This morning, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) added his name to the growing list of conservatives who have expressed disapproval of Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program, further undermining the right-wing spin that the only critics of the program are liberals. On ABC’s This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case?
BROWNBACK: I think we need to hold hearings on it and we’re going to. Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.
I think we need to look at this case and this issue. I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.
I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?
BROWNBACK: It didn’t, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.
Brownback’s view echoes that of Sen. Tom Daschle’s and that of the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. More and more people are seeing Bush’s policy for what it truly is: an unnecessary and unconstitutional power-grab.
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.
IMPEACH !
January 8th, 2006 at 12:37 pmSam’s no lawyer.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:40 pmIt’s says “Armed Forces” in that Sec. 2 header. Was the wiretapping done by members of the armed forces?
January 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pmIf we’re getting literal here, which I don’t think is the point anyway…
The thing about armed forces is really irrelevant, as Bush is granted the power to use all force he can to prevent future attacks.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:46 pmBrownback better watch out. He might just be placed on the No Fly list. Anyone catch this (from another post here on TP)?
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2006/ 1/ 5/ 85158/ 32663
January 8th, 2006 at 12:46 pmGary,
January 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI assume that your willingness to read this authorization act so broadly is consistent with other broad interpretaions… say, like a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment finding a right to privacy. Or do you only read official documents broadly when it suits your purposes?
OK…so it didn’t post right. Here:
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2006/ 1/ 5/ 85158/ 32663
January 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pmThe wiretapping was not done by the armed forces. It was done by the NSA.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pmGary,
January 8th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI also assume that you fall in line with Bush’s other justification for wiretapping, that Article II gives him INHERENT or IMPLICIT authority to act. Wow, what happened to “strict constructionism.” Or is that also dependent upon your personal convenience?
#2
Sam’s no lawyer.
.
.
.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 8, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
What an ignorant statement. Since when have all members of Congress been required to be lawyers?
I believe Sen. Brownback is the one who considered and voted on the 9/11 Resolution, not you. I believe that makes him qualified.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:58 pmsorry but Ive had enough of this wiretapping spin..I like it when the discussion is about Bushes murdering attrosities this is just spin …from the real torture , napalm use, ILLEGAL war , Guantanamo, etc etc
January 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pmrupert - “appropriate” … anyone should know that illegal is NOT appropriate…
January 8th, 2006 at 1:04 pmit’s one thing to be stubborn, but, really…get smart…
Oh, and #2, as far as your comment goes, I just went to the White House Web site and read the biographies of Bush and Cheney. Guess what? They aren’t lawyers, either. So I suppose that makes them unqualified to comment on the 9/11 resolution, too.
Oh, but I forgot. Bush had Harriet Miers, still the most qualified person for the Supreme Court (everyone else is second best. Hey,no one has yet said otherwise), advising him.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:06 pmThe problem for GWB is that the Gary Ruppert defense is what he’s relying on,and it’s the very defense that so many lawyers are saying just doesn’t cut it. The text of the law has to be read in the context of the legislative history. The “Whereas” clauses make a difference. The joint resolution from the White House web site says “..the President has authority under the Constitution to take action…” GWB claims that his inherent powers allow him to do the wiretaps. Maybe not.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:08 pmIt’s odd,though that an administration so quick to take credit for arrests under the PATRIOT Act that it includes a salmon fisherman, has not shared any details of arrests as a result of this program. After 4 years,they can’t all still be talking to each other,can they?
Gary,
Your quote says the President is authorized to use “appropriate force”. Note the modifier “appropriate”. Is warrantless spying appropriate? The Supreme Court didn’t think so. Neither did Congress when it wrote the FISA law which has a built in check of the FISA Court and clearly provides for warrants…some of which can be obtained after the fact.
I believe not only is the President not authorized to engage in warrantless spying, but also that in doing so he has a created a Consitutional crisis. He has in effect refused to enforce the law as written by Congress and has amended it with his own version. He has acted unilaterally and not in concert with the other branches of government. His actions pose a grave threat to our national security, security derived from our Constitution, the document that has given us a secure government for over 200 years.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:09 pmGary Ruppert:
I strongly suggest that you do your homework before you open your big mouth. As you said in post #2:
“Sam’s no lawyer.”
I suggest you go read his biography. Read the first paragraph:
Sam Brownback was born September 12, 1956, and grew up on the family farm near Parker, Kansas, where his family still farms. In high school, Brownback served as state president and as a national officer of the Future Farmers of America. Later he received a Bachelor of Science degree with honors in Agricultural Economics from Kansas State University, where he was elected student body president, and went on to earn a law degree from the University of Kansas.
Now, read from the last paragraph:
Through his career, Brownback has worked as an administrator, broadcaster, attorney, teacher, and author.
Gary, you are an ass.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:21 pmOh, here’s the link in case you can’t find it:
http://brownback.senate.gov/ASBio.htm
January 8th, 2006 at 1:22 pmNice post, WC
Gary, you truly are pathetic.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pmImpeach the bastards!
January 8th, 2006 at 1:25 pm#18
Thanks, man.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:25 pmGary Ruppert, in case you cannot comprehend post #16, let me put it to you in the simplest terms:
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a lawyer.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:28 pmI think there is another statement within Brownback’s comments that bears greater scrutiny. Read the last paragraph, “There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan”. This may be further proof of an illegal war - what exactly did he mean by that? I think most people who post here know full well.
I think the Repug. Admin. are in constant fear of losing power because they know they are in the minority. Couple this fear with a moral belief that anything is acceptable to retain power and more and more Americans are seeing Bush’s policy for what it truly is;
fascism, corruption, warmongering and toilet roll with the constitution written on it.
It is really wonderful to read the posts of so many Americans who care desperately about what is right, rather than what is money-making. It is even more encouraging to see powerful, good Americans now indicting criminal Americans more and more. If this keeps up you are going to turn things around. Nov ‘06 is looking excellent.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:37 pmAll thoughtful Americans will oppose Bush’s warrantelss wiretapping regardless of their political affiliation. Bush has violated a basic American freedom and only those who place party over everything else won’t agree.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:42 pmBush is not an attorney and he has appointed attorneys to help him pervert the intention of laws to suit his egomaniacal purposes. He really does think he is king.
God told him so.
In order to justify the “all necessary and appropriate force” provision, I think the President would have to be able to demonstrate that the targets of the eavesdropping were involved in some way in the Sep-11-2001 attacks. The President has said the targets were “terrorists”. “Terrorists” is not a nation or organization, and his use of the term in no way establishes any connection the Sep-11-2001 attacks in the U.S. On the other hand, were the scope of the surveillance as limited, and the case that the eavesdropping targets were terrorists as clear-cut, as the President makes them out to be, I see no reason why the NSA should not have been able quickly and easily to get wiretapping authorisation from the FISA court.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:46 pmI am the King I can do anything.
-Jim Morrison
Must have been singing about George W. Bush way back then.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:49 pmSo, if Bush were to determine that killing every 10th Muslim American in order to prevent further attacks, would that be permissiable under the claims of use of force?
-GSD
January 8th, 2006 at 1:50 pmEven the ideology of giving Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force” does NOT negate FISA, especially when he was tapping people who were within US borders. Had Bush truly acted conservatively by authentically reviewing current events (ie Suddam cooperating with the UN; the UN not finding any WMD; reviewing Condi’s and Collin’s previous statements that Saddam didn’t have the capability of reconstituting his WMD program, etc), the war would not have been initiated 12 days after Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei specifically stated Suddam was complying with inspections/resolutions.
If that had been the case, then maybe the majority of Americans wouldn’t be so distrustful of this administration. Of course, there are a multitude of other examples which this administration has destroyed the American people’s (and the world’s) trust.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:55 pmWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the National Security Agency told employees last month that NSA officials had not violated U.S. law by participating in an agency program that eavesdrops on U.S. citizens without judicial oversight, newly released documents show.
“Media coverage surmises that administration and agency officials may have acted unlawfully — notions I reject, categorically!” NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander assured agency employees in a December 22 message.
He acknowledged that Congress may schedule hearings on the domestic spying program, which President George W. Bush authorized in 2002 to eavesdrop on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mails without first obtaining warrants.
“Overall, we are not concerned,” the NSA director said. “Our operations are carefully deliberated and measured; they are within the law; and they are nobly executed with strict oversight.”
http://today.reuters.com/ news/ newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-01-07T001450Z_01_KWA700815_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml
The first rule of congresscritters on either side of the isle is CYA. That’s what Sam is doing. A hearing on the legality of the wiretaps is consistent with the administration’s tactics concerning all the other attacks against Bush and officers. Let them have a hearing get the relevant facts out and case dismissed.
It’s expensive, time consuming and distracting but Bush has been doing this for the past 5 years on a regular basis so its a cakewalk for him by now. And isn’t it a fact that when the smoke clears the Donks always end up with egg on their face and a slightly smaller constituency.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:56 pmIRI,
Delusional as always. Glad to know Republicans are always right and Democrats always wrong. I wish I had your rosy glasses
January 8th, 2006 at 2:07 pmJeff Gannon
James Guckert
Gary Ruppert
Notice how you never see them together…
January 8th, 2006 at 2:09 pmIt’s expensive, time consuming and distracting but Bush has been doing this for the past 5 years on a regular basis so its a cakewalk for him by now. And isn’t it a fact that when the smoke clears the Donks always end up with egg on their face and a slightly smaller constituency.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 8, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
You are aware that there were Presidents before Bush, aren’t you? And they weren’t always Republicans… So wake up and realize that you’re going to lose power this year, and then sometime down the road win it back and then after that further lose it again. No one has maintained permanent control. And as soon as we get rid of Bush and his fascist take-over, I’ll feel better about saying that no one will in the future… So quit acting like an eight year old punk, it’s really pathetic…
January 8th, 2006 at 2:14 pmCorrect Marie
Regardless of one’s ignorence to law in general and constitutional law in specific, one can not argue away the rights written in the constitution. Amendments are the ONLY way to waive any right.
As for Ruppert the eunuch, it does not matter what section you take out of context from the authorization, one only has to read the whole piece of legislation to prove you are an idiot. It clearly spells out in specific language that all use of force under the armed forces section is for foreign intervention. So you are once again caught wrong in a lie post here.
Americans do not cower from “fear of attack”, like you eunuchs on the right. This is the essence of your argument, “we are paralized by fear of death, so we will be avocates for constant war using someone elses sons and daughters to fight, so we may feel like men we see in movies, we are the cowards of the right”.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:19 pmIt’s about time some of these Republican standup agaist this President. Impeach!!! Impeach!!! Impeach!!!
January 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pmHow do we as the electorate temper power? If the congress doesn’t address the issue
January 8th, 2006 at 2:21 pmthen what court do you leave it up to? Apparently to Mr. Limbaugh the FISA court judges aren’t the end of the line. He used a judicial conduct book to admonish one of the FISA judges on Fri. If the President is assuming his power is warranted and constitutional, then common dignity to the electorate should be acknowledged with a right of petition.Expedite it to the Supreme Court. Then tell me what the law is. This is a fair address of our government.
Congress is dirty, and to start impeachment would expose them, thus a STALL for impeachment. Discusting.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pmPaid trolls,you are making NO progress here,so go and spout your lies on FOX blogs.
I-R-I believes corruption is an integral part of civilization.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:32 pmAnd so it begins.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:33 pmChimpy’s party starts to throw him under the bus
to ATTEMPT to save their asses in Nov.
I know why Chimpy and the trolls defend his fascist
grab for power, what I don’t understand is why
Chimpy didn’t just follow the law like the
rest of us.
Oh wait,
Chimpy is a fascist and ignoring law is what fascists do.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:35 pmSorry for missing that.
Where there are illegal wiretaps there is blackmail of fellow leaders. These guys know it. Especially that piece of garbage, fetus-lovin’ Brownbackside.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:45 pmNotice how when the FACTS are presented to IRI, Gary Ruppert, and the likes that they suddenly dissapear? Probably to talk with their bosses at the DOD to see how they should approach things since we are showing facts against their lies.
HE HE HE!
January 8th, 2006 at 2:53 pmHonestly, most everything Brownstain said was bunk. So why would we take his posotion os spying seriously.
He couldn’t explain his duplicity about supporting Alito vs. Roberts, and…
He thinks corruption will be illiminated by enforcing the current rules, and…
He’s not sure if he will run again, although he’s excited about the numbers he’s getting.
(and he has a fetus fetish)
Brownstain is a quack. His opinions don’t mean crap.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:53 pmBrownnose was scary while watching him; he reaks of Republican corruption. He must have learned to smile from DeLay.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:08 pmIMPEACH !
Comment by smoke #1
smoke,
google “presidential succession” first…
January 8th, 2006 at 3:09 pmInteresting read with a different perspective: The Wiretappers That Couldn’t Shoot Straight
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010806C.shtml
January 8th, 2006 at 3:14 pmWhenever Corrupticons contradict the President or perpetuate the “Did Bush spy on Americans illegally?” meme, it’s a good day.
Regardless of his motives and whether he has any credibility or not, Brownback got this one right…and added his voice to the “Greek Chorus” of don’t-get-that-shit-on-me Pubbies who are slowly backing toward the door.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#The thing about armed forces is really irrelevant, as Bush is granted the power to use all force he can to prevent future attacks.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 8, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
As if BUSH can lead an Army, or Shoot a Gun, or command troops? Why do we have generals? Does bush KNOW more than the Generals? or the DIA? How so does BUSH know how to better use an army than say the Public Gary?
If BUSH does this is he a President or a Dictator?
Are you of want of a Dictator?
To go back to a Monarchy?
How does BUSH know who the Terrorists are Gary? by using his Intuition? Bush was never Sucessful. DO YOU think we won WWII by giving the President Dictator Powers Gary?
Your argument is MOOT. And the only HISTORY it matches is Hitlers and his Above the Law philosophists, such as Schmitt.
YOU see the RESULT of that? DO you Want a Repeat Gary?
Are YOU scared of a Terrrorist Gary? Are you a MAN that fights for Freedom GARY, or one that cowers into Ownership?
The Buschco plan puts Bush above the Law, May I take a chance to remind you of what all of our laws are based on, the Magna Carta, which States that NO Man, King, or Anyone is above the Law.
Secondly, the SIGINT programs, MANY of them have been in place for years, there is NO need for more Programs. The Able Danger Program Identified 3 of the 5 Cells before the 911 attack, Again Curveball was debunked before the War Even began.
“In 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament.”
Liberated FROM KING George and here comes one, BOY KING George, to Remove our rights and soverignity? to Call the Constitution a Piece of GD paper.
Whom Hates America, really. George V, the ‘Dictator’ of course.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:19 pmWaiting for your reply Gary.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:25 pmAre YOU A MAN that fights for his FREEDOM
or are you a MAN that SELLS HIS FREEDOM to FEAR?
His position on the Judiciary dictates what he says. Otherwise he couldn’t care less.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:25 pm“…all necessary and appropriate force…”
___
Necessary? We’ll never know.
Appropriate? Very questionable.
Force? Not by any stretch.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:26 pmMight you Mean ‘Kronjurist’ Gus?
January 8th, 2006 at 3:28 pmIt always cracks me up that we (collectivey) rejoice because someone we all believe to be a wingnut whack job acknowledges reality. The right has moved the line of scrimmage so far off center that something as basic as admitting that a resolution that in no way mentions suspending any U.S. law (laws that couldn’t be suspended through these means in any case), does not constitute a legal justification for Bush pissing on the Fourth Amendment and FISA, becomes a collective sigh of relief on the part of the left. That this can even be debated with a straight face is a testiment to how removed frm rationality we have become in this country. Where is anyone in the media or the Democratic Party who will, without equivocation, just say “bullshit!”
January 8th, 2006 at 3:28 pmGary’s a big government coward. Don’t expect any meaningful debate.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:28 pmReal men fear their government, not 3rd world goobers with home made bombs. The lily white chickenhawks will never get it.
Whom really Protects America. Bush? thats funny.
Cheney? also a riot.
The Congress? Make me laugh.
Whom really? The people?
January 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pmarent the HERD the Troops, and the police?
and the Border Patrol?
Do the PEOPLE need BUSH to know how to do their Jobs?
Nope.
This is nothing More than a BUSHco power grab.
Agreed Gus, Kudos!
January 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pmLet me give you a perfect example of real security. Down here in Texas literally every person with eyes is watching for spontaneous fires. Our whole state is about to burn up.
But the neocons have trained average americans that they are helpless against terrorists unless there is broad police powers held by a couple of people.
It is a lie.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pmAs this wiretapping fiasco continues, the reason for it will become clear, and it will have nothing to do with national security.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:38 pmLook, they knew 9-11 was coming and did nothing, maybe even aided the process. If they had the knowledge of an impending attack, the way they would use it would be to determine how they could capitolize on the situation.
These are very evil people my friends, they must be removed from power.
9/11 COP’S LUNG DEATH:
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/61110.htm
Study 9/11:
January 8th, 2006 at 3:42 pmhttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ project.jsp?project=911_project
We need more than an impeachment of bush. …
Congress must act like its the Congress for the People by the people of the United States Of America ..Congress must uphold the Consitution,The Bill of Rights ,The Admendtments ,the law that are a very large part of this country .
This Cabal just didn’t happen over night on 9-11-01 or -9-12-01 this cabal happen before gwbush ran for office its goes higher and farther than just him.
Brownback is correct he over stepped the rights and laws of the citizens of this country . We are not to be ruled over by a government we are to rule over our government by the people for the people and that isn’t K Street Lobby goons…….
January 8th, 2006 at 3:48 pmKeith H. You nailed it right on the head. I agree 200% with you.
I think that America might be waking up???? I know that every other week I send my representatives, and others, letters DEMANDING that Congress Impeaches the WHOLE Administration. I provide more than enough information to support the impeachment, including the fact that the government knew of 9/11 and that the WTC’s were demolished by explosives. Yet, so far I have not gotten one Senator to dispute it with facts. I did get one Senator to provide me with the documents from the 9/11 Commission and the NIST investigation. Although after reading them, I wrote back and shot holes into the reports. I am a Engineer and I disputed the report and provided evidence to counter the documents. As of yet I have not heard back from them and I don’t expect to, since I keep shooting holes in their stories.
We need to keep up the pressure to get these criminals, no matter who they are, out of our government.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:49 pmMy deepest fear is that our weak, feeble-minded President will crack and wind up in the mental hospital and we’ll never know about it.
January 8th, 2006 at 3:59 pmI would love to see thousands upon thousands of names on these lists of people who poked their gutless arrogant heads in the sand and allowed the baathist sluts called Republicans get away with all this. Remember that a lot of truly gutless self centered Americans allowed these rotten to the core lizards be voted into office and I now howl at the quackery called the Bush Administration that all these 50 million plus thugs called Americans swooned over just a year ago.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pmRemove bush I’m glad to see I’m not the only one to see how there was an Implosion and the Towers to fall into themselves .I’m told I’m over thinking,over reacting since I am a Democrat. I know that Bin Laden has wanted to do this for a very long time . I’ve asked the questions of was this taxpayers money that funded the attack? When we had a dossier on one of the Attackers The Main one and yet it was filed in file 13 ,the question has never been answer as to why it was.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pmThe rightwing troll Gary R. has gotten tooled throughout the comments. Good work, guys, though he clearly isn’t worth your time (and yet, still fun to see someone get his debating ass kicked).
Just remember, their only defense on this is blatant lies. The law, common sense, American values, the U.S. Constitution — the right wing Bush apologists have safe harbor in none of these.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pmGary-
You really do deserve a field commission in the 101st Keyboarders Expeditionary Force. Your persistant ignorance in the face of truth and reality deserves recognition. I think the Alpha-Monkey would be proud of your willingness to sacrifice your integrity and principles, in your service to provide him cover. I haven’t seen such blind political obedience since the cult of Mao.
Congratulations….here’s a banana -> (
January 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pmMy deepest fear is that our weak, feeble-minded President will crack and wind up in the mental hospital and we’ll never know about it.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
Let me set your mind at ease about that, Gus.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but junior will be back on the bottle and snorting crack long before that happens.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pmComment by Keith H.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmBig Fat Liars
January 5, 2006
In “Bush, Cheney assail critics of surveillance, Patriot Act†by Mark Silva both Bush and Cheney find themselves in a situation of complete lack of credibility. Like broken records their voices are grating our senses, over and over. Bush endlessly try to convince the public that he had to enforced the illegal warrentless wiretapping in order to protect America from al-Qaeda, culminating with “I’m not making this up.†That would have shocked fly off the wall. Just about everything Bush has push forth in this war on terrorism has been a mistake or just flat out lies. And at the other end of town, VP Cheney is spinning out his own yarns to continue the warrentlless wiretapping. At the Heritage Foundation he spouted that “If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two hijackers… but we did not know they were here plotting until it was too late.†This is Cheney’s biggest lie yet: The government had compiled information on the two hijackers before the attacks and that bureaucratic SNAFUs were the reasons for the security breakdown; the Sept. 11 Commission confirm this.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmthot’s I would bet that it did. Think about it…. The parts of the aircrafts that were found has been identified by experts as being parts from a 737, not a 757/767. Also, there is no way that a gang of renagades could possibly have the millitary stand down on this day.
I have asked people over and over again… You beleive that our military is that inept? They all answer yes. I tell them, well I don’t as I served in the military and as a ground troop we could have all of our equipment loaded in trucks and ready to go within 6 hours. So I know that the Air Force could have jets in the air within 10 minuites. Especially since there are 35 air bases within the path of the aircraft that were hijacked that day. Nobody can tell me that they could not have had 1 fighter in the air from one of those 35 air bases. Especially when most of those air bases have fighter jets on them.
The government did use tax payer money for the events. I just wish that people would wake up. If it was one or two things that happened and no one could explain, I would probably say its coinicidence. However, when there are HUNDREDS of questions about the day, I don’t consider it being a coincidence anymore and I concider it a conspiracy by our government.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:20 pmAnother Republican Who Things Bush was Wrong…
From the Sunday morning Talk shows….
January 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pm28: “Media coverage surmises that administration and agency officials may have acted unlawfully — notions I reject, categorically!†NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander assured agency employees in a December 22 message.
And Keith Alexander is no lawyer: http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00022.cfm
January 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pmRemove Bush,
I live on Cape Cod, and the jets @ Otis AFB could have been in the air within minutes. Easy shot right over to New York.
I hate to think they could have let this all happen, but the more info I get from this board, the worse the pit in my stomach.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:38 pmThe Bush-Era will be over even before King George’s reign ends in January of 2009, and hopefully by then, our civil-liberties will be on the mend, so look at it this way; beginning with the the class of 2013 (they’ll be freshman in 2009, the first post-W year), all secondary-level educators and up will have a plethora of case-studies, thanks to the Bush Administration, from which to develop teaching models, repleat with documentable examples with footnotes ad-nauseum, for their young charges. There will be virtually no end to the real-life illustrations, from which to draw upon to teach the young plebes how NOT to run a country. All those professors’ and future professors’ whose research will now be so much easier owe George W. Bush and all his cronies a lot as they set about teaching all those impressionable metriculators. It just goes to show you that some good can come from a bad situation. I would venture to say that the best thing we will be able to say about the Bush Administration can be taken from an old Squiggy cartoon, wherein Squiggy is comptemplating that perhaps his entire reason for being is to serve as a warning to others; and that would be, after all, a fitting epitaph after the self-inflicted demise of the Republican party.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:45 pmThe thing about armed forces is really irrelevant, as Bush is granted the power to use all force he can to prevent future attacks.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 8, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Whew! I feel so much better now that Mr. Ruppert -the utmost and most prominent legal & constitutional scholar in the US- has determined that the section titled “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES” is not really just about the use of military force.
I am also relieved to hear from Mr. Ruppert that we can further ignore the fact that the goal of the resolution was “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”, and then pretend that said resolution actually authorised Pres. Bush to do as he pleases, beyond the use of force by the US military.
It is easy to take a legal document and cherry-pick what is relevant and what isn’t.
Ignorance is bliss, indeed.
S. J. Res. 23[107]: Authorization for Use of Military Force
January 8th, 2006 at 4:57 pmIf oyu want to see the vid
January 8th, 2006 at 4:58 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/08.html#a6626
True Blue, don’t forget about that aircraft carrier that was just off shore of Long Island. There were hundreds of aircraft on board there.
If you keep digging you will see just how sic this governmetn is for not standing up against Bush. I know that many of those in the government know that this came from the WH, but for what ever reason they are not talking. Probably scared that they will be declared “enemy combatants” and sent to Poland or Russia for interrigation.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:00 pmThe question that no-one has yet answered is why did Bush not get the retroactive warrants. Who was he listening to? I can’t believe that it was just arrogance that stopped him from obtaining the warrants. It must have been the targets themselves that needed to be kept secret. The Guardian Observer in the UK printed an article back in 2003 suggesting that the swing members of the UN Security Council were being bugged in order to strenghthen the US’ negotiating position in the run up to the vote on military action in Iraq.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ iraq/ story/ 0,12239,905954,00.html
It makes sense to me.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pmBecause it was illegal. He was spying on anyone he wanted, not just terrorists. He spyed on Colin Powell, and Jimmy Carter just to name a few that I have read about. They sure seem like terrorists to me.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:19 pmeven if it were only liberals criticizing the president, it shouldn’t matter… this isn’t an opinion contest… if he broke the law, even if every last member if Congress is against it, the president should be prosecuted… let’s get to it!
January 8th, 2006 at 5:25 pmHmmm… Brownback, eh?
“Brownback”? “Brownback”: “Brokeback”, “Brokeback”: “Brownback”….
(I’m kidding, but I’m sorry to say that I would not be surprised to see something of that nature start showing up on Faux)
January 8th, 2006 at 5:34 pm[…] Abc’s This Week via Think Progress —- Good to hear a guy with Brownback’s wingnut credentials hasn’t totally crossed over to the Dark Side. “Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.” - Worries me that they will try to drag the closed hearings out for a couple of years to keep Specter’s Judiciary hearings from starting. Why not let Arlen go first? […]
January 8th, 2006 at 5:35 pmBut… even if he’d gotten the warrants, the targets of them would have been secret, no? I find it hard to believe that the FISA court has a public record of granted warrants - seems to violate the overall principle.
It must have been either arrogance, or so blatently illegal that (t)he(y) assumed that the warrants would have been denied.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:40 pmBut… even if he’d gotten the warrants, the targets of them would have been secret, no? I find it hard to believe that the FISA court has a public record of granted warrants - seems to violate the overall principle.
It must have been either arrogance, or so blatently illegal that (t)he(y) assumed that the warrants would have been denied.
Comment by Maggie — January 8, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
The only thing that makes sense is that the target of the investigation was in no way linked to terrorism. Its one thing to go to a court and ask for a warrant to tap a simple citizen of the US. Its quite another to go and ask for a warrant to tap Mexico’s ambassador to the UN. I think the country deep down knows that the tapping was illegal. The administration’s case must have seemed weak even to themselves. Could they only be arguing it to draw attention away from the targets?
January 8th, 2006 at 6:07 pmQuestion - can the president prolong his stay in office (if he’s not impeached that is!)? Is there any remote possibility he could suspend the 2008 presidential elections for any reason?
January 8th, 2006 at 6:29 pmEvery sane politician knows that the Delay/Abrahmoff indictments are real and they must state their position on what they think is legal or illegal.
The crime family is going down and every politician knows we are looking at each and every individual that is employed by the citizens of the U.S.
We the People are watching closely, those who chose to work outside of the law will pay for it at the polls.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:33 pmLisa #83, it is my opinion that Bushie is stacking the Supreme Court in order to overrule the 2 term rule. He wants to change the constitution that will allow him to dictate indefinately.
Impeachment is the only solution.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org
January 8th, 2006 at 6:34 pmLet me give you a perfect example of real security. Down here in Texas literally every person with eyes is watching for spontaneous fires. Our whole state is about to burn up.
But the neocons have trained average americans that they are helpless against terrorists unless there is broad police powers held by a couple of people.
It is a lie.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
How stupid are you, really? I know a lot of smart people in Texas and maybe can hook you up if you’re not retarded or homosexual. By the way, your handle is obnoxious and misogynistic.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:38 pm#68 Remove Bush. Wow, I too am very skeptical with the explaination to the events of 9-11. I’m not a conspriracy buff, I believe in facts and only the facts.
At the Protest of Bushie in Chicago I recorded the event. Around the middle of the audio you can hear a guy on a megaphone who gives out a website address that questions 9-11.
The raw audio should be on my radio station tommorow. It’ll impress everyone, it makes you proud to be an American, no matter what issue is most important to you.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:43 pmIRI, you should quit now and go tell the DOD that you were unsucessful to avoid humiliation. You and Gary Ruppert are losing your stand and the DOD really should just shut down the operation and give you your bonus.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:45 pmIRI,
Delusional as always. Glad to know Republicans are always right and Democrats always wrong. I wish I had your rosy glasses
Comment by Andy
No party or no man is always right. Those who delude themselves about that universal truth wind up sucking wind. On the other hand there is an advantage to know that one thinks, believes and acts to the best of his ability according to the overarching determininative force of the universe and isn’t embarrassed to be counted among those that love Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way. I don’t have rose colored glasses but I do know that I see through a glass darkly. If you know the difference you’re half way there.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:46 pm#89 -IRI- Wow that actually was intilectual and well thought out. Is the DOD having you take a different approach. So if you type such inteligent wording and supportive statements, why then do you continue to spew such hatred and fail to observe the FACT that Bush is breaking the law of the CONSTITUTION?
January 8th, 2006 at 6:50 pmThanks, Susan. It had been mentioned somewhere before but I didn’t copy/paste it (my computer is getting full!). I vaguely recall there had been another president that had more than 2 terms (WWII)? I’ve tried to google it with no definitive results. I just pray our current evil incarnate president can’t do that. I would also suspect that if he does decide to invade Iran, he would have to reinstate the draft. Just musing…
January 8th, 2006 at 6:51 pmLisa - It appears there are those who would argue the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” of September 14, 2001 gives the President authority to use any tactic whatsoever (not just armed force) against anyone at all (not just those who planned and carried out the Sep-11 attacks), as long as the ostensible purpose is to prevent further such attacks. And we’ve heard Cheney, at least, arguing that making the “wrong choice” on election day would make Americans vulnerable to being “hit again”. Makes it sound pretty simple: to prevent further attacks, just eliminate altogether the possibility of making a “wrong” choice in the election booth.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:53 pmLisa, that president is one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected for an unprecedented FOUR terms from 1933 until his death in 1945.
then the term limits amendment.
well, he did steer the country through the depression and wwII… but four terms is just too much.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:56 pmLisa, sadly I see Bush trying to do just that very thing. This is why it is VERY IMPORTANT that we get him IMPEACHED SOON.
It’s a scarry thought but this administration is so power hungry and has so many crimes under their belts that I could see them doing anything to keep those secrets secret.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:57 pm#81, Maggie, I think you answered your own question =
What possible explanation could be given for not obtaining retroactive warrants.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:59 pmI didn’t agree with them, but I respected the principled conservatism of the past, as exemplified by Barry “every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell’s ass” Goldwater. Perhaps they’ll eventually take their movement back from Bush/Cheney and the neocon crazies.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:59 pmYou missed my point, IRI. We Texans are doing a GOOD job of watching out for fires without assistance from skeered goobers like you and Bush.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:08 pmdidn’t agree with them, but I respected the principled conservatism of the past, as exemplified by Barry “every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell’s ass†Goldwater. Perhaps they’ll eventually take their movement back from Bush/Cheney and the neocon crazies.
Comment by Bush Bites
I don’t know about Dick, (ax Ryan about that) but Bush isn’t a neo-con. If anything he’s a theo-con. If you actually know anything about conservatism you’ll know what I’m talking about. If you don’t you’re little condescending remark is just that, lip service. (Ryan knows about that too by the way)
January 8th, 2006 at 7:08 pmYou missed my point, IRI. We Texans are doing a GOOD job of watching out for fires without assistance from skeered goobers like you and Bush.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
Uhhhh….If you’re living in Texas most of the boys you’re talking about like George and wouldn’t piss on Kerry if he were on fire and causing the N. Texas infernos. Dumbass.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:10 pmone thing neo-cons know how to do is use fundamentalist whack-jobs like bush to do their bidding… so bush is no neo-con, he’s just a neo-con tool.
actually, he’s just a tool.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:10 pm#97 Gus the Loving OBGYN,
You texans are doing a good job. You (with the help of others) have rejected and indicted Tom Delay.
Good job.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:11 pmThank you P.Rex and RemoveBush. I agree that Bush (and his administration) is moving toward extending his term(s) in office. I predict that one of their major excuses will be the extension of the war into Iran (heaven forbid), which would be another international violation of invading a sovereign nation who has not (currently) threatened us or can threaten us. On an international perspective, I’m not sure if they would resign for the ‘coalition of the willing’. There could be retaliation with the other countries converting US dollar trade to Euro dollar trade. That would kick our economic ass. We sooooooo need to get this administration out of power. I’ve never been more scared of our own government than I have with this administration. It’s nice to know that I’m not alone. I live in a bloody red state where the family tree doesn’t fork! (and it ain’t the south!); well maybe: s. dakota!
January 8th, 2006 at 7:12 pmHave no fear Lisa, impeachment is near!
Russ Fiengold has stated his position..“if the wiretapping is found to be illegal, which I think it is, will be grounds for impeachment”.
Yes! I give Bubble boy six months max.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:16 pmHere in Dallas you used to see anywhere from 20 to 50 “W” or “Bush/Cheney” stickers in one day. Later, the black “W The President” became very popular on upscale model cars. I might see 2 stickers a day now. Texans are very unhappy. There has been an explosion of “Texas Democrats” bumper stickers. I just got mine.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:17 pmAnd by the way, IRI. To this day I still contact Sugarland-area churches to inform them of Delay and Co opinions about “Wacko Christians”. It’s how I fill my spare time.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:19 pmI’m not misogynistic. I just have alot of love and OBGYN services to share.
“I want to give you every inch of my love”-Robert Plant
January 8th, 2006 at 7:25 pmIf the MSM ever takes off the gloves, he’ll be unelectable (not close enough to even steal another) regardless of term limits. What I anticipate is a manufactured *terror* incident that will preclude elections and the pathetic frightened sheep, AKA Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms, will unhesitatingly surrender our country…
January 8th, 2006 at 7:39 pmI agree H2H - I also find it scary of the vague threats that “if we don’t do this, something bad will happen” rhetoric. Sounds like a veiled threat to me.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:53 pmIRI - “Those who delude themselves about that universal truth wind up sucking wind.”
You mean like believing corruption is necessary in a civilized society? LOL You must be running very short of wind at this point.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:53 pmRuppert, apparently traverses the Web with his spooge. Now hes talking up NEWT GINGRICH? Can you believe this. TELL us HOW much NEWT took Gary? Was it 300,000?
WHY would anyone, except you ruppert, believe Newt Gingrich?
Ruppert do you lie to your Kids?
Teach them that its OK to be corrupt, as long as its politics and Business and not Banks?
# Gary Ruppert Says:
January 6th, 2006 at 1:15 am
There’s no reason to suspect that Bush would be monitoring anybody other than terrorists.
Also, you all haven’t covered Abramoff yet, but Newt Gingrich has some serious ideas that will reduce corruption in Washington. I endorse these ideas, because the Republicans have to make it clear that they’re cracking down on corruption.
Newt’s ideas are:
#1 - Banning fundraising in Washington, D.C.
#2 - Allowing unlimited contributions by citizens who are residents of the congressional district of the candidate receiving their contribution.
#3 - Requiring Internet posting of all contacts between lobbyists and government officials.
#4 - Requiring Internet posting of all foreign monies “being used to influence government;â€
#5 - Eliminating the Senate “hold†system that allows one senator to block a presidential nomination in exchange for legislative favors
The fact is that Newt has proposed more ideas than the Democrats.
But back to the terrorist monitoring..
Once again, there is no good reason to suspect Bush was spying in Armanpour.
NOW Ruppert thinks he a Terrorist Monitor, Do you expect to find terrorists here Ruppert?
January 8th, 2006 at 8:11 pm#100
I believe you misspelled a word. Your last word should begin with an “F” rather than a “T.”
January 8th, 2006 at 8:12 pmI don’t know about Dick, (ax Ryan about that) but Bush isn’t a neo-con. If anything he’s a theo-con. If you actually know anything about conservatism you’ll know what I’m talking about. If you don’t you’re little condescending remark is just that, lip service. (Ryan knows about that too by the way)
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 8, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
BUSH is a SYNARCHIST. Yes I guess technically that is a Theophist, but lets put a name on it.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:19 pmYou Say Conservative. But in Politico Speak, that means nothing. Please Explain YOUR version of Conservive IRI?
“No party or no man is always right. Those who delude themselves about that universal truth wind up sucking wind. On the other hand there is an advantage to know that one thinks, believes and acts to the best of his ability according to the overarching determininative force of the universe and isn’t embarrassed to be counted among those that love Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way. I don’t have rose colored glasses but I do know that I see through a glass darkly. If you know the difference you’re half way there.”
____
Call 911 — IRI is either having a stroke, or some kind of weird New Age epiphany.
There is not a single coherent thought in that entire paragraph. It reads like a coked-up wingnut “Desiderata.”
Good God, man. Get on TOP of that buzz!
January 8th, 2006 at 8:24 pm#
You missed my point, IRI. We Texans are doing a GOOD job of watching out for fires without assistance from skeered goobers like you and Bush.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
Uhhhh….If you’re living in Texas most of the boys you’re talking about like George and wouldn’t piss on Kerry if he were on fire and causing the N. Texas infernos. Dumbass.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 8, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
I have lived in Texas for 30 years+ IRI. I can tell you that BUSH is not a Texan, But a Rexall Lilly Livered YankME, Twice Removed, whom thinks his PIG farm is a RANCH. Farmers and Ranchers, those people whom wear Cowboy hats to keep the sun and Rain out of their Eyes laugh when Duhbya puts on a Cowboy Hat. Why Because its a Costume, meant for people like YOU who buy into it.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:24 pmMore from Sam Brownback on the NSA program:
“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance.”
January 8th, 2006 at 8:25 pm- December 24, 2005.
“No party or no man is always right. Those who delude themselves about that universal truth wind up sucking wind. On the other hand there is an advantage to know that one thinks, believes and acts to the best of his ability according to the overarching determininative force of the universe and isn’t embarrassed to be counted among those that love Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way. I don’t have rose colored glasses but I do know that I see through a glass darkly. If you know the difference you’re half way there.â€
_____________________________
I know why he speaks this Way.
For IRI, if truly a man has three eyes, then does not he see darkly and clearly?
January 8th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAnyone who thinks Bush should be impeached, please check out this link. Don’t just get mad, DO SOMETHING!
http://www.worldcantwait.net/
January 8th, 2006 at 8:33 pmThe Bush Error is nearly over. When the likes of Senator Brownback are calling for an investigation, one can hear the time clock ticking.
Bush will not complete his second term.
He will be lucky if he does not end up in the Hague next to Milosevic.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:36 pm#116
Thus spake Hairy Thruster.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:48 pmAnyone who thinks Bush should be impeached is a tinfoil hat wearing loon.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:14 pmTHE COWARDS OF THE RIGHT
Americans do not cower from “fear of attack”, like the eunuchs on the right. This is the essence of their flight, “As we are paralyzed by fear of death, so we will be advocates for a constant war of global breath, using someone else’s sons and daughters to fight, so we may feel like men we see in movies, we are the cowards of the right”.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:15 pmMore and more people are seeing Bush’s policy for what it truly is: a diligent effort to defend America from terrorists in spite of their liberal enablers.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:16 pm119 Hairy Thruster…Funny.
But, IRI is serious about his God Complex, only hope is he or she doesnt hold Government Office.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:17 pmThe intolerant of dissent weenies of ThinkNegative seen to have deleted some non-ad hominem posts again.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:17 pmwho - anyone who thinks that Bush should not, is a mindless fool who is just wanting to be controlled like a puppet.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:19 pmRemoveBush - anyone who thinks that Bush should be impeached, is a mindless fool who is just wanting to be controlled like a puppet.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:21 pmwho - you, IRI, Gary Puppet, and the rest should really get more money from the DOD. You are not being supplied with enough dis-information to stand on solid ground. Run back to the Bush Crime Family and tell them you need more lies to spread because what you have is not enough.
Run, run, run.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:22 pmRemoveBush - you and the rest should really get more money from the DNC. You are not being supplied with enough dis-information to stand on solid ground. Run back to the Soros Crime Family and tell them you need more lies to spread because what you have is not enough.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:24 pm#126
RemoveBush - anyone who thinks that Bush should be impeached, is a mindless fool who is just wanting to be controlled like a puppet.
Comment by who — January 8, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
Ohhhh that was a very well thought out and smart rebuttle.
NOT!
January 8th, 2006 at 9:24 pm#More and more people are seeing Bush’s policy for what it truly is: a diligent effort to defend America from terrorists in spite of their liberal enablers.
Comment by who — January 8, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Another Name Change Ruppert?
January 8th, 2006 at 9:28 pmA diligent effort to screw America and Mislead it. Why do you so Cover for such an IMP? Put BUSH in a Uniform, ship his A to IRAQ to the Front line, then and ONLY then will people believe that BUSH is defending anything but his sorry friends.
Tell Me Ruppert WHO, How can a Man, surrounded by security, defend anyone? Does not that tell you Something?
Tell me Ruppert does Bush, or the Congress Carry Guns, do you protect the WhiteHouse?
Do the congressman, senators, or presidents patrol the streets at night putting their lives on the Line?
No, they are fat dumb and Happy, hidden behind walls and guards, spewing thru Media Shills words of Freedom, and Integrity, meanwhile doing just the Opposite.
Indeed POLITICIANS are correctly named.
POLI -for many
TICS -for bloodsucker
.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:30 pm#129
My check from Soros is late AGAIN.
If he stiffs me one more time, I’m going back to my authentic conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs…you know, like the Constitution is just a gawddamned piece of paper, and the President is above the law. Screw peace, justice and representative democracy. I need that gelt!
January 8th, 2006 at 9:32 pmImpeach that cardboard cutout of that empty suit residing in the white house..
January 8th, 2006 at 9:33 pm#132 That’s too funny….. :)
January 8th, 2006 at 9:33 pm#111-
Clyde,
tool, fool… whatever! really he’s just a jackass. he’s such a jackass he makes clinton, who i never voted for, look like a great president. in retrospect, there isn’t a day that goes by that i don’t wish we had bubba back. i couldn’t have imagined myself being in this position ten years ago!
sorry to all you died-in-the-wool dems here, but i do fault clinton with one major flaw: playing things fast and loose enough to allow the loony wingjob fringe noise machine room to operate and gain power. his actions left enough room that at least some of their claims were credible — unlike now, where they’ve gone off the deep end. if clinton had been completely above board and beyond reproach (i.e. unassailable - which is, ironically, how he appears these days), we wouldn’t be where we are now. sure, you’d still have that lunatic fringe, but gore would be president, wouldn’t he?
sorry, was i just blaming clinton? well, the truth is, if he controls his extramarital urges, or even if he immediately comes clean, gore doesn’t [erroneously decide to] have to distance himself, and bush isn’t president.
but yea, bush is a horrible president. worst in my lifetime (i’d say ‘worst ever’, but i didn’t experience andrew johnson, calvin coolidge, or herbert hoover). we’re in a right mess.
the real question is, how bad does it have to get before ordinary citizens decide to do anything about it…?
personally, i’m ready to light the torches and storm city hall (congress, the white house, whatever…)!
who’s with me?!
January 8th, 2006 at 9:35 pmPR - I am glad that your feel that way. I just wish that more Americans felt that way. I feel very similarly. I guess it’s going to come down to Congress doing something within the next 6 months or a overthrow of our government.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:40 pmWhat is all this approve-disapprove nonsense? Bush confessed to a felony in an internationally televised speech. To bad for him that John Yoo wasn’t there to make him think twice about this booboo. He should be arrested immediately and put on trial for violating the Fourth Amendment he swore to uphold. Then he, Abramoff, Libby, Delay, and so many more to come can party down in Leavenworth.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:41 pmpurvis should be arrested and put on trial immediately for his crimes.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:47 pmONE, only one, Congressperson, voted against the September 14, 2001 Joint House-Senate Resolution granting Bush extraordinary powers to fight terrorism.
That one representative was REP. Barbara Lee of California.
Was she not prescient?
Indeed, should not REP. Barbara Lee be leading the Democratic Party?
Should not DEMOCRATIC STATESMANSHIP be acknowledged?
January 8th, 2006 at 9:47 pmNo I’m not!
January 8th, 2006 at 9:48 pmBarbara Lee is an anti-American communist symp.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:48 pm“So, if Bush were to determine that killing every 10th Muslim American in order to prevent further attacks, would that be permissiable under the claims of use of force?”
Comment by Granite State Destroyer — January 8, 2006 @ 1:50
****Only if we overheard the orders being given to act immediately and their Islamofascists cohorts were busy strapping on their bomb belts. But to consider your straw man (AKA “Stupid”) argument is for your benefit - maybe you’ll learn something)
January 8th, 2006 at 9:49 pmof course you’re not, bush shill.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:49 pmbut king george says you can be court jester…
Rex is an al Qaeda shill.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:51 pmBrownback: 9/11 Resolution Did Not Give Bush Authority for Warrantless Wiretapping…
Sen. Sam Brownback, the man that is so far right that he makes the Pope look like a crazy pot smoking hippy, has make it clear that he did not give Bush the okay to wiretap people. There is a growing list of conservatives that are no cool with Bush rig…
January 8th, 2006 at 9:57 pmlook, the administration already had their ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario, and they failed it miserably. in fact, it doesn’t even look like they tried to put a stop to 9/11… because they didn’t!
and nsa spying? “the tools necessary”? how about the nsa receiving the message “the match begins tomorrow” on september 10th, but not translating it until september 12th? (and then only because they screwed the pooch - it probably would’ve gone a lot longer without translation)
this ain’t keifer sutherland in ‘24′ here- what the nsa is doing is not only illegal, it’s ridiculously ineffective. and don’t tell me they stopped the brooklyn bridge from being attacked. you go ahead and let someone try to take down that bridge with a blowtorch, which is what the accused was allegedly going to do. see how long it takes for them to get hauled off to jail (which they maybe should’ve done, since now that guy can contest the gov’t’s case against him because they — surprise, surprise — didn’t get a warrant, and have admitted it).
you know if they were just evil, and not incompetent, it would really be scary. kind of reminds me of the trolls at this site.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:03 pmbut if i was an al qaeda shill, i’d be working for bush like you are, who.
if it weren’t for republicans, there wouldn’t even be an al qaeda. reagan armed and financed OBL in afghanistan. and the bushes and bin ladens go WAAAAAAY back.
if it weren’t for republicans, saddam wouldn’t have had wmds. rumsfeld handed those over during the reagan admin. and then they turned a blind eye while saddam used them on his own people.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:09 pmThere’s no point in responding to “who”. He’s a low end troll with brain damage.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:16 pmLily #117, if you’d like to see some pix from the Bush Protest in Chicago go to
http://bushinchicago.bravehost.com
You will see World Can’t Wait signs in the pix.
Tomorrow I should have the audio of the protest up and running, you can hear them chant “Drive out the Bush Regime, the World Can’t Wait”.
Great organization.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:20 pmtesting… my last 2 posts didn’t make it.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:27 pm#94 - “Lisa, sadly I see Bush trying to do just that very thing. This is why it is VERY IMPORTANT that we get him IMPEACHED SOON.” - Remove Busch
****Lisa - please don’t tell me you are a Social Studies teacher - I might be more inclined to believe you - and pity you - if you tell me you’re a public high school student.
Dear Removed - Perhaps you should sign off as DivorcedfromReality. The sad fact is - security loosers, like many political prog and libs - are not going to be elected by the the majority of Americans anytime soon.
But, Progs, don’t despair - I have good news for you - the terrorist AlZawahiri (you know the one who so many of you give aid and comfort to) is thrilled with the “loosing stance” proposed by Jack Murtha and endorsed by Nancy Pelosi. Havi