Desperation.
By on Dec 19th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Desperation.
From Newsweek: “I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes, asking an American newspaper not to leak national security secrets and thereby give aid to al Qaeda is a sign of desperation.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:09 pmI have long said bush is our dicator .now when is the senate and congress going to take a stand for America .for our forefathers for our future as a free country.gwbush is all ego and its always about him never about theAmerica /Mr ego here is what I say to you… get the fuk out of my country you wanted Iraq you wanted the Natural resources of Iraq now get on that private plane and get the hell out of The United States Of America and don’t forget your W.H.Baggage………
December 19th, 2005 at 10:17 pmthot’s … For a liberal, your spelling and grammar are excellent. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 10:23 pmwonder who is monitoring this site. Bush the gascist or his facist henchmen. wallace and bush belong in the same dungeon permanently
December 19th, 2005 at 10:25 pmthot’s, do what I and thousands of others are doing.
Write or call your Representatives and Senators and demand impeachment hearings. Let them know that they will not get your vote if the do not begin hearings immediately.
This link makes it very easy. Do it now.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:26 pmhttp://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
Post the link on every blog you visit!
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
Foward the link to everyone in your address book!
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
December 19th, 2005 at 10:28 pm#1 and #3
AQ/us citizens already knows they can be monitored without a warrant for 72 hours and then with one after they go to the rubber stamp court. The issue is why GB chose to ignore the path paved for him by Congress. Foreigners are very aware that their outside calls are being monitored.
Asking a paper to hold of for a year is fine – asking them to delay it another year is fine too – in your mind.
I’d like to know if the president chooses which laws to follow and which to discard. If he felt horribly constrained, he should have asked Congress for a revised FISA.
Your sense of ‘liberals’ would be amusing. Some of us that actually care about civil liberties are classic economic liberals. Libertarians would be the term.
I am sure you get your kicks being a troll. At least that’s one reason to post at a site you despise.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:29 pmSusan, since the president hasn’t engaged in any wrongdoing, let alone any impeachable offense, he will not be impeached.
Contrary to liberal Democrat opinion, defending America is not an impeachable offense.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:29 pmGod, how I’d love to read various medical doctor’s evaluations of Bush’s mind. Probably blow our mind.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:30 pm#8,
You wish.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:30 pm#10,
You wish.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:31 pmThe Times did not release national security secrets and thereby give aid to al Qaeda. It revealed an act of sedition by the Executive branch.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:31 pmWalt obviously doesn’t know what “sedition” means.
Defending America from her enemies, within and without, is not “sedition.”
December 19th, 2005 at 10:33 pmSeems like commander codpiece has wandered
December 19th, 2005 at 10:33 pmWAY over the constitutional line this time.
Too bad, so sad, but it looks like he can’t
just BS his way clear this time.
I don’t think H.W. can get him into
TANG this time either.
Anyway, I thought you wing-nuts liked the
December 19th, 2005 at 10:35 pmconstitution.
Are you sure you really want to
sign-up as brown-shirts?
afterthought, defending America is not unconstitutional.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:35 pmwwallace…hewwow you cute wittle parrot you…
Have a cracker
December 19th, 2005 at 10:36 pmYou’re a real intellectual giant, MLDB. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 10:37 pm#16,
Is that all ya got?
December 19th, 2005 at 10:37 pmIt has nothing to do with the discussion
which is why you bring it up.
But really,
How do you defend unauthorized spying
December 19th, 2005 at 10:39 pmon Americsn citizens, patriot boy?
In a nutshell ’sedition’ means ‘covert treason’. I believe that it aptly describes numerous acts of the current administration.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:39 pmWalt is a traitor.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:40 pmafterthought, prove an American citizen was spied on without authorization. Put up or shut up. name one.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:41 pmYou’re a real intellectual giant, wwallass. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 10:42 pmWith John Dean on our side, we can’t lose!
Impeachment is on the horizon.
Rove will be gone too. Check out Deans letter to Fitz.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/
December 19th, 2005 at 10:42 pm#23,
Nope. No sale. Commander codpiece said be
December 19th, 2005 at 10:43 pmbroke the law, and for once, I believe him
(mostly he lies).
“With John Dean on our side, we can’t lose!”
That’s just what Nixon said! ROFL
December 19th, 2005 at 10:43 pmWow, wwwallace is freaking out! He knows we got Bubble boy by the balls!
Give it up wwwwallace, Bubble boy is going down!
December 19th, 2005 at 10:44 pmIt’s okay, wallace. Even after YOUR president has been fired for violating it (repeatedly, willfully, with malice aforethought), it’ll still be YOUR Constitution.
And maybe once he’s gone you’ll respect the letter of the law rather than idolize a guy who disrespects everything the country stands for.
As #15 said: how striking; Conservatives used to insist they were so concerned about fiscal restraint and law-and-order. Now they’re the ones advocating deficit spending and a total disregard for the most fundamental rules of the nation. Heck, Congress has been put on hold for an extra couple of weeks into the new year so soon-to-be GOP felon DeLay could have another stab at quick trial and a comeback. You slimey creeps (Cunningham/Abramof/insert-GOP-convict-of-the-day) have reduced this great nation to some kinda of banana repulic… sad, really.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:44 pmDid commander codpiece really call the
December 19th, 2005 at 10:45 pmU.S. constitution “just a piece of paper”,
or was that just a rumor?
You’re right wwwallace, Nixon resigned.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:45 pmBushie will be impeached, big difference.
afterthought, no, the president said he did not break the law. Anyone can read the president’s statements and see that you’re lying.
If you have some evidence an American citizen was spied on without authorization, then prove it. back up your claim, give us a name. Just one.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:46 pmI beleive his quote was:
December 19th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Susan, Clinton was impeached, Bush will not be.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:47 pm#32,
Silly troll.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:48 pmWhy didn’t commander codpiece follow
FISA like a good American patriot?
Why play fascist?
afterthought, give us a name, back you claim or shut up.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:48 pmCommander codpiece never seemed to follow
laws or rules, and eithics just gets in the
way.
* Tang
* DWI
* SEC violations
Too bad daddy can’t call his buddies this time.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:50 pmI’m desperate!
December 19th, 2005 at 10:52 pmFrom firedoglake:
What was wrong with FISA?
December 19th, 2005 at 10:53 pmSeems like it worked okay.
What is commander codpiece hiding?
I’m only a traitor to those who subvert the United States and its Constitution. I also never impinge the honor of people in a debate. That shows a lack of logical thinking. I am not at home now (but attack cat is guarding house – geckos and mice beware!) and do not have access to my archives. The Rockefeller letter and the original Times article refer to domestic spying. In addition, we now know that W tried to suppress the article. Need we name names with all of that?
December 19th, 2005 at 10:53 pmwwallace, you need to quit trying to spread your lies here. Obviously, there is a legal issue as the Senate has indicated so by denying the renewal of the Patriot Act from recent events. Let’s just look at the facts! The President has admitted that he did spy on American people. The President has said that he will continue to spy on American people. This is in fact a FEDERAL CRIME! Hence an IMPEACHABLE offence.
CASE CLOSED! Schools out you can go home now!
December 19th, 2005 at 10:54 pmwwallace, the Constitution does not say that the person in the UNITED STATES MUST BE A US CITIZEN. If you are in the United States then you are granted the rights of a citizen to a large degree. Of course you don’t get the rights of voting and such but other wise you get the same civil rights that all AMERICANS get.
So YES the president broak the LAW by spying on ANYONE within the US. PERIOD. Read the Constition you blabering idiot.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:57 pmFrom Kos (hand-written on TPM as well):
July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.
Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.
Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.
I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.
I appreciate your consideration of my views.
Most respectfully,
Jay Rockefeller
December 19th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
IT IS DISGUSTING THAT NO A SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR OF THE PRESS IS CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT . COME ON RUSSET , THIS IS NOT SEX SHOW SOME GUTS AND CALL FOR IMPEACHEMENT FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
HAS EVERYONE LOST THEIR SPINE , ARE YOU ALL BRAIN DEAD , WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OFF .IS THE SHAME YOU ARE ALL WEARING WORTH IT , HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT OR FACE THE MIRROR WITHOUT PUKING.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:59 pmWalt subverts the United States and its Constitution, and impugns the honor of people in a debate.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:03 pmRemoveBush, you need to quit trying to spread your lies here.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:04 pmwwallass subverts the United States and its Constitution, and impugns the honor of people in a debate
December 19th, 2005 at 11:04 pmuhm, hardass, do some research. several of them are; including barbare boxer, russ feingold and others. They’re doing their homework so the charge will stick if they make it.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:05 pmwwallass you need to quit trying to spread your lies here.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:05 pmnow some say prez
you the truth tellin man
its goin how you planned
ooooyeah the killins grand
like we f****** planned
holdin towel heads hand
we make our final stand
spyin on you all
aint gonna take the fall
i’m above american law
see my ass
kiss it yall
unmetered oil
jus parta war spoils
gotta have that taste
Gee UU
December 19th, 2005 at 11:05 pmfOR WALLACE TO APPROVE OF IMPEACHEMENT ,SEX HAS TO BE INVOLVED. THAT’S SICK .
December 19th, 2005 at 11:06 pmhardass,
Be heard. Demand impeachment hearings.
Senator Boxer and a Georgia Rep (cant think of his name) is looking into impeachment.
Do your part. Take action. Share this link with everybody in your address book.
We will prevail!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:06 pmhttp://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm
Left Coast Mike has no originality. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:06 pmwwallass has no originality. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:07 pmI’m sure Soros appreciates all his money going to post your drivel Mike. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:08 pmI’m sure Soros appreciates all his money going to post your drivel wwallass. LOL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:09 pmwwallace, let’s assume it is made clear over the next couple of days/weeks that the preznit did in fact violate the FISA laws and the Constitution, and did so knowingly.
Would you then favor impeachment, or would he somehow still get a free ride from you anyway because he’s such a swell guy?
Or to put it differently: you’ve already let him get away with taking the country to war based on lies; what exactly would this guy have to do in order for prime-time groupies like yourself to decide that he was doing wrong by the country he’s supposed to serve?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:10 pmwwallace, I have submitted my proof. Where is yours? Show me how the president has not committed a crime? I have shown you how he has, show me how he has not.
What proof do you have? I have the president of the United States stating that he has and that he will continue to do so. Where is your proof that he has comitted no crime. I have showed you mine now show me yours. I have provided the FACTS, and fact is that anyone in the US has all the civil liberties that an American has while they are in the US. This is in the Constition (LOOK IT UP).
Now where’s your proof?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:11 pmBush on dictatorship now:
“To say ‘unchecked power’ basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.”
- President George W. Bush, December 19, 2005.
Bush on dictatorship then:
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.”- President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”- President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.
“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.”- Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:12 pmAMEN ! AMEN ! HALLELUYAH THE DAY IS COMIN AND THE SUN SHALL RISE AGAIN . AMERICA CAN BREATH FREEDOM AGAIN AND WALLACE WILL FINALLY SHUT UP . HOW DO YOU SPELL RELIEF . Z I P P E R
December 19th, 2005 at 11:13 pmthingwarler, of course the president should be impeached if he knowingly violated the law, but this president did not, unlike the previous one.
The president did not lie about the war in Iraq.
RemoveBush, you provided no evidence of anything.
“fact is that anyone in the US has all the civil liberties that an American has while they are in the US.”
Really? Youy believe that? So as soon as anyone sneaks across the border from Mexico, they have all the rights of US citizens? ROFL
December 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pmwwallass will do as he does every night, slither back under the lowest rock he can find.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pmHaha, I rest well at night knowing that my vote will at least negate wwallace’s. That is, if he/she is of voting age (which is dubious in and of itself).
December 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pmMike will do as he does every night, post nothing of substance and call people childish names.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:18 pmwwallace, yes! Our police cannot beat the person. They must treat them with respect and dignity. They are provided food and water. They are treated with all the same treatment that an American is.
SO YES! ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION, try reading it perhaps you’ll learn how much your president is trashing it.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:19 pmHot Tip, quit posting bullshit. You’re acting like wwwallace, stupid.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:20 pmRemoveBush, you said they have ALL the rights of US citizens. US citizens have the right to vote. Do illegal aliens have the right to vote in your opinion?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:21 pmObviously I must be getting to you wwallass, if you would ever bring anything other than lies and accusations….real facts or an honest discussion, I would gladly debate you.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:23 pmObviously I must be getting to you Mike, if you would ever bring anything other than lies and accusations….real facts or an honest discussion, I would gladly debate you.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:24 pmHot Tip, you’re hallucinating.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:25 pmwwallace, Why don’t you read!
#43
wwallace, the Constitution does not say that the person in the UNITED STATES MUST BE A US CITIZEN. If you are in the United States then you are granted the rights of a citizen to a large degree. Of course you don’t get the rights of voting and such but other wise you get the same civil rights that all AMERICANS get.
So YES the president broak the LAW by spying on ANYONE within the US. PERIOD. Read the Constition you blabering idiot.
Comment by RemoveBush — December 19, 2005 @ 10:57 pm
Your loosing your babling fight, go home!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:26 pmoooh, removebush, wwallace is getting really sneaky here. he caught you making a misstament, and unlike his president (who always, always gets the shrug and the “oh, well, he probably didn’t mean what he said”) you get slammed.
No, wwallace, an illegal immigrant does not have the right to vote. You’re one sleuthy guy, even this far past your bedtime. But that illegal alien has certain rights — provided by that Constitution thingie (look it up one day; people in other countries think it’s neat).
Those rights constitute the stuff that we used to be proud of, the stuff that made us special in the world: civil rights, the mark of civilization. But with your Neanderthal leader at the helm, we’re rapidly leaving civilization behind and are slumping back into some weird proto-fascist swamp.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:27 pmRemoveBush, of course non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizens.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:28 pmwwwallace didn’t graduate from High School because he couldn’t pass the U.S. Constitution test, a requirement for High School Graduation.
No cap and gown for wwwallace.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:29 pmKooks in tinfoil hats say things like, “But with your Neanderthal leader at the helm, we’re rapidly leaving civilization behind and are slumping back into some weird proto-fascist swamp.”
Decent, patriotic Americans never say such things.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:29 pmwwallace you are a fool. They get the same civil rights, read the constitution. It is EXTREMETLY clear that you have no idea what your talking about and I’m through with you.
one last time. GO READ THE CONSTITUTION, that is if you can read but it does not look like you can from item #73
December 19th, 2005 at 11:31 pmRemoveBush, there you go again, saying they have the SAME rights. So do they get to vote?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:32 pmwwallace, the comments are CIVIL RIGHTS learn the difference.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:33 pmVoting is not a civil right?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:34 pmdah!
ONCE AGAIN
Boy your teachers must have had their hands full with you!
wwallace, Why don’t you read!
#43
wwallace, the Constitution does not say that the person in the UNITED STATES MUST BE A US CITIZEN. If you are in the United States then you are granted the rights of a citizen to a large degree. Of course you don’t get the rights of voting and such but other wise you get the same civil rights that all AMERICANS get.
So YES the president broak the LAW by spying on ANYONE within the US. PERIOD. Read the Constition you blabering idiot.
Comment by RemoveBush — December 19, 2005 @ 10:57 pm
Your loosing your babling fight, go home!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:35 pmRemoveBush, but the constitution does not say that. So you’re either lying or you’re an ignoramus.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:37 pmwwallace #85: what’s your point? If decent patriotic americans allow the constitution to be violated repeatedly by a president who has sworn to uphold the constitution, then I’d much rather be considered a kook in a tinfoil hat. At least then I’m just being ridiculed for wearing a funky hat — not being played for a complete sucker like you with your mock patriotism which is really nothing more than deliberate ignorance.
Dear wwallace, “No Child Left Behind” must’ve been written specifically with you in mind, huh? But pray tell, do let us know: just how far behind did they leave you?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:37 pmwwallass is like all repugnicans, none of them know how to listen, they just keep blabing on and on about nothing.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:37 pm[Comment deleted by admin.]
December 19th, 2005 at 11:39 pmthingwarbler, the president has not violated the Constitution. Stop lying.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:40 pmBush was DESPERATE because he didn’t want to clue the terrorists in!!!! What is wrong with the left? You woudl do anything to destroy this President – sacrifice national security. This is treason and should be treated such. Bush better release the tapes of Conyers and Pelosi’s meeting with George Soros.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:40 pmRyan said yesterday he supports and engages in pedophilia, he’s clearly not moral.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:41 pmwwallass, if you had a point other than the one on the top of you head I would gladly debate you on anthing you would like, but you bring nothing to the table but lies and propaganda and no defense when your bs is called.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:41 pmRyan – you said you support Sadam more than Bush on more than one occasion. You clearly have no moral authority. OR common sense.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:42 pmMike, if you had a point other than the one on the top of you head I would gladly debate you on anthing you would like, but you bring nothing to the table but lies and propaganda and no defense when your bs is called.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:42 pmRyan admitted he broke the law.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:44 pmOK wwallace….. Here is your proof. Note that no where in the Bill Of Rights does it say American or US Citizen. It says PERSON.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The 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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Happy Hollandaise Everyone!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:45 pm#103 – Try those who commit treason starting with reporters leaking classified info. Wasn’t that you who said that Ryan?
December 19th, 2005 at 11:46 pmImpeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush,Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush…………
December 19th, 2005 at 11:46 pmI’m rooting for Hitler!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:46 pmlets try this again.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The 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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
December 19th, 2005 at 11:48 pmPaging waa-waa wallace! Paging waa-waa wallace!
You are away from your post! They need the men’s room attendant at the American Federo-Fascist Urinal!
December 19th, 2005 at 11:50 pmBullet in foot was aiming for his own head.
Bwaaa-haaa-haaa
December 19th, 2005 at 11:53 pmBeta-Monkeys can mimic pretty well and they are very entertaining, LOL. Here wwallace, here’s your virtual banana -> (
pResident Alpha-Monkey appreciates your blind obedience.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:23 amTP and it’s robots don’t realize that we are at war the islamic fascists and jihadists. we have been at war with al qaeda since 1998. defending america is not unconstitutional and no president has ever been impeached defending the u.s. during a time of war. this story by that hack jonathan alter showcases how liberals’ agenda of weakness and defeatism helps the enemy.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:30 amI call on all leakers, in all agencies everywhere, to dump their dirt today. I call on all newspapers and networks to bring forth a torrent — nay, a hemmorhage — of leaks regarding every aspect of Bush administration operations.
I want to see George Bush forced to hold a press conference every day for the next three years, to defend himself from a never-ending hail of leaks.
I want to see this man dancing so fast and lying so gymnastically that he has no time to govern, no time to advance an agenda, and no opportunity to further erode the ideals and institutions of this country.
More revelations from the NYT on Tuesday! Let’s keep the ball rolling. Leak away!
December 20th, 2005 at 12:37 amDirty Sanchez…
You mean the same AlQueda the we provided with arms during our country’s efforts to oust Russion from Afganistan?
Hitler was “defending” Germany too.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:48 amWe are going to have that impeachment!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:09 amIf I have to jail and torture every American to prove to them just how dangerous the terrorist threat is, I will.
-George W. Bush(This speech is coming soon)
December 20th, 2005 at 2:11 amHey Gordo (Dirty Sanchez),
Did the cops come to call on you at your job before you got fired? I heard someone called your boss and said that all the time you spent on line was in chat rooms trying to hook up with teen age boys? I wonder if they got a warrant first, or just dispensed with that formality.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:12 amHey waaa-waaa wallace,
FREEEEEEEEDUMB!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:21 amSusan-
Actually, wwallace didn’t even graduate from grade school
because he failed to read the Constitution just like the Bubble boy.
Impeach the entire administration. That what should happen come 2006. Either early or post-election.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:52 amInnocent people are not desperate to conceal the truth. Innocent people WANT the truth tobe told. More indication that he knows what he was doing was wrong.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:08 amLooks like junior’s finally in the hot seat.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:38 amNo no no!! Please, I beg of you, don’t tell on me!
Effin’ hilarious!
I wonder if he’ll count this as his first mistake.
The NY Times sat on this story for twelve months. Why run it now? Two reasons: 1. Get more bad press out to try and hurt Bush. 2. A book deal by the story’s author. Bush notified congress a total of twelve times regarding the wire taps and no one threw up a fuss. All of the news coming out of Iraq is good so the liberal media had to do something about it. It just shows you how desperate they have become. What do Bush’s poll numbers do? They go up. The average American wants to know that our President is doing everything he can in his power to protect us in a time of war. WE ARE AT WAR. YOU ALL HAVE FORGOTTEN 9/11!
December 20th, 2005 at 8:40 amPopular Myths:
-Changing technology required me to break the law,
December 20th, 2005 at 8:43 am-I have the right to break the law because of executive war priveledge,
-WMDs
-Only one indictment of a WH official is a good thing.
No Randy,
December 20th, 2005 at 8:46 amIt’s another case of the Dems, in a bewildered fashion, giving the President enough rope to hang himself.
“Summoned”? It makes it sound like the Times people were high school students paying an involuntary visit to the principal. When the president calls the shots on what to publish and what not to publish, we are already living in a fascist society.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:54 am“Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!” and “Nope, no weapons over there!” and “Maybe under here?”
-President George W. Bush
December 20th, 2005 at 9:02 amHey Randy, 136: don’t that just frost your balls about the NY Times and how the illegal spying by junior is biting him in the ass? As a redneck conservative, I’m just appalled at how the Times, as you put it, will “get more bad press out and try and hurt Bush.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what the Republican Party is all about: “less government” and “keeping the government out of our private lives?” How about all that “freedom” Bush preaches, or is that only for Iraqis? Some of the progressives here would argue that the Republicans are already in our bedrooms, but evesdropping on our telephone calls, emails, and computer content is going too far.
How would you like them to know which porn sites you look at when no one is around? And be able to use that infomation if they need to, in case they need to shut down your freedom of speech? Or is it OK as long as it is some OTHER american they are spying on?
I mean, just how hard is it to get a court order if the president needed one to keep Americans safe? Let me ask you: how many of those illegal wiretaps were on Republican lines or Republican donors?
No, Randy, as for junior getting caught with his pants down, its kinda like my granddaddy used to say: “That’s just tough shit.”
December 20th, 2005 at 9:12 amCarl,
Here is proof that Saddam had WMDs. Now just shut up! You have outlived your usefulness.
Saddam’s 500-ton Uranium Stockpile
Thanks to Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s decision to indict “Scooter” Libby last week, Bush administration accuser Joe Wilson is once again the toast of Washington, D.C. – recycling the fifteen minutes of fame he first purchased in July 2003 with the claim that Bush lied about Iraq’s plan to acquire uranium from Niger.
Why was Bush’s uranium claim so important? Because if true, the mere attempt by the Iraqi dictator to acquire uranium would show that he had clear and incontrovertible plans to restart his nuclear program.
Maybe that’s why the press seldom discusses the fact that Saddam already had a staggeringly large stockpile of uranium – 500 tons, to be exact.
And if his mere intention to acquire uranium was enough to justify fears of Saddam’s nuclear ambition, what would the average person deduce from that fact that he’d already stockpiled a huge quantity of the bombmaking fuel?
In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam’s nuclear fuel stockpile – and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.
The Times noted:
“The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium.”
Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that “the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.”
“A country like Iran,” Mr. Cochran said, “could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium.”
The paper conceded that while Saddam’s nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was “a more potent form” of the nuclear fuel, it was “still not sufficient for a weapon.
Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
Luckily, Iraq didn’t have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.
Or did it?
The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn’t destroyed.
In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, “The Bomb in My Garden,” Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: “Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 … until the war in 2003.”
“I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons” right through 1997, he revealed.
And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq’s nuke program at a moment’s notice.
Dr. Obeidi said he buried “the full set of blueprints, designs – everything to restart the centrifuge program – along with some critical components of the centrifuge” under the garden of his Baghdad home.
“I had to maintain the program to the bitter end,” he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam’s continuing nuclear ambitions.
“The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology,” Dr. Obeidi said in his book. “With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse.”
Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam’s old nuclear weapons plant, where he’d managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator’s disposal.
If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago – in President Bush’s favor.
One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don’t like to discuss: the reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam’s uranium shopping spree.
Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson’s July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:
“In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger.”
December 20th, 2005 at 9:15 amthey sat on the story for a year and helped him win the election… wasn’t that enough? Mr. President, I think it’s time for you to go!
December 20th, 2005 at 9:15 amJoe,
Quit trying to impersonate a conservative. Are you jealous? Are you sick of the lies liberals have been spreading for years? Are you tired of losing? Well stop! Wake up to reality for a change. Liberals want the average American to believe he is wiretapping all of their calls. You people are really more stupid than I thought. The taps were on international calls only and only those with connections to Al Qaeda. You’d be pissed if another attack occurred and it was found out that he didn’t do everything within his power to stop it. Joe think about it.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:20 amWhat a total idiot. I’m talking about Randy and his load of horsecrap in #142.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but conservatives and liberals alike are following the thread here on Bush and the Republicans and their latest attempt at imposing “Big Brother” on our free society and that dipstick starts throwing up the tired old lying case about the existance of WMD’s.
I mean, what a complete dipshit.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:22 amRandy, with all due respect. Where did NYT get its information, from the WH? I mean, it has been proven by the inteligence community (which I believe more) that Saddam did not have WMD.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:25 amI can’t stop laughing at liberals imploding. This whole spy crap will sink the Democrats faster than Nagrin and Blank-o sunk New Orleans.
A debate over terrorism will always, ALWAYS favor Republicans. You have Harry Reid smiling at the Patriot Act signing in 2001 and now he’s trying to score cheap points. It won’t work. The Democrats have officially screwed themselves for next year’s mid-terms. They are soft on terror.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:28 amWhen Dumby finally says, “It’s time to have your last drink of Kool-Aid folks, now take a cup and dip into the big bowl”, I’m there.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:30 amDEMOCRATS ARE SOFT ON TERROR and are politicizing death to gain in the polls.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:31 am#146
Everyone knows that Saddam had WMDs. Go back and listen to what Clinton had to say about him in ‘98. Your position on this is bullshit and the American public knows it. Your party is imploding. You know it, we know it and next fall you will realize how wrong you are. Just remember what I say now. It will haunt you.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:31 amCarl,
Here is proof that Saddam had WMDs.
Six cans of Raid and an industrial strength drum of Black Flag don’t count, Ranty.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:31 amSeems like the trolls just changed shifts. Just another work-a-day world for all thre fascist apologists.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:33 am#
DEMOCRATS ARE SOFT ON TERROR and are politicizing death to gain in the polls.
Comment by Why are Liberals So Dumb?
Hey man, where you been? 9/11 changed everything. The ends justify the means and we mean to put an end to you. Why are you so dumb?
December 20th, 2005 at 9:33 amAt the risk of engaging you in an intelligent dialog, Randy, just who do you believe Bush should personally be about to order illegal wire taps on? How about the local High School teacher who teaches Middle East history with a sympathetic slant to the Arabs? Or some arabic looking drunk down at a bar who makes a stupid statement about knowing where the lost WMD’s are really hidden in the jungles of Bolivia. Or some American Muslim family who just got back from a visit to Saudi Arabia?
Correct me if I’m wrong, pal, but how long would it take the President of the United States to get a legal court order? Ten minutes? How much of our privacy laws are you willing to compromise and violate that are provided for by our Constitution?
I mean, what if that had been Bill Clinton doing it?
Yeah. Uh-huh.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:37 amFor some reason the slogan “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” gained a sranglehold on our moral fantasy. In common practice, however, it’s more like “If you can’t beat ‘em, then at least rain on their parade!”
My parades get rained on a lot. They get rained on every time those at the restaurant table are waiting for me to finish one of those five-minute jokes and, at the precise instant I’m about to pop the punch line, the waiter barges in and shouts, “Who gets the veal?”
Perhaps the best job – forgive me; it’s now the SECOND-best job – of raining on a parade was evident in most American newspapers on October 12, 1957. A group of archeologists had finally proven bull-proof-and-pig-tight that Leif Erickson and his Vikings were the first Europeans to land in North America. They had excavated a complete Viking village in eastern Canada that dated back to the 900s. And when did they decide to announce this news? Just in time to make the front pages on COLUMBUS DAY.
Those pro-Viking archeologists knew they could never replace Columbus Day with Leif Ericksen Day. But they sure could rain on Columbus’ parade.
The absolute best job of parade-drenching, however, was just before Christmas, 2005. The dazzling success of the Iraqi parliamentary elections was the kind of vindication of President Bush’s policies sportscasters describe as a “rout,” a “massacre” or a “humiliation” of the adversary. Do a thought-experiment. Just look at a map of the Middle East and say “Iraqi parliamentary elections” to yourself five times! Eleven million Iraqis voted “NO” to the insurgency, to Jihad and to Saddam Hussein.
If you see Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld or anyone else in their clique, give out with a high-five. Americans have now indeed been welcomed as liberators! A defeat of this magnitude could simply not be allowed to sit by the Bush-haters. So, how do you get that much egg off your face? By changing the subject, and nothing can change the subject as effectively as Page One of the New York Times. And, sure enough; there it was!
Get it straight, now. The election in Iraq was Thursday, December 15. The success was apparent worldwide by Thursday evening American time. The Bush-bashers fell silent instantly and the headquarters of the “Iraq is Vietnam” crowd was chaotically evacuated by rooftop helicopters throughout Thursday night. Friday morning, however, brought mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the frantic refugees from the good news from Iraq.
For a year the New York Times had been sitting on a story about President Bush authorizing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans inside America. At least “spying on Americans” was the impression that was calculated to sweep the nation once other media and 24/7 TV joined the rain dance – “Bush Authorizes Illegal Spying on Americans.” A close reading of even the New York Times article itself would have shown that the Americans being eavesdropped were those with known connections to al-Qaida, and the spying was confined to listening to phone calls made from the U.S. to foreign countries. But since when have we been a nation of close readers?
There’s a line in Jewish scripture – the Talmud, to be exact – that says “When the fox has his day, bow down to him.” In modern times that translates into “Show the other guy a little sportsmanship when he scores big time!” No such luck. Couldn’t the Bush-haters have allowed the president maybe half a day to savor his victory?
Absolutely not! That would have spiked his approval ratings, a veritable dagger into every liberal heart.
The happy news from Iraq was totally eclipsed by the “Illegal, immoral, unthinkable, breathtaking act of spying on our own people!” And all of it authorized by the Bush administration!”
Once upon a time weights and measures dictated the priorities and emphasis of news. The important stories trumped the less important. All journalists who tell you the Bush-NSA story was anywhere near as weighty as the Iraqi vote against the terrorists should have their credentials revoked and be forced to pay for their own cocktails and canapés at the press conferences of Washington lobbyists.
But that didn’t stop Senators Russ Feingold and Carl Levin and Congressman Charles Rangel and the others from feigning shock – SHOCK – that a president would authorize spying on fellow Americans! The fact that the eavesdropped Americans were limited to those with known al-Qaida connections calling overseas was not lost. It was deliberately thrown away by the enemies of President Bush who piously insisted that “No American citizen is above the law.” Also thrown away was the likelihood that such aggressive intelligence might have saved a lot of lives; conservative lives, liberal lives, all kinds of lives.
And why didn’t the usually shrill Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid join the rainmakers? Sorry. They had no choice but to admit they’d been briefed repeatedly on the NSA action by the White House – an action which, by the way, was reviewed every 45 days and shared with key congressional members of both parties. Not bad for a president they try to paint as Mussolini with a Texas twang.
If Hollywood were as conservative as it is liberal, it would bar actors and actresses from getting Academy Awards next year and limit the Oscar winners to those politicians who displayed such horror at this laudable act of American self-defense. Accuse me of not respecting the Constitution and I’ll accuse you of not knowing there’s a war going on. Accuse me of excusing a president I voted for of any and all abuses and I’ll accuse you of ignorance of the extra-constitutional excesses of President Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln in wartime.
It worked. The shameful attempt to obliterate attention to signs of surging health in Iraq succeeded in shifting the national attention to the “Bush outrage” and away from the Bush victory. I like to hug those I debate on TV when I run into them later. How can I hug Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation when she straight-facedly faced the cameras and declared, “How can we pretend to be bringing democracy to Iraq when we act in this country like the enemies we are fighting?” Maybe minus a few mass graves, huh, Katrina?
I disagree with President Bush on one major point. He should never have “admitted” he authorized NSA eavesdrops on targeted Americans.
Once exposed, he should have PROCLAIMED it!
And if it were ever to be revealed that the president had FAILED to use NSA’s wizardry to track potential bad guys, he should be impeached.
And removed.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:41 amRandy is still clinging to the WMD story that Bush already admitted was wrong and a mistake. I know I almost wrecked the car when I heard him admit it. So Randy if you know something dear leader should know… maybe now would be a good time to write him.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:42 amKillCon – no. We will wipe liberalism off the face of the American map if you keep this shit up. You are putting politics ahead of safety and you are not even good liars. I can’t wait for the midterm election – we will hold up Democrats as obstructionists in the war on terror.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:45 amThe dazzling success of the Iraqi elections? I know you’re a complete asshole, but read the fourth amendment sometime.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:46 amRandy and others have hitched their broken down wagons with square wheels onto a fascist Tiger Tank…..” I can’t see up ahead, where are we going Bushco?”
December 20th, 2005 at 9:48 amThere’s a line in Jewish scripture – the Talmud, to be exact – that says “When the fox has his day, bow down to him.†In modern times that translates into “Show the other guy a little sportsmanship when he scores big time!†No such luck. Couldn’t the Bush-haters have allowed the president maybe half a day to savor his victory?
There’s also a line in thr Talmud that goes like this…
Here, we run the fox to ground and let the dogs have at him. We don’t put up with pedophile Priests or Rabbis either.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:51 amLiberals are walking a very thin line right now. What still matters most in this day and age is national security. Liberals have been proven to be weak on this. If the democratic party doesn’t grow a spine and get tough on terrorism, they will lose even more seats next year. Can’t wait to see the looks on their faces when they go down in defeat.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:52 amI love Randy’s comment that Bush should be impeached for NOT committing a crime.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:52 am#160 – what is wrong with you? Come back to reality and stop blatering on about how much you hate Catholics.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:52 amThe President can do anything he wants. He rules. It is no longer a constitutional republic. If he wants to invade Iraq, kill thirty to one hundred thousand people, he can. If he wants to spy on you, he can. He rules your life.
If you want murka back, too bad.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:52 amRandy… The bipartisan group of senators who were told about the spying were
1) a small number
2) Not asked for their opinion on the matter
3) Not allowed to talk about it
can you say Deeeeeeeeeee– bunked
December 20th, 2005 at 9:53 am#162 – Bush did NOT commit a crime you treasonous liar.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:53 amKillCon – no. We will wipe liberalism off the face of the American map if you keep this shit up. You are putting politics ahead of safety and you are not even good liars. I can’t wait for the midterm election – we will hold up Democrats as obstructionists in the war on terror.
Comment by Why are Liberals So Dumb?
Don’t make me laugh so hard in the morning! You can’t even wipe your ass without talking points, nor get yer piss out of your boots with the instructions on the soles.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:54 amI see Randy is in the “cut and paste” stage of denial.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:57 amBTW, have you heard about the midterm election? No more Diebold. Anywhere.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:58 amKillCon2006,
December 20th, 2005 at 9:59 amFor real?
#167 – keep laughing. ANWR, then Alito, then replacing Stevens. While your planning for a DC takeover, the GOP is living it. Liberalism is DEAD.
“You don’t have the votes… You simply don’t have them-”
December 20th, 2005 at 9:59 ambabykiller Boxer in 2003
Freedom?, choice?, constitutional rights, human rights? That is waaay too much for me to handle. Tell me what to do Bushco and make me fell betterer.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:00 am#162
December 20th, 2005 at 10:01 amBush clearly committed a crime and already admitted to it on TV. I don’t know if a piece of human garbage like yourself can read the fourth amendment, but give it a try.
I disagree with President Bush on one major point. He should never have “admitted†he authorized NSA eavesdrops on targeted Americans.
Comment by Randy
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Randy is not much of a historian. How soon the non-thinking zealots forget the lessons of Nixon and Watergate, or, to be fair, Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal.
I mean, here are several quotes for you to think about, Randy, and see if you can guess who said each:
“Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.”
“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”
“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one
catagory.”
Well, who said them? Didn’t think you’d get it. Yes, they appear to have been taken out the Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Republican play books. And probably were. For sure, however, they were all quotes of Adolph Hitler.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:01 amBy all appearances, President Bush has committed an impeachable offense under the cover of his Office, far more egregious than lying under oath in a private lawsuit. The presidential oath is to defend the Constitution first. Clearly Bush has broken that oath — he has his priorities completely backward. We sacrifice lives DEFENDING the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, not give up the rights in the Constitution to save lives!!! Surely wwallace and I-RIGHT-I must know that deep in their hearts.
It’s pretty clear that since Bush had all the capabilities in hand to engage in legal surveillance already, something else is going on.
There’s something we don’t know about yet that hasn’t been revealed.
There must be hearings and an investigation to find out what malfeasance has taken place. I can’t imagine why else Bush has gone to such lengths to engage in such an unecessary, and (let’s face it), illegal undertaking.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:03 amOh, Look!
It took some time, but look at this…
What’s this?
Detailed MAINSTREAM MEDIA Coverage of the Leon County Hack!
December 20th, 2005 at 10:04 amI had no idea they would spy on me because he found found my name in siezed computers-that is, until Bush told me. You crazy Americans! Go Dallas Cowboys! Who shot JR?!
December 20th, 2005 at 10:05 amNo Diebold – I’m sure you’ll find some propoganda to explain why the GOP rolled you again at the polls.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:07 amKillCon2006,
For real?
Comment by Carl Levin for President — December 20, 2005
It’s amazing the stuff your “so-called liberal media” doesn’t tell you, ain’t it?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:07 amThe American Constitution…if it ain’t broke …well, fix it anyway.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:07 amFolks,
Wiretapping in the name of national security was, and still is, no big secret. However, many would like for us to believe that it is (or was). The idea that “Oh no! The terrorists are on to us now!” based on the Newsweek story is simply BS. Excerpts from 2 stories on CNN.com from Oct. 26, 2001 and Feb. 13, 2002, respectively:
The additional powers [from the Patriot Act] include the use of much more foreign intelligence information and expanded wiretapping authority.
AND
Late last year, the U.S. government got some serious investigative help when Congress passed the Patriot Act in response to the terrorist attacks. The measure gives government the authority to monitor e-mail and other electronic communication and share that information among agencies. “E-mail is just one clue to the larger crime,” says a representative of the Department of Justice, of the new tools provided by the Patriot Act.
The ONLY difference between the wiretapping announcement on Oct. 6, 2001 and the news we learned the other day is the revelation that Bush has made an end-run around FISA.
Sources:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/26/rec.bush.antiterror.bill/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/02/13/anonymous.email.idg/index.html
December 20th, 2005 at 10:09 amwwallace:
Yes, asking an American newspaper not to leak national security secrets and thereby give aid to al Qaeda is a sign of desperation.
Of course, the first comment I read on this thred is one of spin. Wallace, you are just a tool. Just a tool.
In no way has Bush substained the burden of proof that the spying he did were in fact terrorists. He bypassed the FISA courts, which has a wide allowance for pressing needs of national security.
You want us to trust Bush, like you do? Ha. Funny funny funny.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:10 amNot even into the new century a full five years and we have likely all lived thru the crime of the century. Possibly even the crime of this millenium because we have no idea what these filthy pigs have been up to. Thanks conservatards. The real fun will be watching you all hang, or get shot for treason.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:10 amIf you have some evidence an American citizen was spied on without authorization, then prove it. back up your claim, give us a name. Just one.
Comment by wwallace — December 19, 2005 @ 10:46 pm (a comment repeated by wwallace)
President Bush (aka King George the nitwit) already admitted to doing just that and added that he intends to continue doing so. Don’t you follow the news, wwallace?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:10 amBush, Liar.
Bush speech, April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:12 amNow Lora, leave Miss wwallace alone.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only “news” she and Randy follow is what is put out by Faux News: like HANNITY & combes, or Bill O’Righty.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:14 amComment by WC
Nice try, fishmonger, but that rotten fish stinks and the newspaper it’s wrapped in is several months old.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:15 amWallace: If you have some evidence an American citizen was spied on without authorization, then prove it. back up your claim, give us a name. Just one.
how in the hell are we too know? Bush never went to the FISA court, while or in the mandatory 3 days after he committed this non-consitutional act. He says the citizens he spied on were “terrorists.” How, again are we too know? Just take his word for it?
Right. Ha ha.
No the burden of proof is on Bush to substaniate that these people were terrorists. He did not meet this, so he is a liar and a Stalinsit to (jack)boot.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:16 amWhat did FDR do during WWII? I think he locked up like over 100k Japanese-American citizens. It makes what ever Bush did seem like small potatoes. FDR did what he thought he had to at the time, in a time of war. Can any of you even admit we are at war. You can’t. You have forgotten 9/11. FDR actions were unforgiveable and unnecessary yet no one seems to care here because he was a democrat. Please, for our safety, stop giving aid to enemy. All you seem to be able to do is bash Bush. I hope the next Al Qaeda attack plants the dirty bomb near your house.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:18 am#187
And your point is…?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:24 amRandy:What did FDR do during WWII? I think he locked up like over 100k Japanese-American citizens. It makes what ever Bush did seem like small potatoes.
Which was wrong. Completely wrong and abdmoninable. Since it is and was, how does that exonerate Bush?
It does not.
All you are now doing is admitting that Bush is in fact wrong.
Randy: FDR did what he thought he had to at the time, in a time of war. Can any of you even admit we are at war. You can’t. You have forgotten 9/11. FDR actions were unforgiveable and unnecessary yet no one seems to care here because he was a democrat.
You’ve assumed way to much about me here Randy.
And no, giving up freedom in a “time of war” is a false choice. If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq if only to become a repressive state here at home?
Randy: Please, for our safety, stop giving aid to enemy. All you seem to be able to do is bash Bush.
Your equating me as the enemy for my dissent. Futhermore Randy, none of this has anything to do with the laws that Bush broke.
Also, since you’ve already equated my Consitutional right to dissent as tratiorist, I suppose you’d be willing to lock me up like FDR did to german and japanesse Americans during WWII.
Randy: I hope the next Al Qaeda attack plants the dirty bomb near your house.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:28 amYou are such a wonderful person… and you say I am helping the enemy? Jesus.
#189
I missed the part where the title of this thread is “FDR locks up 100,000+ Japanese-American citizens.”
You do bring up a good point, though. How is what FDR did different from Bush locking up thousands of suspected terrorists to be held indefinitely?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:30 amFDR did it! Clinton did it! He hit me first! Whaaaaaaa! Whaaaaaa! I need a whaaaaambulance! This is not only sad, it’s funny at the same time. to see all these ugly but naked little trolls running around whining and peeing on the furniture.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:31 amYou do bring up a good point, though. How is what FDR did different from Bush locking up thousands of suspected terrorists to be held indefinitely?
Comment by WC
And you just about made me bring up my lunch, troll. I think you’ll find the internees got reparations finally. That’ll come out of your pocket, OK? not mine.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:32 amAnd BTW, you trolls don’t do the Mutt and Jeff routine very well at all. Whatever they are paying you, (our tax dollars) could be better spent on mental health care for the likes of you.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:35 amKillCon2006: …to see all these ugly but naked little trolls running around whining and peeing on the furniture.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:35 amThe problem with them is they don’t have an argument. The “Anybody-but-Bush” red-herring, and the equvication fallacy are there only attempts at mounting a counter-argument. Of course, they do not realize this, and this is why they are picked off so easily and refuted without much effort. It would be a lot easier if we did control the media, but we do not.
I’m sick of this “we’re at war” crap…did I miss the part where Congress declared war? And since when does that imply that the President is above the law? Why do the Repubs hate America and all we stand for?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:35 amRandy #189, are we really at war? I mean, REALLY? Holy crap!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought with all the tax cuts, lack of sacrifice by the Republican run government on spending, the focus by the Republicans on Gay Rights, gutting the EPA and trashing the environment, trying to get rid of Social Security while eliminating social programs—I mean, don’t REAl wars call for sacrifice? Or is that only for the lower and middle class to sacrifice, like letting the poor and middle class furnish all the soldiers and military people. Of all 100 Senators and over 500 Representatives, and all the members in Bush’s cabnet, guess how many have sons and daughters in the service?
Yeah. Absolutlely disgraceful, huh? At least their children are all safe and sound.
Hey, your household share of Bush’s Iraq War is $2,047.00 so far. Of course, I’m sure you would still be a big hawk on this wasteful war in Iraq if you had to sit down right now and write out that check instead of passing it on to your children’s children to pay back for you.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:36 amYou all can just go and f yourself. I actually have work to do. Have another beer and get back to Springer.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:39 amKillCon2006:
I am supporting the anti-Bush, anti-neoconservative group around here, as you have in several posts, and you call ME a troll? What the hell is wrong with you?
December 20th, 2005 at 10:41 amSorry, Randy, wrong again, telling me to go f myself. As a typical redneck conservative, I keep a blowup sex doll in my closet, remember?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but today after a I have those beers you mentioned, I plan to replace Ann Coulter’s picture on it with Laura Bush’s.
Cheers!
December 20th, 2005 at 10:44 amRandy: You all can just go and f yourself. I actually have work to do. Have another beer and get back to Springer.
That’s the best you can do? I do like beer, but not alot of television. As far as getting f’ed, my g/f will thank you for that suggestion.
See, like I said, these Bush apologists don’t have an argument. When they try something “clever” and it blows up in their face (as I demonstrated in my last re-post to Randy) they are left with nothing.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:46 amnice troll swatting everyone… Randy just took it on the chin and went away unfulfilled, better luck next time Randy
December 20th, 2005 at 10:55 amKillCon2006:
I am supporting the anti-Bush, anti-neoconservative group around here, as you have in several posts, and you call ME a troll? What the hell is wrong with you?
Comment by WC
What the hell is wrong with you? There is no debate. If you aren’t completely sussed on the kool-aid, the only thing for Bush to do would be to resign, but he’s not as smart as Nixon was. There is no defense. The idiot admitted to committing an impeachable offense.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:55 amHe had no choice, better to admit it himself and dig his heels in. When they go down, and they will go down, every last one of them, they will all go down HARD!
December 20th, 2005 at 10:56 amWell, the trolls do serve a function here. While we may not reach them and they may bunker down, they do demostrate to lurker’s reading the dialog in just how shallow and false their arguments are.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:05 am#204
Well, if there is “no debate,” as you indicate, then I guess your post #185 is a figment of our imagination. An optical illusion. Funny, it seemed like a contribution not unlike the info I have posted.
Anyway…Enough bickering. Back on topic.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:26 amResponding to the very first comment on this post:
So by your account a media that reveals a secret spying program endangers US’s ability to provide security to its citizes, but blowing a covert CIA operative is nothing but a technicality, right?
Does the current administration get to choose which actions are endangering the nation and which are not too?
December 20th, 2005 at 11:42 amOooh! Randy.
A dirty bomb? I’m so scared, fear clutches my nose and my
belly button zig zagging.
But seriously, after reading most of your dribble, especially the ones that made me fall asleep, I realize
that you appreciate the freedoms of Iraq and not the freedoms that your Preident is intent on destroying.
So I guess it frightens you that the NY Times, now with more than egg on their faces, are trying to make up for the Judith Miller/Jayson Blair debacles by trying to be little more like a First Amendment advocate. The paper has a long way to go, but at least they’re starting.
Freedom of the Press, bro. Freedom of the American Press.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:46 amRandy and all radical right wingers here, may I submit a quote.Regarding your refrence to FDR and the internment camps. Mia Anjelo (sp) said something like this,” They did then what they knew how to do, now we know better, we can do better.” This would be true in the present tense if we had not had the elections stolen twice, Bush allowed 9/11 to happen, prementive war on Iraq, stoped looking for his buddy BenLauden, massive debt and graft being held by foreign countries, dismanteling all needed services and national guard at home. Bush and company are big business and relegious lies. He has even tried to sell off our parks and wilderness for profit to his base. you see, we were doing better when Clinton was in office, lot’s of jobs, surplus was given to Bush. Clinton dispite his B.J. is still held with high regard here and around the world. Bush on the other hand is hated all over the world and here for his arrogance, stupid stunts and lies. Cheney and company are all for them selves and nothing for our country and her people. Nothing is sacred with this bunch and all they want is dictatorship, if they can they will have us all warehoused and earning pennies to spport their greed. I will not wish you or any one else ill will, I will wish and work for impeaching this entire administration and cleaning up the house and senate of all law breakers on all sides……
December 20th, 2005 at 11:49 am#189
I missed the part where the title of this thread is “FDR locks up 100,000+ Japanese-American citizens.â€
You do bring up a good point, though. How is what FDR did different from Bush locking up thousands of suspected terrorists to be held indefinitely?
Comment by WC
I think you are a troll, or just very obtuse. What FDR did was wrong. We know that now, years later. The SCOTUS said so, and some of you people are just slow in getting the memo. Ever heard of the 442nd RCT. The most decorated unit in all of WWII, comprised of Japanese Americans.
Their motto: Go For Broke
December 20th, 2005 at 11:57 amAdmit your terrorism and win fabulous prizes!
December 20th, 2005 at 12:19 pmThank You Santo for your post. Good read and hopeful news. Let the games begin in earnest….Blessings
December 20th, 2005 at 12:38 pm#212
Well, obviously you don’t know me very well. I agree 110% that locking up anyone of Japanses ancestry was very wrong. However, Randy is the one who brought it up, out of the blue, to question why we on the Left have no outrage over something that happened over 60 years ago. He’s comparing Bush’s wiretapping rights to the unnecessary lock-up of persons of Japanse ancestry (American citizens or aliens). However, I suppose this is not that all surprising seeing as how the rightwingers love to compare the War on Terror to World War II. It’s somewhat telling that Randy had to go back 60+ years to find something that a Democrat did that was really repulsive; maybe the “Yeah, but Clinton lied…” issue they love to bring up when anyone accuses Bush of a lie has about run out of steam.
I simply wanted to get Randy’s input regarding Bush’s lockup of alleged terrorists for an indefinite amount of time. I thought it may have been a more fair comparison to his FDR reference. Maybe I was wrong.
As to your accusation that I am a troll, maybe it is you who are obtuse. Go back and read my post #181. I am simply responding to what appears to be efforts by the Right to indicate wiretapping was once a secret that has now been revealed by Newsweek. The sources I quoted indicate this is not true. Post #181 is not the work of a troll. Read post #12; the info I posted is just an expansion of that.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:39 pmKillCon:
Let me clarify the next to last paragraph in my previous post.
It is our government’s intent to hold the terrorists, or eneny combatants, or however you wish to classify them, in prisons indefinitely. As I understand it, they have not been formally charged with any crime. Lord knows when we’ll get around to prosecuting them. After we win the War on Terror? Bush himself said we couldn’t win the war, but then recanted and said we couldn’t win it the way you win a conventional war. Randy agrees that what FDR did regarding the internment of Japanese-Americans was wrong. I just wanted to know if he felt the same about our current administration’s actions.
This, from the Human Rights Watch web site, from 2004:
Since January 11, 2002, the U.S. government has sent over seven hundred people picked up from around the world to Guantanamo. Currently some 660 are in detention, including an undisclosed number of children. As the detention camp begins its third year, the public still does not know who the detainees are, what they have allegedly done, and whether and when they will be charged with crimes or released. There have been no hearings to determine the legal status of detainees and no judicial review—in short, no legal process at all.
The Bush Administration asserts that all of its detainees at Guantanamo are enemy combatants in the war against terrorism and therefore properly detained until terrorism is vanquished.
This, from a web site describing internment of the Japanese:
General John L. DeWitt, commanding officer of the U.S. Army’s Western Defense Command, pursued greater power to remove all enemy aliens from zones around strategic West Coast installations.
DeWitt’s Final Report: Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast did not present any evidence of sabotage or espionage that had occurred, merely that “there were indications that these [Japanese] are organized and ready for concerted action at a favorable opportunity. The very fact that no sabotage or espionage has taken place to date is disturbing and confirming indication that such action will take place.”
The reports from the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Naval Intelligence indicating no evidence to support eviction and internment were suppressed.
I hope this explains my motives a little better.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:12 pmSources for quoted material in post #217:
http://www.jainternment.org/ww2/eo9066.html
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm
December 20th, 2005 at 2:13 pmAll it takes is one “Wally-bot” to start the whole unraveling. Priceless.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:46 pm213- At least it’s a start. Too bad the House is controlled by partisans more concerned with their party, pork, and privilege to see the truth and demand answers. Party before country…
December 20th, 2005 at 3:51 pm