Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.
The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:
During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.
I knew it. I heard these talking points yesterday on hate radio and figured the truth had to be something else.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:17 pmSo what part of TOTALITARIAN government doesn’t bushco understand?
December 20th, 2005 at 12:21 pmThose right wing nitwits will say anything to shift blame away from themselves, avoid seriously discussing the issue at hand and save their asses. It doesn’t change the fact that their sitting president took matters into his own hands and violated the law by not obtaining a FISA warrant before spying on Americans.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:22 pmThe SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It!) defense is usually a last resort and is heard after all other arguments have failed. It is usually followed by the ASIDWA (Aw hit It Didn’t Work Again)wail. You can rest assured that if Clinton would have done everything the Repugs are now claiming the blue dress would never have been mentioned.
Let’s all support Senator Boxer and others in their call for Impeachment.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:24 pmTheir favorite phrase is But Clinton… for people that hate Clinton so much they sure use his presidency to justify lots of things.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:24 pmWizbang, a “prominent” rightwing site…..LOL. They probably average about 9 comments per thread, not very impressive.
Once the winger lies are exposed, the hacks that drove the propaganda NEVER retract their stories. It’s wingnut 101. Good job Judd, TPro.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:24 pmDoesn’t this kinda debunk the talking point from the Rightwingers (from 2 that I know of: Bill Kristol, and Rep. Tim King (NY) on Sunday’s Late Edition) that if Clinton had monitored electronic communication, 9/11 could have been prevented? It now seems that we did perform such monitoring.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:25 pmThank you for this. This particular talking point has major legs in winnuttia. It just didn’t smell right.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:30 pmFolks, get a clue. Remember the FBI/CIA/NSA scrapped their plans to develop spying software (Carnivore)?
Why?
Because they found EXTANT COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS to do the spying for them,
What extant commercial applications?
1. MICROSOFT WINDOWS: A purposeful back door that provides easy access to your computer without your even being aware of it. Windows XP is a spy system that uploads the content of your internet cache to Microsoft every 15 days. It’s in the registry. XP replaced Windows 95/98 which had been the subject of the antitrust inquiry. . . a prosecution suddenly dropped shortly before the Carnivore program was scrapped.
2. AOL: On the brink of economic collapse, AOL is mysteriously bailed out of bankruptcy at the last minute. GUESS WHY? AOL is also a back door!
Ask any software professional.
It’s true.
Of course der Shrubenfuherer has been spying on you. Donjcha get it? That’s why they did 9/11! So they could turn the U.S. into a police state.
They’ll need a military crackdown after the economy collapses and 280 million Americans are forced out of their jobs, homes and lives.
They have 59 concentration camps all ready to house millions.
Google it.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:31 pmI’ve noticed a new talking point with a legal precendent going around as well. Must have been in today’s blast fax.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:32 pm#7
The repugs will counter with “But Clinton didn’t monitor the right calls.” These are the same idiots that claim on Monday their team would have won Sunday’s game if only….
The game is over and the score is at least ten to zero against Bushco. No amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacking is going to change the facts of the game. DUHbya can now send his soul home to the Intelligent Designer because his ass belongs to the Dems. Or in more subtle terms, his ass is grass and the Dems are riding their lawnmower.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:33 pmBush’s latest talking point is that there is a difference between “detecting” and “monitoring”. Not entirely sure where this is leading, but something to keep an eye on.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:41 pm#9,
That’s why I use a Mac. I have always known about the Windows problems with security which easily can result in getting spyed on. It started with the Pentium III.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:42 pmIf Bush nuked Los Angeles tomarrow, these Right Wingnut pundits would find a way to justify it.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:46 pmConsistent with their misinformation campaigns the criminal Bushite junta spreads lies to its inbred faithful to rile them up, knowing their apologists and disciples won’t bat an eyelash having long ago sold their miserable souls.
The Bushite junta realizes that their worshippers are like baby birds in the nest, necks outstretched, beaks open skyward for their masters to regurgitate in their hungry little beaks.
The inbreds are afraid that this one might be the GREAT UNDOING, and it’s well past time. We progressives can only wait, and hope.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:47 pmSpying on Americans has been going on a long time. The mistake these guys have made is not being sophisticated and discreet about it. All the advances in technology also have outed much of the crap that has always gone on. This is nothing new.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if someday it is found out that 9/11 was an inside job to create a police state, take away civil liberties, etc.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:47 pmWhy do they need to bypass FISA altogether when FISA (a veritable rubber stamp for search warrants by their record) allows the administration to ask for a warrant retroactively?
By that logic Bush should be able to almost get away with a blowjob and the next Democratic president should be able to sell a WMD chemical kit to North Korea.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:49 pmthe Constitution will eventually become ‘quaint’ to them, just like the Geneva Conventions. and if they ever figure out how to get elected without exploiting fundamentalist christians, i’m sure they’ll eventually find the Bible to be ‘quaint’ too.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:51 pmCan I try? They would say liberal Hollywood was actively undermining the war effort with propoganda such as “Brokeback Mountain”. They would say “We will take the fight to Merka hating Hollywood and anywhere the War on Terra’ is being undermined by libruls and commies (Oops, wrong century).”
Am I close? I should do a “Assrocket through history” site like that “Fox News through history” someone did recently.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:53 pmSo two sentences from George “Slam-Dunk” Tenet’s testimony from 5 years ago is all you need to convince yourselves that everything the Clinton administration did was aboveboard and strictly legal?
Guess you didn’t notice or just don’t care about his very precise - Clintonian, you might say - wording…
We don’t “collect” against “U.S. persons” UNLESS they are “agents of a foreign power…” So what does “U.S. persons mean? Citizens? Foreign nationals within the U.S.?
“We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States…”
Now, does this mean that their conversations that originate / terminate in the U.S. are NOT targeted? Seems like a reasonable reading of hit words would indicate that these conversations ARE targeted and collected….just not “…in the United States…”
December 20th, 2005 at 12:57 pmtornaig, you may want to take note, since January 20, 2001, Clinton has not been president.
Hope this helps.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:58 pmFor the sake of argument only:
Let’s say all voice and email is currently listened to. But, it is not listened to by a human. If a dog, cat, or computer program listens to your phone call, do you care? Are are any rights are violated at this point?
Let’s say a computer looks for key words and uses a neural net software to look for patterns that indicate something criminal. Now if something hits a certain point value the dog, cat, or computer, then barks, meows, or sends an email that tells someone there is a very strong indication that something criminal was said. This is akin to a dog barking at a drug filled suitcase at an airport.
Now they have a case for reasonable search. So someone requests from a judge that that recording should be listened to by a human.
That okay with everyone or is it a trick to get around the law?
December 20th, 2005 at 12:59 pmThe inbreds are afraid that this one might be the GREAT UNDOING, and it’s well past time. We progressives can only wait, and hope.
Comment by big papa
You can sit on it and spin for all we care. Why don’t you just “protest” by burning down your neighborhood? That’ll teach us.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:00 pmThank You! It’s important to get this out there!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:01 pmMaking Up Excuses
Because the Bush Apologists are obsessed with Bill Clinton, they distort the truth to bolster their hero
December 20th, 2005 at 1:02 pmwhat’s your address i-rightwingnutz-i?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:03 pmThank you for yet another racist comment, IRI.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:04 pmInformation needs to be made available as to how citizens can maximise their privacy on the net. A totalitarian coup would certainly need to keep close tabs on this last vestige of a free press. Any ideas anyone?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:04 pm#20
Gay cowboys? Hahahaha. That’s gotta send Bill O over the top. I hear that Wyoming won’t be showing the movie. That’s where it is set. Actually, I know a gay cowboy but he still values his balls so his family and extended cowboy family don’t know he’s gay. The religious folks just don’t understand that there are gay people in all walks of life.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:04 pmBRAIN IMPLANT WAITING FOR TALKING POINT DOWNLOAD.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:06 pmET- 1:15
Am I authorized to play pocketball while waiting?
Waiting for response.
#23
That okay with everyone or is it a trick to get around the law?
Comment by Allen — December 20, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
Well, if I said “I’m against blowing up buildings by terrorists.” and the operative words heard are “blowing up” , then I get targetted even though I denounced the practice of terrorism. So, I vote for fancy trick…
December 20th, 2005 at 1:07 pm“Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons.”
What about communications between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals suspected of having terrorist connections? What is the difference between international and domestic surveillance? Does the law allow for monitoring of incoming phone calls or e-mail from outside the U.S. without obtaining a warrant at a time of war when time is so critical?
Is anyone here an actual expert on the law?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:07 pmgay cowboy is redudant. big floppy hats. high heels. giant shiney belt buckles. very tight genes. bedazzled shirts. that all sounds gay to me… i’m just saying..
December 20th, 2005 at 1:08 pm#2 - So what part of TOTALITARIAN government doesn’t bushco understand?
I’d put it this way:
What part of TOTALITARIAN government don’t US citizens understand?
Afterall, We The People have a responsibility (or used to have the responsibility) to stand up and drive from office those fools who deliberately break the law and to put them in jail. The 4th amendment has clearly been breeched.
Bush just torpedo’d his political ship. He belongs in jail. His henchmen belong in jail. We need a true leader. Someone who will do the right things of, by, and for the people of the US.
Nothing ever changes for the powerful elite until the masses rise up.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:09 pm#24
You can sit on it and spin for all we care. Why don’t you just “protest†by burning down your neighborhood? That’ll teach us.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
Well, IRI, your argument is so well documented, supported by facts and just so incredibly eloquent that okay, okay, I give in…
Really, is this how you expect to convert the heathens? Sarcasm and insults? Why don’t you try torture too, because it’s as equally effective…
December 20th, 2005 at 1:09 pmReality - YOU might want to take note - the entire point of this post was “Clinton’s Echelon surveillance was legal!” - see the last sentence where - with the firm words of George tenet to provide bedrock support - Judd posits the difference between Clinton and GWB - “It is the difference between following the law and breaking it. ”
Hope this helps!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:09 pmWhy are right wingers so committed to lying? And why do they hate America?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:18 pmNow all we need is wwingnut telling us that the destruction of the 4th Amendment is nowhere near as bad as President Clinton getting a blowjob.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:20 pmIt’s always back to Clinton for those @#$%ing right-wing losers. “Well, Bill Clinton did it.” That’s the “party of accountability” for you. Like a bunch of little kids blaming others for breaking the vase in the living room.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pmThe reason they are hemming and hawing like this is becasue they know they are busted.
This is almost identical to why Richard Nixon said bye bye, and they know it.
If the DEMS have some backbone now, they will begin Impeachment hearings. This is an impeachable offense if there ever was one.
Let’s hope the DEMS show a little more backbone then they normally do, and hold his feet to the fire for this one.
Sick Pat Leahey on em.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pmOh and if they want to mention Bill Clinton, then we might point out the Bill Clinton was impeached
December 20th, 2005 at 1:25 pmFor having a really good day :D
December 20th, 2005 at 1:26 pmrepublicans like ‘tomaig’ are a combination of psychotic, and semi-literate. not only do they clearly not possess any reading comprehension, but anything they read that doesn’t fit or disproves their ‘psychotic’ frame of reference they discard. it’s part of their pathology, and why they’re such lunatics…
then you get the ’serial killer’ and ’stalker’ types who killed small animals as a child, and grow up to be dangerous psychopaths. those are whackos like IRI, MightyTranny and wwallace. they’re unsafe to themselves, their families and the greater world. they see violence as ‘good’ because of their psychosis. they are unfortunately running the whitehouse and the pentagon as well - and hence the love of ‘torture’ and other psychosexual acts that are abnormal.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:28 pm“They hate our freedoms”, nowwww I understand who the “they” refers to ………..BUSHCO…..and they hate the American people’s freedoms, specifically the U.S.Constitution.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:30 pmI think the interesting revelations are yet to come on this one though.
As we start finding out just who, and how many people were being spied on.
And God help him if it turns out that there is a large percentage of Democrats on that secret but soon to be revealed list of names.
Cause then it will be all over.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:33 pmwith the firm words of George tenet to provide bedrock support - Judd posits the difference between Clinton and GWB - “It is the difference between following the law and breaking it. ”
Comment by tomaig — December 20, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
The words of George Tenet provide more support than you give them credit for. After all, he said them during a congressional testimony -under oath. Unless, of source, you are suggesting he commited perjury.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pmThis is almost identical to why Richard Nixon said bye bye, and they know it.
I appreciate the prefix of the word “almost” to your statement (thus leaving room for it to be “not even remotely”), but, word wrangling aside, this isn’t even similar, let alone “almost identical”.
Nixon - members of his reelection committee were caught breaking in at the offices of the democratic party in the Watergate building. In short, a “political” decision perpetrated for personal gain.
Bush - allows the NSA (not his own personal lackeys, but another government agency) to listen in on suspected terrorists (likely not Bush “supporters”, but certainly not opponents of the political type) after 9/11. In short, a “national defense” decision perpetrated for citizen wellfare (no one, at least no one on the national scene, has purported that the NSA was listening to anyone but suspected terrorists (although people here have)).
December 20th, 2005 at 1:36 pmAnd God help him if it turns out that there is a large percentage of Democrats on that secret but soon to be revealed list of names.
If it turns out that the NSA was used to listen in on political opponents of Bush so he could use that for political gain, I’ll rent a van, pick up Worfeus, Ryan Neat, and unbelievable, and we can ALL go demand Congress impeach him … just so you know where I stand. I do have my limits (although I don’t think 1) we’ll see that “list” and 2) that the NSA spied on Democrats for the political gain of Bush).
December 20th, 2005 at 1:42 pmBush - allows the NSA (not his own personal lackeys, but another government agency) to listen in on suspected terrorists (likely not Bush “supportersâ€, but certainly not opponents of the political type) after 9/11.
Comment by Giacomo
Jaggoffmore #48
“…but certainly not opponents of the political type…”
How do you know? Are you employed by NSA? Were you there at the LPs (listening posts), for each and every instance of es (electronic surveillance)?
Pray tell o in the loop one!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:44 pmPoor Ryan - projecting all your maladaptations onto those who you don’t know.
You’re quite the pop psychologist, aren’t you?
For a self-described pacifist, you sure seem angry all the time…name calling, insults, insta-nalysis that describes others as less-than human or as suffering from a psychological disorder.
Perhaps some nice soothing chanting is in order?
December 20th, 2005 at 1:46 pm“In short, a “national defense†decision perpetrated for citizen wellfare (no one, at least no one on the national scene, has purported that the NSA was listening to anyone but suspected terrorists (although people here have)).”
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @
And the spying on anti-war groups? This is all of a piece.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:48 pmJustify it anyway you want, but this administration is out of control. When Bush was first selected, the first thing I said was “I just hope he doesn’t drive the country into the ditch”. Little did I know, THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG!
Bush apologists’ defense: “Clinton did it too”
Today on several blogs and message boards, I’ve read many Bush apologists try to mitigate the unlawful actions of the president by resurrecting an all too common refrain — “Clinton did it too.” Think Progress reports on it and then debunks it:
December 20th, 2005 at 1:49 pmYou can sit on it and spin for all we care. Why don’t you just “protest†by burning down your neighborhood? That’ll teach us.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
I-Trite-I #24,
Because I’d garner infinitely more satisfaction from burning down yours, and I’d personally place your head on a spike (what a lovely thought); besides, you never use it!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:50 pm“Perhaps some nice soothing chanting is in order?”
Comment by tomaig — December 20, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
I would suggest the mantra “T-oma-aig-isa-dork” It always works for me.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:51 pm“For a self-described pacifist, you sure seem angry all the time…” GeoMetro
That’s your projection, but not surprised you’d see the world in an ‘angry’ light, it fits your passive aggressive profile.
“name calling, insults, insta-nalysis that describes others as less-than human or as suffering from a psychological disorder.”
And yet, you believe in supporting those that implement degrading acts such as strip searching a child, torture and violations of civil liberties, all the while hurling your own insults (like this silly little rant of yours), all the while proving republicans are the kings and queens of projections and psychosis. Your responses prove my point - thanks!
December 20th, 2005 at 1:52 pmWell see Giacomo, we won’t have to speculate much longer.
Were starting to tear away at the layers of the dirty little deeds done in secret by Bush and friends. And each layer is like another chapter from Mein Kampf.
I wonder if Mr. Bush can say the word “impeachment” three times fast.
If he does, it would probably come out more like, impeachme, impeachme, impeachme. :P
December 20th, 2005 at 1:53 pm“Perhaps some nice soothing chanting is in order?
Comment by tomaig ”
Thanks for the tip, but I prefer meditation. It keeps me calm while I confront those less fortunate (you).
December 20th, 2005 at 1:54 pmThose peace activists and Quakers are dangerous. Gotta keep an eye on them Amish too, with their Dutch/German secret code language and all that letter writing.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:56 pmBush on dictatorship now:
Bush on dictatorship then:
December 20th, 2005 at 1:59 pmI have done my very best in all the days since to be true to that pledge. As a result of these efforts, I am confident that the world is a safer place today, not only for the people of America but for the people of all nations, and that all of our children have a better chance than before of living in peace rather than dying in war.
This, more than anything, is what I hoped to achieve when I sought the Presidency. This, more than anything, is what I hope will be my legacy to you, to our country, as I leave the Presidency.
To have served in this office is to have felt a very personal sense of kinship with each and every American. In leaving it, I do so with this prayer: May God’s grace be with you in all the days ahead.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:59 pmOh BTW Mr. Bush, feel free to use this, but I would paraphrase. See, I borrowed it from one of your predecessors.
Richard Nixon August 8, 1974 9:01 PM
December 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pmA Lie? Big deal? Who hasn’t told a fib every now and then?
Sheesh. Lighten up, will ya?
-
December 20th, 2005 at 2:04 pm(no one, at least no one on the national scene, has purported that the NSA was listening to anyone but suspected terrorists (although people here have)).
Comment by Giacomo — December 20, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
There is your problem again, Giacomo. You think bad things only happen to them bad guys.
Truth is, left unchecked, it can happen anyone. You included.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:07 pmGuess you didn’t notice or just don’t care about his very precise - Clintonian, you might say - wording…
Tomaig, you moron, the wording Tenet was using is the wording of the statute.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pmNow now, Ahmad, don’t whine, we have to get started.
RESOLVED, That George “Dubya” Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST GEORGE “DUBYA” BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pmDecember 20th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
December 20th, 2005 at 2:13 pm2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
December 20th, 2005 at 2:13 pm3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
December 20th, 2005 at 2:13 pm4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the NSA, the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of 911 Special Review Board, and Congressional Committees;
December 20th, 2005 at 2:14 pm5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities
December 20th, 2005 at 2:15 pm6. endeavouring to misuse the National Security Agency, an agency of the United States;
December 20th, 2005 at 2:15 pm7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability from the office of special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald;
December 20th, 2005 at 2:16 pm8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President including the involvement with the contracted firm,DIEBOLD INC, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
December 20th, 2005 at 2:18 pmBush’s latest talking point is that there is a difference between “detecting†and “monitoringâ€. Not entirely sure where this is leading, but something to keep an eye on.
Comment by Bob — December 20, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
I read somewhere that “monitoring” refers to watching people who have already been identified as terrorists or in league with terrorists, but “detecting” involves tapping lots of people and listening in all the time to see who is a terrorist and who isn’t.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:18 pm9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants (aka Scooter Libby), and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:19 pmIn all of this, George “Dubya” Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George “Dubya” Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:20 pmDecember 20th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Let’s see…
NIXON - Complicit in the crime of burglary to steal files that would give him an edge to win the Presidency!
Continued a war in VIETNAM and thousands of soldiers dead and wounded! Continually reiterated he was a WAR-TIME President!
VERDICT: Investigated, tried, CONVICTED, impeached and removed from office!
CLINTON - Complicit in getting a BJ from a fat chick in the White House and making a bad land deal in Arkansas.
VERDICT: He cheated on his wife and committed a MORAL sin. Investigated, tried, NO CRIMES committed, IMPEACHED (for improper acts), served out his term!
Credibility damaged, but NO WAR or loss of life! ECONOMY booming, poverty (lowest levels in history), attacks against U.S. (over 8 year period)…ZERO!
Still receives blame for everything even though he’s been out of office for SIX years and (oh BTW) finds time to help out the current imbicile in office!
BUSH JR. - Crimes within his administration:
VALERIE PLAME (outed by Libby & Rove)
Falsifying documents to justify WAR in IRAQ
JACK ABRAMOFF SCANDAL
TOM DELAY INDICTMENT
POVERTY LEVELS at ALL TIME HIGHS
INCOMPETANCE (See Katrina and Rita)
SECRET JAILS (See Romania)
Suspected Torture (Multiple Instances)
Illegal Abduction of Foreign Citizens
32,000+ Murders of Soldiers and Citizens of Iraq
DUKE CUNNIGHAM BRIBERY
HALIBURTON ACCOUNTING SCANDAL
BILL FRIST STOCK SCANDAL
FEMA FIASCO (See Katrina and Rita)
Secret Spying of U.S. Citizens
VERDICT: Claims he was given permission or does not need the authority under the provisions of government that previous Presidents (including his father) adhered to?
Now, “if” this President is accepting responsibility, then how can he state that he did not know ANYTHING, when his clear message to the people is that HE is in charge?
If NIXON is removed from simple burglary, then he should be removed for crimes against the Constitution as well as humanity!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:22 pmIraqVet, watch out, because Nixon actually resigned to avoid impeachment hearings, if memory serves.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:26 pmEchelon, Carnivore, COINTELPRO, the list runs forever. What people are missing here is that since the end of WWII, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, et al all have powerful spy and surveillance weapons at their disposal, placed there by either Acts of Congress, or Presidential Executive Order, with only the merest hint of so-called “oversight”.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:28 pmTechnology, domestic and international politics, and the creation of an enormous national security Leviathan state have all contributed to the conditions we face today: a runaway Executive, free of traditional “checks and balances”, deferred to by compliant federal courts, who can freely operate in a totalitarian manner while all the time proclaiming to “protect Americans’ freedom and liberty” by ignoring the Bill of Rights, if not most of the Constitution, when it so pleases it. The interesting twist here - of course - is that with the Bush evocation of the inane “war on terror”, the totalitarian apparatus of the State has been wrapped round “War Powers” and “commander-in-chief” provisions of the Constitution, wherein a permanent condition of war shall permit all matter of Constitutional abuse and infringement of civil rights. Read the writings of John Yoo, the chief enabler of this pernicious doctrine, to get a sense of how far from constitutional law this country has come. Ever since the rebarbative Nixon was run out of Washington, there has been a concerted effort by the Republican Party to restore the imperial Presidency, and with the ascension of the Cheney regime, they have found the perfect tool in Bush as a vehicle for promoting unfettered Executive power. Orwell would have been proud.
Actually WITCH, IRAQVET is correct.
There were impeachment hearings for NIXON, and they were led by Congressman Peter W. Rodino Jr, a Democrat.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:31 pmI am a Bush Apologist
December 20th, 2005 at 2:34 pmI really should see a psychologist
My heads so far up my butt
I really should see a urologist
Maybe not exactly Watergate. Looks a little more like Iran-Contra to me. The President breaks the law to follow his own agenda, pitting the executive branch against the legislative, purportedly to make the country safer. However, I think there are some clear differences that make this worse than Iran-Contra.
1) The Boland amendment was passed by Congress to stop the President from funding the Contras. FISA has been standing law for more than 20 years. This is important because you could say that the Boland amendment was meddling in foreign policy on the part of Congress, while FISA clearly is not.
2) Bush is not claiming ignorance in this matter, which was Reagan’s primary defence. Remember that North and Poindexter were convicted of felonies.
3) Bush’s actions directly affect the civil liberties of Americans and violate American fourth amendment protections. Reagan’s (or Poindexter et al, if you prefer) actions harmed Nicaraguans and were arguably bad for the country, but did not involve breaking laws that protect the civil rights of U.S. citizens.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:34 pmPretty funny Robert, but shouldn’t that last line read,
I should see a proctologist? LOL
December 20th, 2005 at 2:35 pmJudd, while I agree with you that what the Clinton Admin. did was legal, what it– and every other post-USSID 18 Administration– has done has opened the door to these abuses.
Yes, they are forbidden from “targeting.” But as James Bamford says (see my blog for source), they grab all electronic communications they can and search them by keyword to find the ones they are targeting. The potential for abuse is enormous.
Second, the FISA court is a rubberstamp, with no effective oversight. That adds to the potential for abuse.
Finally, the ELINT grab is shared with allies. So, if the US president wants to monitor someone illegally, he can have Britain do it. Technically legal, but wildly illegal.
Parse words like “collect” and “target” carefully, and you’ll find they don’t mean what the dictionary says they mean.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:39 pmIf this was even true, which it is not, I think my mom had just the answer for this one, “If Billy jumped off a bridge would you do it too?” Pathetic lying losers. Welcome to Rome, here’s your chains…..
December 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pmActually WITCH, IRAQVET is correct.
There were impeachment hearings for NIXON, and they were led by Congressman Peter W. Rodino Jr, a Democrat.
Ah, color me corrected.
Color me only 27 too and not even close to being around at that point. ;-)
December 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pmYea WITCH, kinda dates me don’t it?
I was about 15 when the trials were going on.
I watched him leave and all, but to tbe honest I was more interested back then in gettin laid :P
December 20th, 2005 at 2:44 pmApril 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It’s vital. And others will describe what that means.
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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r…20040420- 2.html
December 20th, 2005 at 2:51 pmNixon was never impeached.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:57 pmCould you fellas square this one up for me?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543688/posts
Esepcially the part: “[T]he Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.”
Much obliged
December 20th, 2005 at 3:02 pm” attacks against U.S. (over 8 year period)…ZERO!”
Actually, There was terrorist bombing of WTC in 1993 and suspects were rounded up and tried in trail and so on… so I would say ONE terrorist attack and ONE domestic terrorist attack (remember Okla?)
right?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:02 pmLet me see if I get this straight. Taking the wingnut argument at face value (ie, assume for the time being that they are not lying as usual), the argument seems to be, if our bete noir Clinton the Antichrist massively violated the rights of American citizens, then that makes it OK for our side to do the same thing, and to argue otherwise is partisan opportunism. From this one must infer that the wingnuts approved of Clinton’s claimed warrantless wiretapping, otherwise they are hoist on their own petard now. This in turn makes them objectively pro-Clinton apologists. Who knew?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:06 pmNot only attacks against the US mainland in 1993 on the WTC, but on US embassies (which is US sovereign soil) around the world during the Clinton adminstration. I don’t blame Clinton, I just find this hypocrisy right now crazy from the left.
We have some crazy jihadists out there wanting to take down western civilization and many on the left sure would like to make it easier for them.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:06 pmHmmmm, Gorelick’s comments rather interesting don’t you think.
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”
“It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
December 20th, 2005 at 3:07 pmInteresting that Cheney is arguing today that if we had this valuable wiretapping tool we may have prevented 911.
But if Clinton used it why wasn’t it at their disposal ?
Karl must be pre-occupied these days.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:10 pmBush is just being a dick. He can wiretap until his heart is content, and can do it quickly without a court order in the first 72 hours. He’s just being a dick.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:15 pmGod forbid Bush might have to go to a judge after an emergency wiretap. It means he may have to do some job related work or something, and can’t just blow stuff off.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:17 pmNixon was never impeached.
Comment by Jim — December 20, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
Jim, that’s a Red Herring.
Impeachment hearings confirmed his culpability, and there was no doubt that impeachment was unavoidable.
I remember, I was there.
But unfortunately, on August 8, 1974, at 9:01 PM, Tricky Dick, resigned before me and the rest of the country, amd before he could be impeached.
But the House’s Articles of Impeachment had already been accepted by the House Judiciary Committee except for articles 4 and 5.
So to say he was not impeached is like saying that a person who quits a job right before he was about to be fired, was not fired.
Sure, if you’re trying to sound smart, then ok, he was’nt fired. But that’s just blather that distorts reality and muddies the facts.
That’s why that question, “have you ever resigned from a postion because you knew you were about to be fired” is on almost every application for employment in the country.
Saying he was not impeached, while technically correct, is nothing more than a Red Herring.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:19 pmEverything is Clinton’s fault. Even Bush’s incompetence is Clinton’s fault. Even this years hurricanes are Clinton’s fault. 9/11 is Clinton’s fault. Clinton could have stopped all this but he didn’t. Seeing as how Clinton has so much power over everything.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:20 pmThey hate Clinton because the guy could pull chicks ( yeah O.K. Lewinsky wasn’t much to crow about), plain and simple. These Republican needledicks couldn’t get pussy if they tried. Anyhow, Repent ye Republican scumbags that use the lord to justify Satan’s work. Your special room in hell is waiting.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:24 pm“Sir, have you ever tried cocaine?”
“Uh, yes, only once, but I didn’t inhale”
December 20th, 2005 at 3:24 pmHmmmm, Gorelick’s comments rather interesting don’t you think.
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994 (…)
Comment by Jim — December 20, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
You may want to check this new thread right here at Think Progress:
The Gorelick Myth
Not to mention that your post is rather weak -”Clinton did it, and so I can too” is not exactly a strong position, now is it?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:26 pmClinton totally bagged the chicks. Fat chicks are greatful, and will do it. He had some hot chicks too. I see that Repubs could resent that, secretly wondering how it was with Jennifer Flowers.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:27 pmJesus, what short memories liberals have. Clinton was certainly no friend to civil liberties and engaged in much of the same shit though not the same amount that Bush has done.
Btw, you’re quoting Tenet? Bwhahahahahahah!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:29 pmWhether impeachment was unavoidable or not, he was never impeached.
As it relates to the the Gorelick Myth, I’m supposed to take ThinkProgress’ views on this as Gospel? Am I allowed to say Gospel in this forum? As you are “debunking” this, conservative website are debunking the debunking and on and on.
At the end of the day, this is nothing but nonsense from the left. Do you want to win this war or not?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:30 pm107,
It’s about how much BushCo has been pushing the limits. Not what exactly is being done. Bush is pushing the limits beyond anyone before him. He’s taking it a bit too far, just like DeLay, and many others.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pmJesus, what short memories liberals have. Clinton was certainly no friend to civil liberties and engaged in much of the same shit though not the same amount that Bush has done.
Btw, you’re quoting Tenet? Bwhahahahahahah!
Comment by puhleez — December 20, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
Your Red Herring is crap. The list on Dubya is endless, not to mention 300 BILLION with a BIG B dollars for a war against a country that could not hit the broad side of a barn with a SCUD to a country less than 200 Miles away.
Clinton is not President genius, Dubya is, well at least he is for the moment.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:37 pmJim,
You sound like people arguing over the ‘definition of sex’. Nixon was a criminal, he was forced to leave office to avoid being removed by the senate. The only ‘nonsense’ comes from republicans who continually break the law and violate the constitution. You guys are the very definition of ‘nonsense’.
As for ‘war’, that’s what you have between ‘nations’. We are not at war with any other nations, and you can’t have a war against a ‘tactic’, which is what terrorism is. And if you actually believe that trading america’s civil liberties to defeat an ‘ism’ is ‘victory’, then you like the other nazis don’t understand what you’re fighting for, or what america is.
You really need to get a dictionary, your lack of understanding of basic english has clearly turned you into a defeatist moron.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:37 pmI’m supposed to take ThinkProgress’ views on this as Gospel?
Comment by Jim — December 20, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
No, Think Progress’ thread provides links so yuo can verify the sources on your own.
Am I allowed to say Gospel in this forum?
You just did.
As you are “debunking” this, conservative website are debunking the debunking and on and on.
As I said, you can follow the links and read the sources on your own.
At the end of the day, this is nothing but nonsense from the left.
Then, why are you here?
Do you want to win this war or not?
Which one, the “war on terror”, the “war on Christmas”, the invasion of Iraq?
Furthermore, why is breaking the law essential to winning a war?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:38 pmYes we do need to win this war. Because all other forms of credibility are gone. We are already so divided, it is easier for someone to conquer us, (like Bush, and Neocons). We also need credibility in the eyes of the world, so winning would be a huge plus. Of course I would like us to win the war. There are some of us that don’t see the connection between letting Bush do whatever he wants to, and winning the war in Iraq. We don’t see the connection in warrantless wiretaps and winning the war in Iraq. Wiretapping is about a different war on terror. I don’t think a terrorist is going to come over to the US, make international phone calls to hurt our men in Iraq. I don’t see the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Winning the war does not need to include half the crap this administration is trying to justify.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:41 pmJesus, what short memories liberals have. Clinton was certainly no friend to civil liberties and engaged in much of the same shit though not the same amount that Bush has done.
Comment by puhleez — December 20, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
You just aknowledged the Bush administration has wantonly circumvented the law. Plus, this administration -or any other for that matter- should respect the law regardless of what previous ones have done. I am sure you can understand that concept.
Btw, you’re quoting Tenet? Bwhahahahahahah!
Again, Tenet’s statement was taken out of his testimony to Congress. He was under oath to tell the truth. Unless, of source, you are suggesting he commited perjury.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:42 pmHow about every international phone call is tracked and digitally recorded. Bank transactions of over 10,000 dollars are already logged, flagged, and could be tracked easily. So lets put it to rest, just automatically log, record, every international phone call. Shit, Google now saves every web query in a database. I never thought I had any true privacy with any form of electronics anyway. Our privacy was lost a long time ago, this stuff is just getting out now. These guys are just too comfortable with how its been, and forgot it was not considered normal by people who didn’t know better.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:51 pmYou’re kidding right…on pushing the limits? You mean like when Daddy Kennedy had dead people voting in Chicago and Texas to win the 1960 election?
You mean like in the 1940’s when we put Japanese in internment camps under FDR?
Please people, get a grip with reality.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:53 pmHell, I think the local PD was tapping my phone, but if there is no way to prove it, it never happened. It’s funny that people think we have all these rights to privacy. Your private life can be looked in on anytime, and you can’t prove it. I would bet our activity here on this page is not as private as we think it is.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:55 pmJim,
Since you’re the newest troll, understand that the war that
this country is truly in is the war for this country’s soul. And in a way, we’re just starting to fight back.
Bush’s approval ratings are more negative than positive,
the displaced people from the Gulf Coast want his and Brownie’s head in a platter, and even the military are talking about pulling out of Iraq.
Isn’t the rights of patriots more important than the
December 20th, 2005 at 3:57 pmright of an asshole who overrides Congress and spits on the Constitution? Think about it.
OK,
Pushing the limits in such an emboldened, outward, non-discreet fashion.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pm“Im.. impeachuh… im–impeachular.”
There I said it. Mommy, can I have a cookie?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:02 pmNot only attacks against the US mainland in 1993 on the WTC, but on US embassies (which is US sovereign soil) around the world during the Clinton adminstration. I don’t blame Clinton, I just find this hypocrisy right now crazy from the left.
Actually, if you’re counting attacks on foreign embassies, Clinton did better than most recent Presidents. And if you even think about mention the USS Cole, then you’re counting attacks on our troops, of which Dubya holds the record.
Just remember, Clinton’s policy of actively pursuing bin Laden was “under review” on 9/11, just like all Clinton’s policies, but “reviewing” his terrorism policy had to take a back seat to undoing his environmental policies.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:02 pm#24 You are just stupid.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:05 pmEchelon was not a Clinton program, for christ sakes. It was set up after WWII. It does target domestic communication but it does so indiscriminately and the intelligence runs through Britain.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pmsee here for more about Echelon:
December 20th, 2005 at 4:24 pmhttp://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
The post at the top of this page is rather naive about the true nature of the project now called “Echelon.” The actual program was a joint venture between at least two nations, Britain and the United States.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:30 pmWhile it is becoming common knowledge that the U.S. used Echelon surveillance legally against certain citizens, and while it is likely that Britain did the same concerning its own citizens, the truth is a bit worse. In actuality, Britain used Echelon facilities and personnel to spy on U.S. citizens AT THE BEHEST OF THE U.S. In return, the U.S. used Echelon facilities and personnel to spy on U.K. citizens, at the behest of the U.K.
The logic was that while it is illegal to spy on your own citizens without a warrant, a third party can spy for you…
You just aknowledged the Bush administration has wantonly circumvented the law. Plus, this administration -or any other for that matter- should respect the law regardless of what previous ones have done. I am sure you can understand that concept.
You mistake my post as a defense of Bush. It isn’t. He ought to go to jail. What pisses me off is this sort of knee-jerk revisionist reaction to try and minimize the sort of shit that the Clinton administration did. I’ll repeat: Clinton was not a friend to civil liberties. Instead of defending him, lefties should be decrying what a farce of justice and threat to the 4th amendment the FISA court represents.
Again, Tenet’s statement was taken out of his testimony to Congress. He was under oath to tell the truth. Unless, of source, you are suggesting he commited perjury.
Why not? Clinton lied under oath in a deposition. Is it so hard to believe that other government officials have not done the same when it suited their purpose? Just google for the current NSA Director’s testimony to the House Intelligence Subcommittee in 2000 where he explicitly said that news reports which claimed that the NSA spys on Americans were “false and misleading” It was during the same hearing as the one Tenet testified in.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:35 pmLiberals are biased.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:42 pmWhat pisses me off is this sort of knee-jerk revisionist reaction to try and minimize the sort of shit that the Clinton administration did.
Comment by puhleez — December 20, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
I am not defending Clinton. Unfortunately, he is not the one in charge right now. So, when neocon apologists say “Clinton did it too”, well, 1) in many instances it is not true and 2) what Clinton did or didn’t is really irrelevant right now.
I’ll repeat: Clinton was not a friend to civil liberties. Instead of defending him, lefties should be decrying what a farce of justice and threat to the 4th amendment the FISA court represents.
My two cents: You should have stated your position clearly from the very beginning, instead of opening with “liberals blah, blah” if you wanted a serious debate. I refrain from name-calling (my choice) but most are not so forgiving.
Clinton lied under oath in a deposition. Is it so hard to believe that other government officials have not done the same when it suited their purpose?
There you go again, bring up Clinton. His lying can give me no insight on whether or not Tenet lied. I know people lie under oath, but -unless proven otherwise- I have to believe Tenet was truthful.
If you have evidence Tenet lied during his testimony to Congress in 2000, I would appreciate it if you could share it.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:51 pmYeah, I just heard this wingnut lie being spouted on Ed Schultz. I knew it had to come from some “reliable” source. In this case, Newsmax.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:00 pmLook Echelon is like a police road block: its random and no warrant is required to stop and search a vehicle. Once the search becomes particularized to an individual or specific entity a warrant is generally required absent a recognized legal exception to the Fourth and Fourteeth Amendments.
For any wingnut to argue otherwise is just ignorant, but then they don’t really care about civil rights. They just want to be “safe”! It appears that Herr Busch approved the tapping of specific individual phone lines without a warrant. This is, as I and John Dean have said, an impeachable offense. I don’t really care what Bill Clinton did or did not do. I don’t care he got a blowjob either. He didn’t start an illegal war in which tens of thousands of people have died. At least LBJ had the grace to quit.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:16 pm“Liberals are biased.
Comment by Fred Eper”
That’s true, we’re biased to believe in america and democracy, instead of biased in a desire to destroy it as conservatives are.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:33 pmClinton was only in office 37 days when the first world trade center bombing took place. Then Waco followed a month or two later. I don’t recall him ever blaming GHW Bush for that attack as these Bush people blame Clinton for everything.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:14 pmMadelyn
How do you know if anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration is lying?
Check to see if their mouths are moving.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:23 pmesta muy beuno
compadre judd
una dias
December 20th, 2005 at 7:00 pmsu y mi
cervezas
esta
vida
perro
luna
Time for a little epistemology, folks: what’s all this nonsense about “winning the war”, anyway? Who’s the war against, and what are its reasons? And what would “winning it” consist of? To hear Bush & co. talk, the war is already won, after all, wasn’t the reason (misguided though it may have been) we held the war to get rid of Saddam? (Can you spell “regime change”?) So ok, that’s done. WE WON! Let’s git da hell out and let them damn Iraqis clean up their own mess they created by allowing such a Bad Guy get into power in the first place and provoking us to attack them!
Oh, yeah, and another reason we held the war was, to fight ISLAMIC-FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISM. Those Islamic fundies are like REALLY BAD GUYS. Like, Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz AND THE PRESS (not necessarily in that order, of course!) all wanted us to believe that these nasty guys blew up the WTC by running planes into them, and that was REALLY REPREHENSIBLE, we had to DO something about that.
Now wait a minute: Saddam HATED Islamic fundamentalists, didn’t he? Almost as much as Dubya says he does. So now we depose a guy in Iraq (who once was our ally, right?) so that his arch-enemies, the Islamists, can TAKE OVER! And that is exactly what happened THIS WEEK: the vast majority of the seats in the new “democratic” parliament in Iraq have been won by…GUESS WHO?
And yet another reason was that our friend Saddam was playing around with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! But since we invaded the country so brilliantly, he had no choice but to get rid of them all when he saw us coming! And that was exactly our objective!!!
So yay! We WON THE DAMN WAR! WE INSTALLED DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ! WE GOT RID OF THE REGIME! WE GOT RID OF THE WMD (though some argue they were never there in the first place, but that’s hairsplitting)! AND IT IS NOW ON ITS WAY TO BECOMING A *LEGITIMATE* POWER BASE FOR THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ALLEGEDLY BLEW UP THE WTC USING RAZOR BLADES! Now that we have scored such a RESOUNDING VICTORY, can we please get our guys and girls back out of there so they don’t have to keep DYING FOR THEIR COUNTRY? I mean, that REALLY SUCKS.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:38 pmPresident Clinton it appears ordered the same thing.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
December 20th, 2005 at 7:59 pmEXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (”Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
December 20th, 2005 at 8:01 pmGeneral is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
#136
President Clinton it appears ordered the same thing.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
Comment by Steve — December 20, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
Who cares? Commit a murder and them claim “Charles Manson did it, so I’m exempt!” and see if it changes anything (it won’t genius). Clinton is NOT a factor in this. Get over it. It’s stale and boring by now.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:09 pmActually no, that’s not the argument.
All Presidents do things that some may question in terms of treading on civil rights, Bush is no different than Clinton, Bush Sr. or Carter or others in this regard.
Also a side question that I have in this discussion is where or rather how do rights get balanced?
The 4th insures unreasonable search and seizures. Are random bag searches in the NY city transit system “unreasonable”? Where is the balance of protection of the ultimate liberty, “Life”, balanced off against other protections like those of the 4th amendment?
I don’t know by the way and it’s a damn hard thing to get that balance right, between Fascism and Anarchy that is. Please tell me where the balance point is.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:19 pmhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544332/posts
December 20th, 2005 at 8:24 pmNo, that’s not the case at all of Clinton did it therefore Bush can. It has to do with Clinton LEGALLY did it and Bush LEGALLY did it too.
In your massive hatred over this guy you seem to have forgotten this little tidbit.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:25 pmUhhhh…I don’t get it. How do we figure “Clinton did the same thing?” A “physical search” is NOT the same thing as electronic eavesdropping! Also, the Attorney General, under the Clinton order, had to CERTIFY probable cause. What Bush did was to completely ERASE any notion of probable cause, and claim the unilateral, autonomous, independent, and unassailable right to eavesdrop (tap phones and intercept email) INDISCRIMINATELY.
Do you REALLY THINK that in any criminal action (like, um, impeachment) against Bush, his lawyers and/or apologists would cite the Clinton precedent in his legal defense? They’d be LAUGHED OUT OF THE COURTROOM (or the Senate chamber)!
December 20th, 2005 at 8:34 pmI knew somehow this had to be Clinton’s fault.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:38 pmSo if the media doesn’t fall for this and report it - then the mind controlled right will feel more persecuted and go deeper into their cult delusions.
The death spiral continues.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:53 pmI think post 139 understands. When something is done by people in power before and it is accepted, it sets precedence. When future leaders see a need to take actions that may be on the fuzzy edge, their advisors (and legal authorities) look at precedence. Therefore, he is not saying that if Clinton violated the law, it is ok for Bush to violate the law. He is saying (and I believe legal scholars will end up agreeing) that this is a grey area within the law that has been utilized in the past (by more than just Clinton), and no charges have been filed. Therefore, he has precedence to back his decision. If we, the people, decide this is too much of a jeopardy to our rights, this law will get changed /solidified. Therefore, all the current whining doesn’t mean shit. So, it is time to Move On to the next reason you can find to impeach Bush.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:54 pmThe REAL news story here should be what they are telling their cult, how they are controlling their followers. How they are turning millions of minds into mush.
It’s actually a much bigger story than the spying itself. It has much larger national security implications.
The MAJOR story should be how the right is constantly LYING to and training their cult. This is moonie type stuff - lies of this magnitude to intentionally deceive, control.
Seriously, what they are doing is a huge national security issue. When 20 million people can be told to eat a dog turd and on Q they follow Spot around with a knife and fork, we have bigger problems than some domestic illegal spying. Much bigger. They have created a world of lies and deceit for their followers. It really shoud be a main topic for discussion but it won’t be.
Huge national security issue.
The death spiral continues.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:12 pmSince when is something that actually happened a “myth”?
Clinton did it.
It is nothing “new”, as the MSM is trying to hype to sell anti-Bush books.
Carter signed the XO authorizing AGs to conduct such spying.
The difference between Clinton’s spying and Bush’s? Clinton was spying on Americans, Bush is spying on terrorists.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:14 pmDavid (145): The ENTIRE LAW *IS* a “grey area”. He who has the money, clout, etc., to hire the best lawyers, wins. “There is no justice.” But impeachment is as much as POLITICAL process as a LEGAL one. And if Bush & Co. piss off enough people, even their own ex-friends and allies, their ass is grass. That’s what happened to Nixon, and Johnson before him. Of course they were not impeached, though Nixon came close. But they pissed off enough people, and enough of the WRONG people, so as to effectively end their political careers. Bush, as you may have noticed, has pissed off an awful lot of people…may he continue to, so we can be rid of him. But I worry that getting rid of Bush is NOT ENOUGH. He’s just a dummy, almost a dupe, a simpleton combination rich spoiled preppy kid and Texas oilman, by accidents of birth. The REAL powermongers of the extreme right may slither thru this. And, especially, the RELIGIOUS right, which is a power-base