FISA Judges: Bush Spying Program Threatens Legitimate Anti-Terrorism Investigations
FISA Judges: Bush Spying Program Threatens Legitimate Anti-Terrorism Investigations
The Washington Post reports that FISA Court judges will soon convene to address the legality of President Bush’s domestic spying program.
The story contains an important point that strikes at the heart of the Bush administration’s case that the spying program benefited our national security. According to several FISA judges quoted by the Post, there are serious concerns that “legally suspect information” acquired through warrantless surveillance was used to obtain FISA warrants, potentially rendering the warrants illegitimate.
Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.
The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president’s suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.
This possibility is entirely the fault of President Bush and his senior officials. They knew precisely what the rules were, they broke them, and as a result, they have jeopardized countless legitimate anti-terrorism investigations.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good one.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 amYou know, if these judges disband the court, isn’t it a slipperly slope down to giving the Bush Administration *exactly* what they want? Aren’t these courts our last line of defense? If they disband, it silences a group of respected, impartial jurors who could otherwise speak powerfully on behalf of our civil rights, our laws and holding the president accountable for his activities. I would really hate to see them just go away.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:58 amGeorge Bush talks a good talk about prosecuting terrorists in court, but has had a very poor track record of getting any convicted. George’s illegal activities have made it even less likely that anyone can be legally charged in the future.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:01 amGeorgie Porgie is more a problem to his side than to the terrorists.
My concern is more with the sentence after your bold:
That sends a chill down my spine as a possible turning-point from democracy to dictatorship.
Should the court close, either espionage must stop until they reconvene a court, or the administration just does everything illegally. And once they cross that line, and openly break such an important law, I don’t think we can ever go back.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:03 amKeeping me safe my left ass cheek. How many terrorists have been brought to justice because Bushco are listening in on domestic calls and reading e-mails? Have they captured Osama? Have they foiled any plots? Hey, why weren’t they able to stop those explosives in Newe Mexico from being stolen? Why don’t they have any freaking idea where the explosives are? The only thing I see them doing is offering a $50,000 reward for info on the explosives.
Yep, I feel so much safer.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:06 amWhy is King George so excited about renewing the Patriot Act, since he has clearly declared himself to be above the law and not bound by anything in that quaint Constitution? The mind wobbles.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:07 amOk, how much crap can one administration stack up before they are deemed totally corrupt and useless? I say call ‘em to the carpet and put this stuff to an end, we have a lot of issues that need to be addressed properly. I for one, am sick of the distractions that are keeping everyone buzzing but not getting anything positive done – like actually running this country as it should be run.
Not very proud to be a part of what WAS a great nation these days.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:19 amOy. So much for spreading freedom and democracy! FREEDOM STARTS AT HOME!!!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:25 amI totally agree, Mr. Weekend,
ANY past administration would have already seen upheavals and hearings.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:29 amIf Reagan was the “Teflon President”, then Bush seems to be armor coated. Why is NOTHING happening?
There’s this charming quote from the article:
One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.
These laws are just so inconvenient.
And there’s this:
Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.
Translation: we need to spy on everyone because there might be something that is, you know, suspicious.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:30 amConservatives were beside themselves in indignation when Clinton wagged his finger and said he did not have sex with that women, Miss Lewinsky. He lied to ther American people! Impeach!
Bush said at a press conference whenever you think of wiretaps, it requires a court order. He even repeated it, enunciating it in that condescending way that only he can do. This occurred while the illegal wiretaps were going on.
So I ask you. . . what’s the difference? I mean, besides for the fact that one was about private personal conduct and the other was about BREAKING THE LAW OF THE LAND AND BYPASSING THE CONSTITUTION HE WAS SWORN TO UPHOLD?! Why in the world aren’t conservatives beside themselves at being lied to?
The difference, of course, is that Republicans are hypocrites and liars.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:35 amThhis new toy that bushlandia possesses gives them great leverage. They want the Patriot Act for cover.
No doubt in my mind whatsoever that prominent democrats, to include Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, were under surveillance by this system.
Just like Nixon, Rove has all the scoop on democrats.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:42 am“Why is NOTHING happening?”
Because the people in this country are lazy and live in a bubble of manufactured life. They are so glued to watching TV they don’t have time to think. I mean really, with the first four years of this administration, the people were actually dumb enough to re-elect Bush and Co. Worse than that though, they added more Republicans to the ranks. They keep voting in the same insane lying people to Congress and the Senate. It is ridiculous. Did you know that the Politburo had a higher turnover rate than our House of Representatives. People are more worried about gays than about living under a dictatorship. It is dispicable and heart breaking.
Why in the Hell aren’t the Democrats on the news every night calling for impeachment hearing? !!! That is what I want to know. Seriously, why isn’t the Democratic party calling for impeachment hearings?
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:45 amsince saint clinton and saint carter did the same thing, i doubt this will go very far, meanwhile a valuable intelligence gathering tool has been destroyed for political purpose. when this comes out, the dnc as a whole will have to explain to the people why they felt “getting” bush was more important than national security and a completely legal on-going intelligence operation that now could be destroyed.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:47 amwould you stop with that tired old lie, Andrew.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:51 amThey did not violate the 4th admendment. BUSH DID, and still does.
Right on Pagan, right on.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:55 amRe: #4 — I can only hope that the member who suggested disbanding the court was being sarcastic, hoping the country would wake up when faced with such a devastating loss to their rights.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:55 amtrue blue,
yes i have heard that left wing spin, but once it all comes out, all the spin in the world is not going to help. The fact is clinton and carter did do the same thing and GOOD ON THEM!!!! The hatred of the left for bush is not an acceptable reason to destroy a top secret, legal program used to spy on americas enemies. I can only assume that the hatred blinded whoever leaked this information to the negative effects for the country.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:03 amI know, I know, I am going to be called a conspiracy theorist but everything I read says we really didn’t elect Bush, the voting machines did – http://www.bradblog.com/
There is no way in hell somebody like Bush would be president any other way.
Can anyone tell me what Bush succeeded in doing in his life before being president?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:03 am#15
since saint clinton and saint carter did the same thing, i doubt this will go very far,
Pundits saying that it’s so, doesn’t make it so. Clinton and Carter did not spy ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT. There are several threads on TP that debunk this. Try a little reading. But for arguments sake, let’s say they did. Does that excuse Bush? An illegal act is an illegal act. Just because I stab someone and get away with it doesn’t mean that you can stab someone and use my actions as an excuse. It just doesn’t fly.
meanwhile a valuable intelligence gathering tool has been destroyed for political purpose.
Valuable tool? Valuable how? Who has been captured because of this illegal spying? What plots against the U.S. have been foiled? If it was a valuable tool, then they’d know where the explosives stolen from New Mexico are. IF it is a valuable tool, then the President shouldn’t mind following the law to achieve his goals.
when this comes out, the dnc as a whole will have to explain to the people why they felt “getting†bush was more important than national security and a completely legal on-going intelligence operation that now could be destroyed.
Comment by andrew — December 22, 2005 @ 9:47 am
Why does your statement target the DNC when in fact republicans are being just as vocal about the President breaking the law. It’s a knee jerk reaction to “blame the dems”, however it just doesn’t wash here. “Getting Bush” is not the objective here. Protecting the civil liberties of the american people is. If Bush continues to stand in the way of that effort, then he will be “gotten”. However, it will be a bi-partisan effort. Again, TP has threads that address this issue. You can’t have read them and still be blaming dems for everything. It just doesn’t make sense.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:04 ampagan,
there are no impeachment procedings because there is no crime commited by President Bush here. In fact the only crime here is the one commited by the leaker. An argument could be made for a charge of treason for that person.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:06 ami have read the actual orders authored by clinton and carter. but include warrantless searches. i would suggest that you read them for yourselves before assuming that everything on this website is 100% accurate. Think progress but its very name is not going to give you an unbiased view of the topic.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 amoh and btw i think the gop attacks on clinton were disgracefull and should never have happened. it was not americas finest hour. but why the dnc wants to repeat that mistake is beyond me.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 amSo it is your position Andrew that both President Carter and Clinton SPIED ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT? If that continues to be your assertion, then kindly provide links (to facts not op-ed) to prove your point.
*waiting*
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:12 amthe dnc has been trying to get bush since he won the election in 2000. its gotten worse since he was re-elected in 2004. im actualy suprised some of the real extreme wack-jobs on the left haven’t taken a shot at him. not saying anyone here is like that.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:13 amPAGAN AMERICAN
Sorry sir, but Bush did not win the 2004 election. It was stolen. It has been shown time and time again that the difference of only 53,000 votes in Ohio would have given the presidency to Kerry.
In fact, there are lawsuits in Ohio against the RNC and Diebold for stealing the election. But, it cannot be proven very easily because the Diebold machines keep no information.
Please recall that the day and evening of the election the pukes were spewing out mis-information on exit polling. Do you know why? Exit polling had Kerry winning Ohio by about 51 to 49. But the pukes and Diebold jiggerd the machines, which is possible, and Bush won by the same margin.
There was one large voting district in Ohio, mostly republican, that Kerry won by 35,000 votes according to the countys elections supervisor who certified that vote. When the certification came out of Blackwells office, it was Bush who won by that amount. There is a law susit over that one too.
Bush was not elected, the election was stolen by him and for him, and he knew it was being done.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:13 am#24
Again Andrew you refuse to acknowledge that it’s not just the DNC questioning the President’s actions. Conservatives are doing it as well. Your arguments targeting Dems seems out of place considering that fact.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:14 amhttp://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
the actual orders.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:14 amAndrew – Koolaide swiller.
guy – repeating reichtwing talking points doesn’t make them true. And us showing you your errors doesn’t convince you. Have another gallon of Koolaide. You’re addicted.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:16 amstr8, yes a very few are. but they are not the ones who have been attacking President Bush and every turn since 2001
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:16 amkindness
insults do not make very good points of arugment.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:17 amAttorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:18 amcourt order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
——————
from clintons order BTW.
andrew, “that section“…have you read that?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:21 amplease do, and you will debunk yourself, i need not waste my time…
Poor Andrew. Couldn’t post on this thread without throwing in Clinton’s name—-three time! #15, #19 and #21. Jeeeeesus, pal, is that the best you got? I mean, you are really an embarrASSing rightwinger with that tired old crap.
And throwing out Carter? Are you really that desperate?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bush has stepped in shit again. Even a redneck like me knows when I’m getting my ass handed to me trying to defend Bush Senior’s little squirt.
Hey, have you seen the latest CNN/USA/Gallop on Bush’s overall job apporval rate? Only 41% approval and disapproval up to a whopping 56%. I mean, does his lousy performance absolutely stink, or what? But don’t take my word for it:
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:21 am
Remember this other spying incident?
Infiltration of files seen as extensive
Senate panel’s GOP staff pried on Democrats
From phone jamming on Election Day to spying on restricted Senate computer files to spying on Americans, republicans either can’t or won’t play fair.
Why do republicans always put their party before their country?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:22 amAndrew,
Do you not see that there is a difference between acquiring FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE through these means and SPYING ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT? They are not the same thing. That is why Bush is in trouble.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:23 amandrew, even MSNBC debunked you…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10565988/
ALLEN: Well, generally speaking, it is much better. I agree with you that it makes more sense if it is practicable to have independent judicial review, do the FISA courts. However, the president needs to have flexibility.
The law, his constitutional rights and duties and responsibilities, allow him to do so. President Bush is not the first president to do this. His predecessor, President Clinton, did. President Carter did.
And if one wants to look at various cases, like the United States versus Trong, had to do with—it was a 1980 case, during the Jimmy Carter administration, where they don‘t have time to be going through all this paperwork.
And the number of hours or days that it may take to get that warrant means that that information is not gleaned, the information is not acquired, and maybe we don‘t corral some of these terrorists as quickly as we could or it‘s a complete missed opportunity .
MITCHELL: Let me just clear the record up, Senator, because we‘ve checked today, with both the Carter and the Clinton White Houses, and every lawyer that we‘ve spoken to says that they did not do this.
They did not do what this administration has now conceded and, in fact, claims credit for doing, which is to use the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, to spy on people making calls to and from the United States without a court warrant.
ALLEN: Well, I‘ve actually—well, the documents I saw that President Clinton actually authorized the attorney general, then Janet Reno, and certain key people to give the authority for such warrantless eavesdropping …
MITCHELL: For the FBI, but not for the NSA is my understanding.
ALLEN: Well, right, for the FBI, OK.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 amAndrew,
that section that you’re referring to requires the AG to certify under oath:
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at–
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 101(a) (1), (2), or (3) [50 USCS § 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)]; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 101(a) (1), (2), or (3) [50 USCS § 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)];
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) [50 USCS § 1801(h)]; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. 18 U.S.C. 1820(a).
As far as I can tell, these procedural safegaurds were lacking from Bush’s program.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:36 amVendla #39.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:41 amthanks, but i was hoping andrew would have to waste time and debunk himself!
“PAGAN AMERICAN
Sorry sir, but Bush did not win the 2004 election. It was stolen. ”
Thanks for the reminder :>(
I was going to put in this disclaimer but wanted to stay on topic. Electronic voting without a paper trail is ripe for corruption. I work in IT. I know who easy it is to write a program to fix a vote. All software involved in elections should be open source and peer reviewed. I seem to remember it was only the Republican that were defending the machine with a passion while Democrats were questioning their security.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 amA very quick question to any Republicans who still don’t see this as an issue.
Will you accept these powers if/when a Democrat President inherits them in 2008.
I think NOT.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 amsorry, forgot the rest of the cite
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 108(a) [50 USCS § 1808(a)].
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 103(a) [50 USCS § 1803(a)] a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless–
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 101(h)(4) and 104 [50 USCS §§ 1801(h)(4) and 1804]; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 106(f) [50 USCS § 1806(f)].
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to–
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
Wow – you have more patience than I.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:48 amAs far as I can tell from my reading is that Bush and Co flouted the law and stupidly so. Again, why haven’t we heard the word impeachment from the DNC? Are they waiting for the Justice Department to review the issue?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:51 amand the cite was to 50 U.S.C 1802. Slightly dyslexic today
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:51 amDUH!
How many terrorism/enemy combatant cases (to date) have the Bushites dropped the ball on?
Their record (especially considering post 9/11 paranoia and the so-called “war on terror) is abysmal. Alberto Gonzales and company are so busy destroying civl rights (setting race/gender relations back 100 years) that they’ve been derelict in dotting their “i’s and crossing their “t”s in terrorism cases.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:09 amIn that WP article there are several paragraphs that lead me to think that what they were doing (roughly) was googling the entire satellite data stream into and out of the United States (cellphone, fax, email everything) looking for words and phrases. A fishing (phishing?) expedition on a vast scale. If that’s the case, and the possibility is breathtaking, then they probably didn’t know the names of all the people they were monitoring nor even how many.
But the disturbing question remains why they did not ask for legislation to address the (il)legalities. They were invited repeatedly to say what they needed.
I have to wonder how the FISC Court of Review must feel about the appeal which Ted Olson (and John Yoo) argued before them in 2002, considering that the court did not know that the Justice Dept. was already party to Bush’s secret program. Now their decision is being cited (WSJ, John Schmitt, others) as legal basis for Bush’s illegal activities. The FISC judges were played for stooges.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:11 amIf Reagan was the “Teflon Presidentâ€, then Bush seems to be armor coated. Why is NOTHING happening?
Comment by True Blue
True Blue #9,
Because common sense, integrity, and democracy are at all time lows with heavy trading in red state un-America.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:13 amandrew #15
Obviously an avid follower of the Order of Oxycontin Bushites instructed by Pus Limphog, and the Fox Faithful propaganda network.
Too dumb to reason, and too amoral to feel guilty about passing on blatant lies.
andrew 15- the new UNAmerican paradigm of party before country citizenship!
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 ambig papa, you are dead on.
The vast majority of the people they are holding incognito and indefinitely are not headed toward any court at all. The people who were snatched off the streets, duct taped, given enemas, and put on flights bound for secret torture tanks were not headed toward any court. The vast majority of the evidence they get by torture and illegal wiretaps is bogus and can’t even be used in court. So far, all they have been able to do with it is claim this bullshit as known fact on Meet The Press in order to scare us into a preemptive unprovoked attack on Iraq, a level four security threat. Small wonder they can’t get any convictions and are losing credibility before the courts.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 amBlah Blah Blah
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:51 am#51- LNM
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:54 amilluminating and succinct….dare i say, genius….
all out of talking points?
Sorry Andrew but your tired excuses are about dead anymore. The lies, the coverups, the cronyism of appointing idiots to our government offices – it is all coming out and the wound is so gaping, it cannot be stopped, no matter how fast you spin.
You will have to accept that America is onto the game now. But really, you knew it couldn’t last too long did you? Did you really believe that repubs could rule for 1000 years?
And the Clinton rag you always sing is also so yesterday. Live for the future not the past.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:06 pmWhat scares me about all this is how Bush is grabbing on to the “War on Terror” to justify playing around with the liberties and freedoms that made this country so great in the first place. President Bush is basically giving the bird to all the soldiers who died in the Revolutionary War to create the free democracy we have today.
If left unchecked, this country is going down the exact same path that caused 8 million Jews, and countless others, to lose their lives in Germany.
Do neo-cons and Bush apologists actually expect the American people to repeat those mistakes?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:02 pmMarkW #54:
Validate that claim, please.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:41 pmValidate what claim, Eric?
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:35 pmDearest Progs – Does the name Aldrich Aames mean anything to you paranoid “civil libertarians”??? I seem to recall President Clinton authorizing a warrantless search….Hmmmm…..
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:04 pm#54 – MarcWW – Please eliminate the well worn cliches memorized from your sophomore Social Studies Class. While you’re discussing the Revolution that you appreciate today, please go to our Constitution, which took alot longer than the Iraqi Constitution to draft, and find for me the “sacred” and oft-relied on “Right to Privacy”. You can’t argue it both ways. Either the Constitution is a “living document” which adjusts to societal changes or it is a cornerstone of bedrock with nary a foundational shift. (Psst…It’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth..)
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:11 pmIt’s a good thing this left wing whack job quit. These are the kind of people Clinton peppered the entire federal bureaucracy with from the Post Office to the NSA. Is this the kind of guy you’d trust your national security to? The FISA should be disbanded and a pure Bush appointed panel installed. Bite me if you don’t like it.
Federal District Judge James Robertson, who resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court in protest over secret wiretaps ordered by President Bush, is regarded in Washington legal circles as one of President Bill Clinton’s most liberal and partisan judicial appointments.
Robertson, 67, has ruled consistently against the Bush administration’s handling of enemy combatants. On July 15 this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed his 2004 ruling that a military commission could not try alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/12/24/180326.html
December 24th, 2005 at 1:57 pmIf left unchecked, this country is going down the exact same path that caused 8 million Jews, and countless others, to lose their lives in Germany.
Do neo-cons and Bush apologists actually expect the American people to repeat those mistakes?
Comment by MarcWW
I don’t see a problem with that as long as they are godless Left Wing Jews and their allies on the Filthy Left. It’s better than the other path the Left Wing has us on that murdered 60 million in the communists countries last century. Let’s see now…eight million dead losers or 60 million dead innocents. Sorry, it’s a slam dunk. USA! USA! USA!
December 24th, 2005 at 2:04 pmI don’t see a problem with that as long as they are godless Left Wing Jews and their allies on the Filthy Left. It’s better than the other path the Left Wing has us on that murdered 60 million in the communists countries last century. Let’s see now…eight million dead losers or 60 million dead innocents. Sorry, it’s a slam dunk. USA! USA! USA!
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 24, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Weren’t you supposed to be at church learning respect and humility on Christmas Eve?
Why are you so hateful of people who are unlike you when people who are just like you have pre-emptively attacked a country that was no threat and already killed thousands of people and tortured or maimed thousands more over a paranoid delusion?
We know you want the whole world to be forced to your way. But the danger in that is what happens when someone bigger and stronger wants to force to to his or her way? It’s been known to happen… (think Rome, Christians, arenas with lions – hint, hint).
Kindness and morality are not the monopoly of the Christian Fundamentalists. In fact, facts and current history suggest quite the opposite. But I suppose you’ll just continue to ignore this or justify it with ignorance and hatred based on fear of the unknown. Seriously – for your next vacation actually leave Texas and go meet people who are different from you to find out how similar we all really are.
December 26th, 2005 at 12:07 pmWhy are you so hateful of people who are unlike you when people who are just like you have pre-emptively attacked a country that was no threat and already killed thousands of people and tortured or maimed thousands more over a paranoid delusion?
Comment by unbelievable
The delusion is all yours. 3000 dead New Yorkers can’t be wrong.
December 27th, 2005 at 2:27 pmThe delusion is all yours. 3000 dead New Yorkers can’t be wrong.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 27, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
For starters they weren’t all New Yorkers.
And secondly, Manhattan voted overwhelmingly against the Bush Administration and his policies (see below). If they don’t agree with his tactics after what they endured, then how can you from the safety of a several hundred miles?
Kerry 526,765 82%
December 27th, 2005 at 6:34 pmBush(Incumbent) 107,405 17%
Nader 6,023 1%
Badnarik 1,276 0%
Calero 278 0%
And secondly, Manhattan voted overwhelmingly against the Bush Administration and his policies (see below). If they don’t agree with his tactics after what they endured, then how can you from the safety of a several hundred miles?
Comment by unbelievable
Well obviously they have a short memory, not that unusual for the Walking Dead. But it’s very easy for me to agree with Bush’s policies as I know we are at war. I guess the dumbasses in Manhattan are going to have to get hit again before it sinks in.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:34 amWell obviously they have a short memory, not that unusual for the Walking Dead. But it’s very easy for me to agree with Bush’s policies as I know we are at war. I guess the dumbasses in Manhattan are going to have to get hit again before it sinks in.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 28, 2005 @ 11:34 am
We’re not at war… Congress must declare war for us to be at war. They haven’t, so we aren’t. Even if King Georgie Porgie says so.
But the thing that strikes me the most about your statement is that the people of Manhattan lived through 9/11 and you didn’t, yet you know better about their situation than they do… How ever do you stand that level of brilliance? Does the Prozac help… just a little?
December 29th, 2005 at 9:43 pmPayday Advance Loan
Payday EZ works for hassle-free payday loans with no credit needed; citizens settling in in the marvelous state of South Carolina can now apply on the World Wide Web.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pmflights to rome
It may not be allowed to avoid subsequential use of one ticket by multiple people, or even simultaneous use by giving the ticket to
March 24th, 2008 at 12:15 amCourts Home Furnishing
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:41 amPayday Loans Even If You Have Other Payday Loans
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
March 31st, 2008 at 8:10 ameasy fast loan payday
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 amfly fishing starters
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm