Bush’s Secret Spying Program: Good News For Guilty Terrorists
Bush’s Secret Spying Program: Good News For Guilty Terrorists
At today’s press briefing, White House spokesman Trent Duffy was asked about a story in today’s New York Times, which reported that Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program could undermine key terrorism prosecutions:
Q The New York Times reports today that there are several legal challenges based on the NSA wiretaps. Are you concerned that these challenges could jeopardize the cases against people you guys have already described as very bad people?
MR. DUFFY: …[W]e decline to comment on any pending cases, but I don’t think it should serve as any surprise that defense attorneys are looking at ways to represent their clients; that’s what defense attorneys do.
Duffy’s right, criminal defense lawyers are looking for ways that their clients can avoid conviction. And Bush’s actions have given them an easy way to do it. The program violated federal criminal law — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As a result, any information collected by the program is inadmissible in court. (This principle is called the exclusionary rule.) If that information is critical to the government’s case, a guilty terrorist might be found not guilty.
What’s worse, if what the administration says is true, none of this was necessary. If all of the surveillance targeted people associated with al Qaeda, as the administration claims, it would have been easily approved by the FISA court. That process would not have delayed the surveillance since a warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours after the surveillance starts.
The Bush administration says the program is justified because it made us safer. The opposite appears to be true. The program has made us less safe by needlessly complicating the prosecution of terrorist suspects.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
74 Responses to “Bush’s Secret Spying Program: Good News For Guilty Terrorists”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m trying really, really hard to come up with a decision Bush has made that has benefitted America?
December 28th, 2005 at 5:45 pm#1 Drew
I can’t think of one thing. I used to say for a few days after 9/11 he appeared to have it together. But now, in retrospect I can’t find one thing he can point to as his legacy. What a loser he is.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:48 pmI never really imagined that any terorist on US soil would ever see a real trial anyway. How many have we seen plastered on the TV at night?
December 28th, 2005 at 5:48 pmI think it’s become fairly clear that the administration was tapping all international communications into and out of the U.S. (and possibly more) and engaging in a massive fishing expedition looking for people who might be al Qaeda, not monitoring known al Qaeda operatives (though they may have done that as well).
They knew the FISA court wouldn’t allow that so they ignored it (though they may have later tried to get it to come around).
December 28th, 2005 at 5:49 pm#1 - Um, while on his many vacations he couldn’t make things worse? Of course, there’s that Katrina thing. And ignoring the PDB… Never mind.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:51 pmBACKFIRE, when things blowup IN YOUR FACE..check out what convicted nixon aid John Dean has to say about impeachment:
December 28th, 2005 at 5:56 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10626679/
How many voters are Bush’s friends going to keep when the defense attorneys start getting their clients off, and then stand in front of the microphones at a press conference and say exactly how they did it? The Republicans may move for impeachment themselves.
December 28th, 2005 at 5:57 pmSee what I mean?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10628591/
December 28th, 2005 at 6:00 pmWe said this from the minute we learned it — Bush screwed things up pretty badly with his warrantless spying. He effectively aided the enemy. When (and if) a “bad guy” gets to trial, evidence against him will be tossed out, inadmissable, because it was obtained illegally.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:01 pmSo, are we safer? Hell, no. From Homeland Security to National Security, he and his administration are simply huge f**k-ups.
He will desperately try to defend his unlawful actions, his end run around the courts, but his arguments are weak. He could have begun a wiretap and gotten approval three days later if time was of the essence. He could have applied to FISA for pre-wiretap approval, but he didn’t like their questions (because he was overstepping his bounds?)so he went around them and defied the Constitution.
He has no defense other than, I do what I do to make America safe — and yet the result of what he does makes us less safe. He is a colossal failure - always was and apparently will always be. Unfortunately his failures spell serious trouble for America.
Hmmmm — I wonder what will happen with Jose Padilla?
I agree with Gus (BTW, Gus, I like the different names you’re using): How many suspected terrorists are really going to get a trial? Especially now that the government must realize that a case could be dismissed (or successfully defended) due to the illegal wiretapping?
December 28th, 2005 at 6:05 pmI would bet that the surveillance that was/is done entails more than just potential terrorists and people of middle east origin. I would bet that political rivals and organizations were also targetted. Bush could not go to NSA because the NSA would not have approved of the surveillance Bush wanted to do. By Bush I mean Rove, Cheney, Rummy, Condi etc because Bush wouldn’t have thought of the ‘opportunity’ for extensive surveillance on his own. What we, or at least a bipartison committee with security clearance, need to know is who exaclty has be under surveillance.
If, and a big if, they have real evidence from the surveillance of terrorist and thier activities, then is seem extremly sloppy to have given these people a way out. I seriously doubt it though. There have been several cases of ‘terrorists’ being caught that turned out to be full of lies and deception on the part of the government prosecutors.
Bush had the intelligence (i.e. information) before 911 that something was up and didn’t have the intelligence (i.e. brains) to do something about it (except maybe clear somemore brush).
December 28th, 2005 at 6:06 pmWhy do I really like Keith Obermann? Good links above. Thanks.
bushco….you are so toast after ‘06.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:13 pmThis could be much worse than it initially seems…
1) Anyone convicted as a result of evidence that was obtained due to this program can appeal based on the fact that some of the evidence was obtained illegally.
2) If the Bush Syndicate refuses to say which evidence was obtained illegally this way then people who weren’t spied on by this program and were legally convicted could have their convictions overturned.
Do you need more reasons? Extradition requests to the US could come under extra vigilant examination,…
Z.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:15 pmI, too, believe that it is highly unlikely that any terrorists, or suspected terrorists, currently in custody will ever see a trial. The administration would have to present a case which would mean revealing things that they don’t want revealed (and not because it would harm national security, but because it would reveal illegal and unconstitutional actions on the part of the government.) I do believe that they would rather let someone go than expose someone they want hidden from any kind of scrutiny.
Oh, and Gus, are you one of those OBGYNs who, like Bush said, got out of the business because you couldn’t practice your…your love with women?
Jose Padilla will probably plead guilty to littering and be let go.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:16 pmKindness, you like Keith Olbermann because he’s smart and funny. We’ve been enjoying his humor since he was doing sports, not news. I love his “World’s Worst Person” bit, especially when he picked Bill O’Reilly for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in one night.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:25 pmThe courts will have a lot of blood on their hands if they grow soft on terrorists for a bunch of ACLU phoney-baloney reasons. The fact is that the terrorist monitoring is 100% legal.
The New York Times will be partly responsible for releasing thousands of terrorists due to the leaker who leaked this information.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:26 pmDuffy’s right, criminal defense lawyers are looking for ways that their clients can avoid conviction. And Bush’s actions have given them an easy way to do it. The program violated federal criminal law — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As a result, any information collected by the program is inadmissible in court.
Thanks bushy. Because of your bumbling cowboy attitude, the terrorists may go free. I feel much safer under your regime than I did with the BJ guy.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:32 pmI wish people could understand that it wasn’t just terrorists that were being monitored, there were innnocent people caught up in this. This is one of the reasons why a judge has to approve of wiretapping, to make sure that innocent people’s rights aren’t violated. It’s no excuse that “protecting the country” was your reason. There are laws that have to be followed even if you’re the President, and even if you don’t like them. Too bad.
Whether the president’s supporters wish to believe it or not, between the illegal, unconstitutional wiretaps and the illegal diversion of funds to begin planning the Iraq invasion, this president has committed impeachable offenses. Now if only our Republican Representative would fulfill her duties and vote to impeach the president, there might be hope for this country yet.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:37 pmHow many poor schmucks have simply been disappeared? How much of this “intelligence gathering” was political research or smear-fishing?
I liked it better when our mortal enemy was the Soviet Union. The line between high-minded America and totalitarian Russia was a lot finer, and it kept us more honest. This sort of thing would have been decried as “Soviet-style police tactics,” and we would all have been suitably indignant.
Now, as long as Bush doesn’t cut anyone’s head off and tape it for broadcast replay, he can claim to be “better” than the enemy.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:39 pm#15 - Jane, I agree, Keith’s the greatest. Even better than when BO was #1, 2 & 3 worst person in the world, was when Keith nominated himself #1 because he’d messed up a story somehow. He’s a fine man.
By the way, Jane, any relation to Wayne?
December 28th, 2005 at 6:44 pmZookeeper,
Yes. We’re married and we both work at the same place. We have to blog at the office because we have no internet access at home, but by the time I finish typing this, Jane will have already told you the same thing.
December 28th, 2005 at 6:48 pmBushie’s doing a heckuva job!
December 28th, 2005 at 6:49 pm#21 - Too funny, Wayne. Ah, love…
Anyhoo, read this crap (back to myself again):
December 28th, 2005 at 6:53 pmhttp://msnbc.msn.com/id/10629515/
I cited the same sources in a post over at my location today as well. Fromt that: “It seems like a very slippery slope has been traversed and they are fallying pell-mell into the crevasse of illegal and unethical violation of civil rights of the American People.“
December 28th, 2005 at 6:55 pmMy few coments on the latest events are as follows. This is truly unbelievable. In their attempt to control us all the radical right has bit their own ass again. Yep! It now appears as though they all should get the truly stupid award, and I’m thinking to bad being stupid isnt painful, they would all beat a path for Limbaughs supply of drugs to get rid of their pain….Blessings…..Impeach now.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:05 pmZookeeper,
I printed out the two articles and will bring them home for Jane and me to read. Gotta go if I’m going to catch Keith tonight. I like that he has the guts to go into unpleasant topics like his former friendship with John Gibson (of Fox’s “The Big Hair Story”) even though you and I might have a hard time discussing somthing like that among friends. He says it to the world at large, but I’m glad he did those stories about the imaginary war on Christmas. They needed to be done.
If I don’t manage to get back here tomorrow (I’m off Friday), then I want to wish each and every one of you a Happy and Properous New Year! Peace on Earth.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pmOr, if you prefer, a Prosperous New Year.
Take your pick.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:08 pmBest quote of the day.. “Impeachment….It’s not just for blowjobs anymore!”
December 28th, 2005 at 7:11 pmWell, I started to respond to Zookeeper in much the same way that Wayne did, but, when I hit “Post-I Agree”, nothing happened. I tried hitting ‘refresh’, but ended up losing the comment. Usually Wayne beats me to the punch anyway when we’re posting, but this time it wasn’t my fault!
Is anyone else having trouble posting, or is it just Wayne and I?
December 28th, 2005 at 7:14 pmI’ve gotta run, too (if I don’t pick up some cat food on the way home, we’ll never be able to watch Countdown in peace!)
As Wayne said, if I don’t get a chance to pop in before the weekend, Happy New Year to all!
December 28th, 2005 at 7:20 pmNo, I’m pretty sure we got everything you wrote, Jane, don’t you worry. Nothing wrong with this website that a free Cuban vaction wouldn’t fix.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:21 pmHere’s a thought for Gary Ruppert who has a bizzare post above that is based upon the premise that rights and laws apply differently to different people:
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That little diddy comes straight from the Declaration of Independence. Translated for simpletons it means that rights and laws apply to all, or they apply to none.
I would suggest to Mr. Ruppert that he read the Declaration and then read the Constitution. Perhaps then he will realize that being American does not mean being a dullard racist cowboy.
December 28th, 2005 at 7:45 pmThis is on Raw Story, I thought I’d beat the trolls in posting it.
CIA prisoner ‘rendition’ program began under Clinton: ex-agent
BERLIN, Dec 28 (PG) - The CIA’s controversial “rendition” program to have terror suspects captured and questioned on foreign soil was launched under US president Bill Clinton, a former US counterterrorism agent told a German newspaper.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, told Thursday’s issue of the newsweekly Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.
“President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda,” Scheuer said, in comments published in German.
“We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said ‘That’s up to you’.”
Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, said that he developed and led the “renditions” program, which he said included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
“In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee. The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we’re fairly sure.”
At the time, he said, the CIA did not arrest or imprison anyone itself.
“That was done by the local police or secret services,” he said, adding that the prisoners were never taken to US soil. “President Clinton did not want that.”
He said the program changed under Clinton’s successor, President George W. Bush, after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
“We started putting people in our own institutions — in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. The Bush administration wanted to capture people itself but made the same mistake as the Clinton administration by not treating these people as prisoners of war.”
He accused Europeans of being hypocritical in criticizing the US administration for its anti-terror tactics while benefiting from them.
“All the information we received from interrogations and documents, everything that had to do with Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England was passed on,” he said.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended renditions on a trip to Europe this month as a “vital tool” for fighting international terrorism but insisted that Washington does not condone torture.
Clinton needs to comment on this, because it needs to be clarified. Perhaps TP could get us more info on this?
December 28th, 2005 at 8:38 pmnofreedom,
Are you a psychotic?
Have you reread your NUMEROUS rants?
Or does another personality take over so you just don’t remember?
(Yes. We have seen your many incarnations. And all of them are imbalanced.)
You never stay on topic.
You start pushing bible crap for no reason.
You post; over, and over, and over, the same thing.
You post within seconds of yourself, thereby dominating the thread.
You are WORSE THAN TROLLS.
December 28th, 2005 at 8:44 pmYou *THINK* in your wierd warped mind that you add to the conversation, but you DON’T!
Please, for crying out loud, STOP!!!!!!
How many people have to tell you you are a whacko, before you finally go to a clinic and get help?
GET HELP!
STOP POSTING!
great post, dano.
December 28th, 2005 at 8:48 pmZookeeper - guess there are “spy cookies” associated with thinkprogress. Should we be watchful and careful?
December 28th, 2005 at 8:48 pmI think the fact that there are ’spy cookies’ out there really unscores the fact that cheney is running the government. Since A) Bush thinks there are two internets & B) Cheney is the true warmonger. He is the torture guy and the biggest drum beater on the way to war.
My feeling is that when we impeach these jarheads we impeach them both and hope that #3 in command plays a ‘Ford’ and doesn’t try to rock the boat very hard in the hopes of getting elected.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:08 pm“nofreedom” wants just that.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:18 pmDano, that’s true. Keep in mind that Clinton asked if everything was in accordance with local law, and he was told yes. Bush is really using this program to take prisoners to places in which he can torture them, and the CIA even has the “black sites” where they can ignore law altogether. Its really preposterous what the Bush Administration has gotten away with, like the wiretaps and the black sites. Hopefully impeachment will solve some problems here in our country.
December 28th, 2005 at 9:42 pm#39
Thanks, but this is worrisome; Clinton knew of the renditions, and when they were revealed he should have had a statement ready. I guess he’s no longer in that “war room” state of mind, but he should comment now that there are no national security considerations.
December 28th, 2005 at 10:17 pmIf any terror suspects ending up getting let go on a technicality because of the imperial hubris of Caesar and company, then the they will just say it was the News media’s fault for letting the terrorists win by knowing the facts.
What passes for Bush and those who follow him as morality is it’s not a crime if no one knows about it.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:01 amNow, I’m just guessing here, but what are the chances that “nofreedom” is really none other than “Bat Boy”, frequent “cover boy” for the “World News Weekly”. It would certainly explain his erratic postings…. Just pondering…
December 29th, 2005 at 3:47 am#16 - It is uncanny how you are merely parroting Bush’s exact words. I find that strange. If he hadn’t been forced to hold a press conference to try to justify the actions he thought he could hide, what would you have said? One will never know and lucky you, you didn’t have to think about it on your own.
You clearly have little comprehension of the intricacies of the justice system. I see this everyday with lay people. You just can’t understand the bigger picture and like many these days, you want immediate gratification. It is difficult, I do understand, to work and govern for those that you will never know; those that are our great great grandchildren. It is much too easy to not think about those things that will never touch our person. It is also extremely selfish. Our civil rights is what is supposed to seperate us and giving ANY of them up is turning back the clock.
This, or any, country cannot ever stop terrorism by killing terrorist - DUH. We have to change mindsets. We should lead by example and we are far from a good example. The mere idea that we would torture others puts us in the same group as those we profess to hate. Oops.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:25 amThe Bush administration says the program is justified because it made us safer. The opposite appears to be true. The program has made us less safe by needlessly complicating the prosecution of terrorist suspects.
Comment by Judd
Karl Rove is an evil genius. He knew damn will you 5th column lawyers wouldn’t be able to resist trying to pull out the legal loopholes to let terrorists off the hook. Actually, it’s a no brainer on his part as you losers are already on record as advocating American civil rights to Islamofascists we captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is just another example of how far detached you losers are from the mood and the pulse of the American people. The verdict is in already, Americans don’t trust Democrats to protect our country. It’s a fact and it’s amazing to me that you people wear that dirt like a badge of honor.
The lawyers of the Left will be defeated, there will be no terrorists foreign or domestic that get off because of these wire taps. What will happen and is happening is that once again Americans will be reminded of who is the real enemy. As I’ve said many times, all the real brains on the Left have either died or converted. What is left of the Left are aging brain-fried hippies and the ignorant mob of degenerates such as we have here on Think Communist.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:27 amI agree, IRI, screw those brain-fried hippies like Sens.Graham, Specter, McCain, Sununu, Reagan dep. atty gen. Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein… they all think the issue isn’t about wiretapping terrorists, but about wiretapping Americans who could be on Bush’s Nixonian “Enemies list”. Idiots.
And they seem to think FISA would’ve issued warrants for terrorists anyway, but not to wiretap Democrats… or Republican primary challengers… what planet do they live on? Don’t they know our security depends on McCain being wiretapped?
Anyway nice of you to admit that yourself and Rove would sacrifice American liberties to “defeat the left”… our movement needs more brave honest souls like you…
December 29th, 2005 at 9:45 amYou clearly have little comprehension of the intricacies of the justice system. I see this everyday with lay people. You just can’t understand the bigger picture and like many these days, you want immediate gratification.
Little comprehension of legal intracacies huh … like, for example, when an entire blog of individuals believes something is “illegal” because of their own politically expedient interpretation of the Constitution/FISA … and when those same individuals refuse to acknowledge LEGAL arguments to the contrary. Or, as another example, when a newspaper illegally discloses a national security initiative and then the blog blames the use of said information, to the benefit of criminals, on the government (who, I admit used a legal gray area to their favor) and not the newspaper for illegaly reporting it. I can “see” the argument that the NSA activities are “illegal” but I think the contrary argument is similarly persuasive (the legal arguments)
Our civil rights is what is supposed to seperate us and giving ANY of them up is turning back the clock.
No, our Constitution and “Republic” separates us … those haven’t changed. There will (and almost always has been) huge debates on the Constitution and what the “framers” intended … everyone’s “chicken little” all of the sudden … the USA has been far more bi-polar (in terms of idealogies) in our history (read about Dred Scott … none of us can believe anyone could rule as such) … we survived.
I’d also ask which rights you’ve had to give up?
This, or any, country cannot ever stop terrorism by killing terrorist - DUH. We have to change mindsets. We should lead by example and we are far from a good example.
Since terrorism is somewhat self-perpetuating, and since our military has limits to how brutal it will act, I agree (if, however, our military behaved like the Roman military, then it is possible to stop terrorism by killing terrorists … they’d just wipe out entire populations … I’m in no way advocating this, just pointing that it all depends on how far a nation’s “willing to go”). Does everyone know that “a terrorist attack” is one of the written qualifications we have as a precedent for the use of Nuclear weapons (in addition to invasion, etc.)? After 9/11, and according to our own laws, we could have used “Nukes” on Afghanistan or anyone else that “we” thought helped out on 9/11. No one seems to realize that if the USA really wanted to get the “oil” we could annihalate every Iraqi in a blink … utter a big collective “whoops” … and move on. Would the world balk … maybe … would it matter … not if Bush is the evil dictator most here think he is. I imagine we’d formally “apologize” and that would be the end of it … spin would abound about how we needed to “protect our troops and our people” and everyone would, eventually, move on. Heck, Hitler invaded 3 countries before the world stopped yawning and it took the imminent fall of Britain for the US to do anything. The point of this rant? … the US has the weapons and military to act like a much biiger bully … we don’t because, contrary to what some here believe, we do follow some “rules” when we wage “war”.
We want to AVOID killing … perhaps that’s why the government wants to LISTEN to the terrorists. To me, this seems the better option. Everyone is all up in arms about “rights” … when we have ZERO info. about if “our” rights were actually violated. If one could prove that the “calls” that were monitored by the NSA were 99% terrorist, would people still be upset … how about 95% … or 90%.
Also, I find it odd that the Constitution “allows” the President to send troops to another country, invade them, kill them (all these are “givens” … no one argues to the contrary … Presidents have, and have used, this Constitutional power) without even speaking with Congress (and without a “warrant”) … yet others can postulate that he can’t listen in on those same individuals “phone” conversations … does that make any sense? And please don’t give me the US citizen line because the NSA/WH has stated that they are using this surveillance to monitor terrorist suspects … for now, and until there is evidence otherwise, we should go with that. Trying to conject additional information to strengthen a position without actually having proof (and “Bush has lied before” isn’t proof) is nonsense.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:20 amMy view is, unfortunately, the NSA spying probably will not help the current crop of defendants for several reasons.
Foremost, the govt’s argument will be that Congress prescribed the exclusive remedy for FISA violations to be a lawsuit against violators. Suppression, the argument continues, is a judicially-created remedy not constitutionally compelled and then only for 4th Amendment violations. So unless the government violated the 4th Amendment, the sole remedy is a lawsuit against the individual govt actors who breached FISA.
Second, those defendants who’ve already pled guilty have waived their right to challenge evidence sources or the govt’s refusal to produce relevant evidence.
Third, evidence obtained through NSA spying may be important only insofar as it has tainted the govt’s criminal investigation. But subject to points 1 and 2 above.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:29 amlets see some sense here you attacked a weak country Iraq and murdered 100,000 civilians based on a lie ……COWARDS try Iran with 70 million people mostly under 35 years of age a mountainous terrain and a well equipted army .. see my point BLOODY MURDERING COWARDS all you Bush voters should be ashamed of yourself….absolutely pathetic race
December 29th, 2005 at 10:38 am…we could have used “Nukes†on Afghanistan or anyone else that “we†thought helped out on 9/11
The Saudis have a Scorched Earth Policy in place for just such a scenario, and would destroy access to the oil there (we’ve already threatened them at least once, during the embargo).
And I’d have to think other countries have ‘contingencies’, every leader knows this is a possibility, so they must have some plans in place, don’t you think?
You, as a US citizen, would support using nukes on Afganistan? You make is sound so trivial.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:32 amIf liberals fight to free terrorists over NSA (a program 64% of Americans agree with), we will blundgeon Democrats at the polls with this. You cannot be trusted to protect America will be the narrative.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:32 amThe Saudis have a Scorched Earth Policy in place for just such a scenario, and would destroy access to the oil there
Access, yes. But that would be surmounted with time … my point was to show that the US exercises more restraint militarily than some give us credit for.
You, as a US citizen, would support using nukes on Afganistan? You make is sound so trivial.
Of course not … I merely pointed out that “terrorist attack” is one of the few cases where the US Government has deemed nukes to be “in play”. I feel pretty certain that said nukes will gather dust for the next 100 years and beyond …
December 29th, 2005 at 11:40 amAnyway nice of you to admit that yourself and Rove would sacrifice American liberties to “defeat the leftâ€â€¦ our movement needs more brave honest souls like you…
Comment by Right-wing nutjob
It’s either we wire tap you and get you for treason and attempted mass murder or we shoot you. Pick one.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:45 amlets see some sense here you attacked a weak country Iraq and murdered 100,000 civilians based on a lie ……COWARDS try Iran with 70 million people mostly under 35 years of age a mountainous terrain and a well equipted army .. see my point BLOODY MURDERING COWARDS all you Bush voters should be ashamed of yourself….absolutely pathetic race
Comment by Bushes best friend Rumsfeld
Iran wouldn’t be any more trouble to the USA than say, France or Canada.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:11 pm“It’s either we wire tap you and get you for treason and attempted mass murder or we shoot you. Pick one. ” IRI
Spoken like a true tinfoil eunuch. It is your lack of testicles that forces you to “act manly”. Problem is, we know you are trying to compensate for a lack of manhood.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:28 pmNo freedom
And China?
1.5 Billion?
Our population dwarfs Iraqs … doesn’t help us much militarily. The US is, by far, the most adept nation at fighting wars between nation states … our guerilla warfare competencies continue to improve. That’s why it took a few weeks to topple Saddam’s Iraq … and why we continue to fight skirmishes everywhere now.
Technology is our advantage is formal tactical warfare … street to street guerilla fighting causes technology to be less an advantage … even so, if we add an overwhelming amount of troops in Iraq, the guerilla war would be going far better.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:29 pmIt’s either we wire tap you and get you for treason and attempted mass murder or we shoot you. Pick one.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
Unfortunately it’s our side (Libby, Rove, Cheney) that’s being caught for treason … and unfortunately it’s our side that performed mass murder of inncocent civilians in Iraq… I wonder how Americans are waking up to all this even without illegal wiretaps…. just sad …
Only way out of this is for you and I to shoot all liberals… so I pick that option…
December 29th, 2005 at 1:00 pm#67 - unfortunately, your stupidity buys you at least three more years of losing elections.
ThinkProgress commits treason on a daily basis.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:13 pm“ThinkProgress commits treason on a daily basis.”
By Merry Christmas I am a tinfoil eunuch.
Look up the definition of treason neuterboy, then look up eunuch, you will find you meet both definitions.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:58 pmI-allwayswrong-I
And China?
1.5 Billion?
Comment by no freedom
Problematic since BJ Clinton traded them the technology to target multiple warhead missiles and to virtually test their nuclear stockpile for a pittance in campaign contributions. I have it on good authority though that we’d only lose the W. Coast if it came to a nuclear exchange while they would lose everything and everyone. It’s a fair trade in my opinion and becomes more likely as the American Left give the Reds cause to think they could win.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:00 pmIRI
You are a tinfoil eunuch. “I have it on good authority” is it the Dr. that cut off your balls neuterboy? Typical swallow rightwing, just wipe your mouth off.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:13 pmIRI
You are a tinfoil eunuch. “
Comment by Citizen80203
How old are you? 10?
December 29th, 2005 at 3:28 pm#55 - “…lets see some sense here you attacked a weak country Iraq and murdered 100,000 civilians based on a lie ……COWARDS try Iran with 70 million people mostly under 35 years of age a mountainous terrain and a well equipted army .. see my point BLOODY MURDERING COWARDS all you Bush voters should be ashamed of yourself….absolutely pathetic race”
Comment by Bushes best friend Rumsfeld —
****Dear BBFR - The unapologetic left displayed no discomfort with the MILLIONS of people brutally murdered (Oh, well!!!) when we withdrew from SE Asia. I guess the powers that be are pricking your conscience - if you had one!
December 29th, 2005 at 3:42 pmIRI - I heard from a pretty reliable source (at the NSA) that Citizen will be 9 on his/her next birthday.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:45 pmIt only seems I am that much older than you eunuchs. See not only did you not develop into men, castration stunted your mental growth as well and as such you are doomed to a five year olds mental capacity. So I understand why you both would think I am so much older than you.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:08 pmCitizen - enough of your drivel…but I suppose this is understandable when you have nothing intelligent to say - you seem to have replaced RyANNe as chief name caller and bottle washer.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:17 pmLook eunuch,
You came here, if you are too sensitive go to Assrockets and post there. Maybe there is a group therapy site for sensitive rightwing tinfoil eunuchs that feel oppressed.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:23 pmCitizen - we come here to play with you - YOU couldn’t oppress a moth.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:55 pmNo one is safe with GW in Washington.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:23 pm#61 Just before you start a war with France due to your motormouth, look this: France as a country, CIA web. A fast excerpt: 60 milion people, the bigger country in West Europe, manpower available for military service, 13 milion, and is ranked the third in the world in number of nukes, just after USA and the Russia.
So I guess, it will not be so easy as Iraq: Iraq as a country, CIA web, with 26 milion people, 4 milion manpower available for military service, no nukes, military who ran when USA started the invasion… and we are in the Iraq quagmire 4 years after…
But hey, you fight and win wars daily in your comp, what’s the problem? Sheesh, what a dumbass you are.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:58 am#61 Just before you start a war with France due to your motormouth, look this: France as a country, CIA web. A fast excerpt: 60 milion people, the bigger country in West Europe, manpower available for military service, 13 milion, and is ranked the third in the world in number of nukes, just after USA and the Russia.
Comment by kharma
France is dead, the Progressive sophists killed her. Long live Eurabia!
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (UPI) — France is facing a political crisis so acute that it risks a fate “somewhere between that of Lebanon or Argentina,” a distinguished French sociologist claimed Monday.
“The state of emergency that was imposed to deal with last month’s riots is to be continued, but it cannot resolve the triple crisis that France now confronts,” Xavier Guilhou, an author and corporate consultant, told the Hudson Institute in Washington at a seminar on the significance of the French riots and of Islam in Europe.
“The country faces a socio-economic crisis that can no longer be eased by the government going further into debt. The public debt, including state-funded pension liabilities, already stands at 120 percent of GDP, and will reach as much as 200 percent of GDP by 2015. The top limit of debt and of taxation has now been reached and perhaps exceeded,” Guilhou began.
“The second challenge is that France faces a crisis of identity unprecedented in our history, with the second and third generation of immigrants rejecting French society and its values, while hundreds of no-go zones now exist in France where the law does not go,” he added. “Violence and insecurity are mot limited to these no-go zones, but also seep across into public transport, into our schools and streets in a general crisis of insecurity.
http://www.upi.com/ InternationalIntelligence/ view.php?StoryID=20051220-114946-5943r
December 30th, 2005 at 3:59 pmFor those trolls who can’t opperate links, here’s a synopsis from this website:
Calculation of National Exit Sample Odds
E/M states that there should be a 95% probability that the reported election result will be within 1% of the exit-poll share for exit polls with sample sizes of 8,001 to 15,000.
E/M also states that its national exit poll had a sample size of 12,219.30 This information allows us to determine the implied standard deviation for this sample and find what
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pmthe probability is that the national exit poll would overestimate Kerry’s vote share by 2.7%. The odds
of this occurring by chance are one in 16,496,696
I am very proud of my fellow americans. A lot of other countrys people would go to the leaders that have screwed up the way Bush has and drag them out in the streets and horse whip them. Bush better be glad hes living here.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:25 am[…] Blog Name: Think Progress Article Title: Bush?s Secret Spying Program: Good News For Guilty Terrorists At today’s press briefing, White House spokesman Trent Duffy was asked about a story in today’s New York Times, which reported that Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program could undermine key terrorism prosecutions: Q The New Y… […]
February 24th, 2006 at 12:23 amI am a new muslim havin converted at Islamabad Pakistan on 09/24/2000.
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:35 pmIn my stufy of the Koran, I find there are three pillars of islam:
1. To show love for God by doing good deeds to benefit your fellow man. God is fond of each and every human so it is most wise to seek opportunities to try to do good deeds for them which will benefit them. This will make God happy towards YOU! nothing in life could be finer than to do things which please the one who enables us to live and breathe.
2. To show proper fear of God by avoiding the 14 prohibited acts. Do not do these things. There are only a few actions prohibited. Good muslims stay miles away from temptation towards these prohibitions, especially the sex prohibitions. This is why female and male muslims do not freely associate among one another and why the women will cover their God-given charms - it all helps us muslims to avoid ISI “illegal sexual intercourse”. Out scrupulous avoidance of ZINA (”illegal sexual intercourse) is why God likes us better than he likes you. You go for illegal sexual intercourse and you also condone it among others. Too bad for you when the day comes for Jesus to Judge you. I hope you enjoyed all those illegal ejaculations. Old jizz is all you will have on judgment day when the rest of us will be greeting resurrected relatives and drinking pure wine with Jesus.
3. The final pillar is to have STRONG FAITH IN A MUNIFICENT GOD!