for you. Post One.
Saying you were in the service and PROVING it are often two different things (ask Bush).
December 18th, 2005 at 10:25 pm“What a fortunate thing for governments that people do not think.”- Adolf Hitler. History repeats itself; if we do not learn from it, we are condemned to repeat it. If we never learn, it will condemn us as a society. Impeach Bush and all the president’s men and woman.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:29 pmKILL THE EVIL TROLLS!
December 19th, 2005 at 12:22 amCondi danced around Tim’s questions perfectly, she gave long speeches with no substance. She was good at this in front of the 911 commission and she continues to be getting better at avoiding any questions that may shed light how awful this Administration is in protecting us and up holding the Constitution at the same time. Just like asking a lier, Condi avoids the question with intentional arrogance as if she was saying to the public “what are you going to do about it”?
December 19th, 2005 at 5:02 am#343, If wally gets $.50 per post, he made a whopping $27.50 during his almost 7 hr. shift. Let’s hear it for the free market economy. $3.92 is a bit high by Rep. standards though… wally will be losing his job soon. #223 LMN, The constitution did NOT change after 9/11/01, sorry…(not). And once again, to Ryan Neat,re: #350, BRAVO!!!! you are amazing!!! It felt soooo good, reading that. THANK YOU!
December 19th, 2005 at 9:44 amSaw the following on-line on ABC: “The president, and members of his staff including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Harriet Miers, reevaluate the spying every 45 days.” Now, let’s get this straight – isn’t this the same Harriet Miers the conservatives claimed wasn’t qualified to interpret the constitution?!
December 19th, 2005 at 9:46 am352.
When the RNC outsources their posting jobs to India, I hope they don’t come here and cry the blues.
December 19th, 2005 at 5:48 pm#354
Think we could encourage that? I have a friends from Mumbai and they are so much more polite and reasonable… :)
December 19th, 2005 at 6:00 pmWeasel Bush has recently talked of something like ’strict constructionists’ in the requirements of a Supreme Court Justice but now he is stretching the Constitution to mean what it does not say.
He is doing a fine job of setting up the Bill of Rights to be the new Bill of Suggestions.
Soon to follow? More gun confiscations from legal owners like his administration did recently in New Orleans?
December 19th, 2005 at 8:40 pmthen they wonder why people take their guns and move to montana
December 20th, 2005 at 10:19 amAmendment IV
December 20th, 2005 at 12:21 pmThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.