AP Reports Facts on White House Smear of Gore
AP Reports Facts on White House Smear of Gore
This morning, ThinkProgress revealed charges of hypocrisy leveled against former Vice President Al Gore by Attorney General Gonzales were completely baseless. Now, the AP has updated its story on the Bush administration’s smear of Gore to include the facts:
McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.
But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”
The White House responded to Gore’s criticism with a dishonest smear. The media, thankfully, is beginning to understand that.
The larger issue, however, is that the White House doesn’t have an honest response to criticism of their warrantless domestic wiretapping program.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Eloquent... Incisive... Intelligent... Focused... Articulate... Fearless... Mannish... Thank you Al Gore! Thank you Sir! 100% behind you!!!
January 17th, 2006 at 9:49 pmThey never have an answer. All they ever do is try to distract people with bullshit.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pmI agree - I saw Gore's speech and he was right on the mark! To have the current AG - Gonzales mis-represent the facts in the case is sad - given that he represents the highest law office of the land. You'll notice that he kept saying "physical" in reference to the searches undertaken by the Clinton Adm -so he was technically correct - but still dis-honest as those searches occured prior to FISA being changed to include physical searches. What a putz - but, nothing new for the current administration.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pmBush administration lies = The REAL Slander
January 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pmDishonest smear? Would this "administration" do that? ha ha Bush just wishes he could speak with the grace of Gore. Bush couldn't even get the pet goat story right. Bush is an idiot and a clown, but his policies sure are not funny for the country. Hell of a speech, Al. Hope we hear more.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:05 pmWhat is the problem with the AP. THis is not how the game is played.
Cover Gore speech.
Print right wing lies to respond.
Fair and balanced journalism. F*** the truth.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:09 pmYou forgot to mention the NAME of the reporter: Nedra Pickler.
Thank you Nedra.
(Too often we also rail against "the media" without naming names. Always name names.)
January 17th, 2006 at 10:12 pmHonest reporting? Who'd have thunk! Way to go, AP! Now, remember this the next time you have to report on the Bushies! They lie. You can tell when they are, because their mouths are moving all in concert with one another! Which is, of course, all the time.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:14 pmIs it appropriate for the US Attorney General to come out in the political defense of the President? His job would be to identify and present the exact law(s) that gives the President the authority that he claims the President has.
"Clinton did it too" has been proven a fanciful misrepresentation of the facts but even if that charge been true, that Clinton broke the law, that “precedent†does give Bush authority to break the law. If the US Attorney General believes that "Clinton did it too" is a legitimate legal argument, we are well and truly f*****
January 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pmWe have to keep on top of every news orginization and beat the hell out of them when they play the he said she said bullshit. If they broadcast Bush's lies, they have to know we're going to call them on it every time.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:21 pm“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,†McClellan said of Gore.
they're still using that technique... it's "Hey, look, that guy's trying to steal your wallet!" then they steal your wallet while you're distracted... everything they say is hypocritical and the very opposite of the truth... it's amazing how long they can keep this stuff going...
January 17th, 2006 at 10:23 pmDon't get too crazy for "the Pickler". She's not in Judith Miller territory, but she's been known to be a diligent water carrier.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:24 pmEloquent… Incisive… Intelligent… Focused… Articulate… Fearless… Mannish… Thank you Judd.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:26 pmSaying Forrest Gore was "inconsistent" is a "smear"? Wow, that's a real stretch, even for you limp-wristed liberals. ROFL
January 17th, 2006 at 10:26 pmI had read the transcript of Mr. Gore's speech but I just watched it tonight. It is, by far, one the most impressive American speeches that I have witnessed or read. If you have family or friends who have not seen it, suggest it to them. There is not an American - republican, democrat, or independent - who would not benefit from the thoughts and ideals that it invokes one to ponder.
Mr. Gore's call to action of the American people should resonate loud and clear to all of us. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are seeing some of that now in the improved reporting by AP. It is definitely time to answer the call.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:29 pmthey forgot their reason amongst the lies
From Emerald Tablets
I, Thoth, the Atlantean,
give of my wisdom,
give of my knowledge,
give of my power.
Freely I give to the children of men.
Give that they, too, might have wisdom
to shine through the world from the veil of the night.
Wisdom is power and power is wisdom,
one with each other, perfecting the whole.
Be thou not proud, O man, in thy wisdom.
Discourse with the ignorant as well as the wise.
If one comes to thee full of knowledge,
listen and heed, for wisdom is all.
Keep thou not silent when evil is spoken for Truth
like the sunlight shines above all.
He who over-steppeth the Law shall be punished,
for only through Law comes the freedom of men.
Cause thou not fear for fear is a bondage,
a fetter that binds the darkness to men.
Follow thine heart during thy lifetime.
Do thou more than is commanded of thee.
When thou hast gained riches,
follow thou thine heart,
for all these are of no avail if
thine heart be weary.
Diminish thou not the time of
following thine heart.
It is abhorred of the soul.
They that are guided go not astray,
but they that are lost cannot find a straight path.
If thou go among men, make for thyself,
Love, the beginning and end of the heart.
If one cometh unto thee for council,
let him speak freely,
that the thing for which he hath
come to thee may be done.
If he hesitates to open his heart to thee,
it is because thou, the judge, doeth the wrong.
Repeat thou not extravagant speech,
neither listen thou to it,
for it is the utterance of one
not in equilibrium.
Speak thou not of it,
so that he before thee may know wisdom.
Silence is of great profit.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pmAn abundance of speech profiteth nothing.
Exalt not thine heart above the children of men,
lest it be brought lower than the dust.
#13 - who said Gore was "inconsistant"? Did I miss something? Of course, I don't know what a "limp-wristed liberal" is - or, is that sorta the opposite of the "bud-drinking-couch-potato-burping-conservative"?
Gore was on the mark - and that's why the AG had to make a television appearance to try to do some admin spinning.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm#16,
January 17th, 2006 at 10:36 pmAll that #13 is attempting to do is derail the thread. Let their ignorance be their anchor and not yours.
That was from Nedra???
What happened to her? Did she suddenly develope a conscience and decide to start committing journalism again?
January 17th, 2006 at 10:36 pmGore was on the mark?:
January 17th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
AG Gonzalez is too slick by half. It says a lot about what little respect they have for the intelligence of the American people...OOOH! WAIT! Is the new season of "American Idol" on? Gotta Go!
January 17th, 2006 at 10:39 pm#16 How True. The AG doesn't come out of the closet for no reason, does he? The only time we hear from him is when he is putting on a spin to help his friend, bushie. It was a home run for Gore and the American people. He spoke like a REAL president (something that's been missing for the past 5 years).
January 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm#19,
You are taking a 30 second slice out of the speech, that is why you are confused. Place it back in its context and it will make absolute sense to you.
Glad I could help.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:42 pmGore was on the mark?:
January 17th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Optimist, please, explain it. Make Gore's deranged ramblings make sense. LOL
January 17th, 2006 at 10:44 pm13 - the smear was in saying "his hypocrisy has no bounds"; not in calling him "inconsistent."
January 17th, 2006 at 10:45 pmal gore, you're about half a decade behind schedule.
hooray anyhow!
January 17th, 2006 at 10:48 pmThat isn't a smear, Rod. Don't be so thin-skinned. LOL
January 17th, 2006 at 10:48 pm#21 - exactly my point - thanks! :) This administration knows they're in trouble - and it's pretty sad that you have to send out the top "legal" guy to defend a clearly illegal action. I don't know how the AG sleeps - but, given the rest of the spin the administration peddles, I'm sure they're all dizzy and/or drunk.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:49 pmAmerican,
Here's a cracker you Limbannity parrot. bbbrrraaawwwccckkk!!!
Oh yeah...LOL
January 17th, 2006 at 10:51 pmTim, if the administrations acts were "clearly illegal", then why did Forrest Gore say yesterday, "there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the president to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not."?
Please explain. LOL
January 17th, 2006 at 10:51 pmunAmerican,
The video is available since, as your posts reveal, you are illiterate. It is interesting that rather than actually contemplate what Mr. Gore had to say, you choose to attempt to smear and marginalize him. Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans understand democracy and the importance of considering other’s opinions and thoughts.
For you, poor boy, your blatant insecurity and pent-up sexual confusion cause you to just lash out and crave attention. I now see why you are so attracted to mr. bush. There is a cure for the Stockholm syndrome, but you have to want to achieve it. Good luck.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:52 pmThis, unfortunately, is the level of 'argument' coming from teh left today:
Deep. Very deep.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:52 pmOptimist chose to hurl insults at me rather than try to explain Gore's obvious inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Perhaps someone else can explain, since poor Optimist clearly is not up to it.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:54 pmRight. And Bush is not a nation builder, either. Isn't that what he said before he bankrupted America? This whole admin is so full of crap. Everything is spin.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:54 pmNedra was most likely responsible for the original story hewing to the party line; the correction was most likely inserted by an AP editor.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:56 pmScott McClellan might actually be worse at lying than Dumbya himself. He resembles the rich kid in your neighborhood growing up that sat on his fat ass making fun of everyone and everything because he didn't have anyone that paid any attention to him. The "butt" of all jokes has inevitably grown up to be the "butt" of all America. God help us with this monstrosity that calls itself leadership.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:56 pmWhy should any American obey any law when the Attorney General of the United States lies and defends those that do. Alberto Gonzales is a disgrace to this country and to all hispanics throughout America. He is nothing more than a lap dog, doing the work of his masters for 30 pieces of silver.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:57 pmThe WH lies, it gets spread far and wide by the conservative media, and the "news" whores never let the viewers know the true facts.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:58 pmerrr...not arguing...just feeding the troll
How's the wittle guy doing tonight? Here's some crackers...with peanut butter!
January 17th, 2006 at 10:58 pmSaying Forrest Gore was “inconsistent†is a “smear� Wow, that’s a real stretch, even for you limp-wristed liberals. ROFL
This is called "attacking the man" ... a sophomore's response to a valid criticism. Typical response from you folks: never respond to the subject of the argument you can't win, call someone a name instead. A trick every five-year-old has learned.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pm30 "...But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for many years and producing a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government." LMAO
January 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pmWhy do you choose to belittle Gore when there is a person in the White House that has no substance. What does he stand for beside war? He has done nothing to help the average American. Privatize Social Security? Help the victims of Katrina? Spy on Americans? Even the Supreme Court sided with Oregon's dignity in death. The Repugs are going down.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pmToney, the name calling is coming from the left here.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pmAl Gore's speech was factual and true, so Bush officials are trying to muddy it anyway they can to undermine it!
Alberto Gonzales should be ashamed, but he is a Bush toady so he does whatever he is told to do! McClellan just reads anything handed to him!
Americans must demand a Special Counsel to investigate the NSA Spygate Scandal! If Gonzales tries to prevent that, then he could be indicted for conspiracy!
January 17th, 2006 at 11:04 pmClinton's warrantless physical search may have been legal (i.e. not covered) under FISA, but its pretty blatantly illegal under the constitution, and short of a constitutional ammendment, no legislative action can make it legal. The 4th ammendement doesn't have an exemption for suspected spies in it.
NOT a bush supporter BTW I think he should be impeached.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:06 pm#30 - Please read up on FISA. It's almost like a dead horse being.. .well, you know the phrase. To conduct surveillance on American persons requires a warrant - even if it's optained 72 hours after the start of the "tap". The "physical" search - as the AG referred to wasn't part of FISA - until amended by then Pres. Clinton. So, then Pres. Clinton did nothing wrong - whereas the current administration side-stepped FISA - and that's "clearly illegal". Laws are laws - if you don't like them, change them (or try).
Oh well - that's my last crumb for the trolls.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:07 pmThe NSA Spying Scandal Center has a complete collection of all the latest news, statutes, court cases, DOJ memos and more for the exploding Bush domestic surveillance scandal.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:09 pm#45 - true - but remember, it was Clinton who amended FISA to include physical searches. That's something the right-wing nutjobs just don't recall.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:10 pmIs That the Smell of Cheap Polyester ......
... pants burning?...
January 17th, 2006 at 11:15 pmUnAmerican - #41 nailed your lying ass.
Let's hear your response.
(Thanks Rider).
January 17th, 2006 at 11:17 pmDon't let the truth get in the way of a good smear. Man, this White House is really in trouble. I can't believe they have a pro-torture attorney general who's basically put in the position of having to investigate himself. How pathetic.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:36 pmI just got a report from my 19 year old neice. Her friends are all over this spying b.s.
The young people are not happy to hear that the govt. is spying on them.
Voter registration among young people is going to reach record levels this year.
Lets give a big hand to the young crowd that is taking action! Clap, clap!
January 17th, 2006 at 11:52 pmI think this piece of honest reporting by the AP is the first of its kind I've seen in more than 5 years.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pmThere has been minimal public debate on Bush policies since day one.
When the msm reports the news with clarification of spin from facts, we will all be the better for it.
Live from the Whitehouse Closet, It is the Scotty McLellan and Jeff Gannon Hour.
-GSD
January 18th, 2006 at 12:09 amGore is our true and rightful President. Bush is not and will never be recognized by me as the President. He is a traitorous Fascist wetbrained weasel and that is being too kind at that.
January 18th, 2006 at 12:17 amI think every Bush supporter still in office now should publicly state their position on this spying issue now. It will come in handy in 2006 and 2008.
January 18th, 2006 at 12:26 amWhat say something on the record they can't deny later, twist to mean something else? Surely you jest
January 18th, 2006 at 12:34 amjust as the intelligence was stovepiped to fit the need of neocon fantasy...the legal
January 18th, 2006 at 1:14 amselection to excuse the outright criminal acts by claiming to be the embodiment of
and source of the legality is new ground...do as I say, etc... abu gonzales and his
pal torture yoo, one lies and the other swears to it... gore has their number and
all the nonsense coming from the whitehouse won't change a thing... next move
melt down on pennsylvania ave... stay tuned...
That Gore won the Presidency in 2000, is not in question.
I just wish he had shown then the gravitas he is showing now. Where was this tiger in 2000?
Nonetheless, better late to the party than never.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:16 amI'm glad Gore is showing that he has a pair, finally. It's amazing what happens when someone is guided by their own sense of moral outrage rather than polling. I hope he doesn't run for President again. He's a good guy, but (in my opinion) he's not a viable candidate any more. Too much baggage. The best thing he can do for our country is play the hatchet man -- and keep calling the administration out on all of its bullsh*t they’ve been pulling.
By the way, "American", you're not fooling anyone. We know you're really the multiple personalitied Five O'Clock Wally (aka N0-Censorship, et al) -- you should at least vary your language structure and word usage if you want to fool people. I'm imagine typing and thinking at the same time taxes your facilities -- it's hard work espousing your special brand of nincompoopery.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:31 amGood speech. This is the most evil administration I've ever seen. Let's end this bullshit.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:44 am[...] ThinkProgress has posted an update the the Gore-Gonzales debate re: illegal wiretapping. Link to it at: AP Reports Facts on White House Smear of Gore [link] [...]
January 18th, 2006 at 1:45 amAhh yes gravitas. I like the sound of that word. Gravitas. Gravitas.
I agree, Gore showed emotion, he stated his case clearly and he made me stand up and be proud to be an American again. I have been losing faith, but this is a nice turn of events.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:53 amThe larger issue to me is that the Attorney General is out defending illegal actions by the President instead of investigating them. No one in this administration is doing their job.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:56 amThe pubs might watch out, people might start to want him for President and there is no bubble-boy to protect them from him, with all the scandals that can't be blamed on the clintons, or liberals, or the really not liberal MSM, alot of the party apratus that they use to hatchet the oposition might be busy defending themselves in court if not from bubba in their cell.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:04 amyou can bet Gonzo won't appoint a Special Counsel to investigate.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:27 amThe Hubris is that they don't appoint one. They know they have the votes, so they just thumb there nose at the American public.
Think about it. What message does it send to the American people when the administration picks the most pug nosed snotty little candy assed punk like Scott Mcclellan and sends him out to tell us to stop asking questions and stonewall with the press?
Well Scott's not looking so confident today, even though he is still a snotty, nasty little smug prick.
Someone needs to remind him the Bush administration is not an empire, and Bush ain't the emperor, and Scott's not the Sherrif Of Nottingham. He's a public servant.
And it's time he started acting like one and start talking to the American people and their press with a little more Godd@##med respect.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:59 amAnd talking about Gravitas SpudgeBoy?
Check out David Gregory. There's a reporter who's earned his pay over the last few months.
I am waiting for him to call Scott out back to the Rose Garden to kick his ass.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:04 amPlease take some time and sign the Gore For President in 2008 petition.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:55 amSorry,
Al Gore's going to have to do a lot more than make a speech to make me ever vote for him again.
But I promise to keep watching him, and maintain an open mind. It was a good speech.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:08 amSo Dems are reduced to defending Gore's warrentless searches? So what if it's "legal" that matters little to the person who has had their 4th amendment rights abrogated. It's this kind of crap that makes me a radical leftist/minarchist and not a Dem "liberal" or are you calling yourselves "moderates" this week?
A pox on BOTH Repigs and Dems for warrentless spying. As much as Bush’s police state disgusts me the prevarications of DLC Dems like Gore bring up the rear in sleeze and violating our most basic civil liberties.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:26 amYou defend Aldredge Ames, and the fact that the US government used all legal means to bring this spy who sold CIA secrets to the soviet union or do you feel that he was justified in the violation of the trust placed in him for monetary gain. Besides it wasn't Gores search but one authorised by Janet Reno, but I'm sure Bill Clinton as commander in chief would have been briefed because of the sensitive nature of the secure material at hand.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:05 amI call it the "Clinton whine"..... Buuuutttt Cllliiiinnntttoooonnnn SSSSaaaiiiiidddd.
Whenever the Republicans or bush want to deflect attention away from themselves, they always begin with the Clinton Whine.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:33 am[...] It’s always nice when a reporter declines to act like a stenographer: [...]
January 18th, 2006 at 6:40 ammaybe now the republicans are getting hemmed in by their own lies and the abramoff scandal will help make that quite clear.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:54 amAP Reports some Facts - Clinton DID NOT Break the Law, Bush Did....
Say it isn’t so, the Media reports the facts!
January 18th, 2006 at 7:16 amIf I did not read it myself I would have not believed it. You may or may not know that the White House has attempted to dismiss Al Gore’s speech (you know he was elected president once) charging...
This is pathetic. We are celebrating the fact that a major media outlet is actually... GASP... doing its Job??? The fact that this warrants a post and nearly 100 responses shows how low our media has fallen. Yeah, way to go, AP, kudos, blah blah. But I'll save the uncorking of champagne for when we don't have to remark on an AP story that's factual.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:23 amSince, among the media, only C-span carried Gore's speech, I ask that all who can, run a paid summary or text of his speech in your local newspaper. The people must know what was contained in his seminal speech.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:44 am(Too often we also rail against “the media†without naming names. Always name names.)
Comment by nobody #7
nobody,
Here's a name for you, Andrew Sullivan...
No sooner than I smack Time magazine down for their hypocritical cover on that drunken skier I have to pick them up and give them props...
Andrew Sullivan's piece (on the very last page) covers Bushiva's "signing statements" (his way of thumbing his nose at any legislation he doesn't like)...
It's an eye opening piece and I KNOW ALL INBRED BUSHITES (who want to mend the error of their ways and become patriotic American citizens again) SHOULD READ IT!
January 18th, 2006 at 8:11 amUnfortunately the "media" has become nothing more than an echo chamber. Regardless how outrageous the lies spewed by by the Bush Administration or their spokespersons are, the "media" repeats them with no objective assessment. This is the real threat to our Democracy more so even than the Republican liars themselves.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:12 amTrinary Suka
January 18th, 2006 at 8:55 amSpecter ought to take heed of Gore's comments when he holds the NSA hearings... he knows the wiretaps are an impeachable offense...
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/01/specter-of-impeachment.html
meanwhile, all Gonzo knows how to do is spout the same lines over and over again...
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/01/gonzo-dodges-and-dances.html
January 18th, 2006 at 9:00 amoff topic, but like that ever stops me... thought this was worth the detour for those who hadn't seen:
FRESNO, California (AP) -- Under legal pressure, a rural school district agreed Tuesday to stop offering high school students an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design," an advocacy group said.
A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school district in federal court last week, saying it violated the constitutional separation of church and state by offering "Philosophy of Design," a course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by some kind of higher intelligence.
continued at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html
January 18th, 2006 at 9:05 amWhen the Righties began to use the Ames case as an example of how "Clinton did it too" to justify their extensive lawbreaking, it needs to be pointed out to them, (but why?) that this was a very specific case, regarding a specific person, who just happened to be GUILTY AS HELL!!! How this example excuses years of intentional wrongdoing, not even the same method being used, and with nothing viable to show for it. And dragging the AG out to defend this crap, and Bush's claim that JD lawyers and WH counsel had said it was legal. Like these Bush appointees are going to say Bush is a criminal??? Boggles the mind. And, Al Gore is on a roll, he came right back at the liars, and said they were liars. You GO AL!!
January 18th, 2006 at 9:12 am#79
January 18th, 2006 at 9:21 amDid you ever stop to consider the reason as to why the media ignored this story? Maybe its because they all realize how irrelevant Al Gore really is. When was the last time you heard anything that Dan Quayle or Walter Mondale said in a speech. I hope Al runs in '08.
Dan frikkin' Quayle? Now, there's someone worth listening to, boy! A real deep thinker, real insightful thinker, that Dan Quayle.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:27 amThis administration is just horrible. They support torture, illegal detention of prisoners, illegal wiretapping of Americans, and the outing of CIA agents for political revenge. They oppose health care reform and minimum-wage increases. They have bankrupted our Treasury and mortgaged the future of our children. They have ignored global warming and polluted our air and water. They have failed the Katrina victims. They appoint incompetent cronies and campaign contributors to important government posts. They cheat on elections, with help from voting machines made by Republican-owned companies. They have left our ports, chemical plants, and nuclear plants unguarded, along with the cargo loaded onto passenger airliners, while maintaining databases on threatening political enemies like the Quakers and PETA.
Their prescription drug plan, a massive giveaway to the drug and insurance companies, is ruining the lives of the nation's poor and elderly. Their education program is leaving so many children behind that dozens of states have been forced to "drop out" of it. Their "Patriot Act" undoes the protections offered to citizens by the Constitution, which our president has referred to as a "god-damned piece of paper".
The current crop of "Republicans" is incompetent, corrupt and dishonest. Their spokesmen - Limbaugh, Hannity, Robertson, etc. - spew hate and lies every day on mass media owned by corporate Republicans.
The Corporate Right cares about only two things - money and power, power and money, for themselves and their rich, powerful friends. The Religious Right cares about only two things - abortion and gay sex, gay sex and abortion. For them, there is no moral dimension to the horrifying blunder that is Bush's Iraq War, nor to widespread corruption in the Republican Congress, nor to explicit threats to our system of government and to our freedom. They are obsessed with abortion and gay sex, gay sex and abortion. Nothing else matters.
It's hard to tell from one day to the next whether we are headed for police-state fascism (the wet dream of the Corporate Right) or a bin Laden-style theocracy (the wet dream of the Religious Right).
How could anyone who loves their country possibly support this gang of treasonous criminals? Why do the Limbaughs and Hannities want the American Dream to become the American Nightmare? How did this happen to us?
January 18th, 2006 at 9:30 am#13 & #14 - Yes! Al Gore IS Eloquent, Incisive, Intelligent, Focused, Articulate, Fearless and Mannish. He posseses the skills sets, the inherent Alpha Male traits and all the pre-requisites that are so vital to a world leader. The lack of these qualities renders your shitheel petulant brat into a simpering stuttering chimp at the end of a leash that is controlled by Rove, Cheney & Company.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:36 amDon and No -- Censorship; The only limp wrists around here are yours and bush's. Now sit on that and twirl bitches!!!
Since Al Gore actually won the Presidency to which BushCo was appointed, he was our last legitimate Veep, and he has more brains and decency in a single nosehair than everyone in the current fraudulent admin combined, I believe he is uniquely qualified to speak out against the crimes of the Bushies. Not to mention the fact that he was screwed by and privy to the details of one of BushCo's greatest crimes.
Gore knows this country is being destroyed and he's using whatever visibility and cache he has left to wake the American public. The man should have shown as much courage in fighting the crooks in 2000.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:36 amGore has been the only one LYING and SMEARING. Gore has been mental ever since he lost in 2000. He was probably always a little mental which might explain Tipper's interest in mental health.
I love that Gore is flailing his arms politically. He is such an irrelevant, hateful and pathetic figure. In other words, he is the perfect post Bush v. Gore Democrat!
January 18th, 2006 at 9:42 amJay- unfortunately for Gore, you and your party, most of America supports the wire-taps. Once again, your party will be on the wrong side in this issue, but run with it anyway, it will keep you and the dems too busy to actually come up with an agenda to actually win an election.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:45 amSo Dems are reduced to defending Gore’s warrentless searches? So what if it’s “legal†that matters little to the person who has had their 4th amendment rights abrogated.
Comment by Matt Rogers #72
Hey dipsh*thead Matt,
That "person" was Aldrich Aimes, a bonafide traitor...
If what Clinton did was "illegal" the why didn't the republiscum impeach him over that (when they took over the reins of power in the congress in '94), instead of over a stained blue dress?
You inbreds, there's NO HOPE for you...
January 18th, 2006 at 9:46 amGood Morning TK...
Here's a special scone made up special for AM Limbannity parrots. bbbbrrraaawwwccckkkk!
January 18th, 2006 at 9:46 amThe important counterpoint to the "Clinton did it too" argument that the knuckledraggers are making in regard to personal searches and FISa is that Clinton recognized that this was wrong, endorsed and implemented a correction to the law/statute. End of story. The wingnut argument, per usual, is misinformed and/or dishonest. I expect nothing less these disingenuous whores.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:53 amThe “Clipper†project that Al worked on during his years in the White House must have slipped his mind as he was giving his speech. What a fricking hypocrite!
January 18th, 2006 at 9:53 amOh and Randy #92,
Most Americans DO NOT support wiretapping of Americans. The poll you're gleaning your information from asked (the only poll that supported, albeit dishonestly, your enthusiastic march toward fascism) if people would support "wiretapping of terrorist suspects within the U.S.". It's all about how "terrorist suspects" is defined, and if we go by the defintion of the rabid right, every American to the left of Genghis Khan falls into that category. You people are ignorant and foolish.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:59 am#92 So Randy, explain EXACTLY how these warrentless wiretaps were legal? Exactly, why didn't Bush use the FISA court?
January 18th, 2006 at 10:01 amI have this book called "Take Them At Their Words" by Bruce J. Miller, and it's filled with some great quotes by Republicans and conservatives. I found these two gems:
“The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president’s defenders. The news media characterizes the managers as 13 angry men. They are right that we are angry, but they are dead wrong about what we are angry about. We have not spent long hours poring through the evidence, sacrificed time with our families, and subjected ourselves to intense political criticism to further a political vendetta. We have done so because of our love for this country and respect for the office of the presidency, regardless of who may hold it. We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come.†--Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). "Senate Impeachment Trial of President Bill Clinton, Day 17," CNN.com, 2-9-99
I can only hope that the good Congressman feels the same way today. Then there was this interesting interview snippet:
Tony Snow: Let me ask you, if you're a member of the United States Senate and you're reading the Constitution, would a strict constructionist have ruled that Bill Clinton should have been voted out of, left office?
George W. Bush: Yeah, I mean, he broke the law. He lied under oath. Although I don't think that's got anything to do with, necessarily, strict constructionism. I think that's got everything to do with upholding the law.
--Fox News Sunday "Bush: Clinton Should Have Been Convicted and Removed From Office," Newsmax.com, 1-30-00
I wonder if he also feels the same way today as he did then about a president who breaks the law.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:03 amI see we have the angry troll here this morning. Good day to you NeD, or antibiotics king or whichever unclever facade(s) you are using today.
Where did unAmerican go? The corrupt republicans are running out of argument and that seems to have made them even meaner and angrier than usual. Good sign for progress in America.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:04 amsad that bloggers have to do the work for the press now...
January 18th, 2006 at 10:05 am#98
January 18th, 2006 at 10:14 amTo gain a warrant, you have to name the person you want to listen to, which isn't always available. Also, the average time to get the warrant is about 72 hours, more than enough time for the suspected terrorist to switch to another cell phone or land line number. Liberals are totally blowing this out of proportion and we are not buying it. Most Americans would rather give up some liberty for safety. It has been proven that several planned attacks have been twarted through the wire taps. There is no way they are going to stop. Liberals are making a mockery of this country in their desperate but futile attempt at regaining their power. It has to stop.
Give up liberty? What country are you in? Give me liberty or give me death! And before you say something stupid like 'you are asking for death by supporting terrorism' stop, nobody buys that goofy line. I suppose that is the only thing a dope like Bush could come up with.
Randy, you do know that Bush can get a RETROACTIVE warrant, don't you? He can go AFTER THE FACT, and get FISA's okay.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:17 am#95 Jay -- I'm glad you pointed this out. The example the wingnuts point to highlight how the system is supposed to work. 1) the president argues he has executive authority in this case 2) Congress says...oops, I guess he does 3) Congress changes the law (with, as you point out, Clinton's support).
Bush just stomps his feet and says "I'm going to do it my way right...now!!" (kind of sounds like my 3 year old)
January 18th, 2006 at 10:18 amMan, I used to be ambivalent about Gore, I even voted for Nader in 2000, but man, Gore for Prez all the way now!!!!
January 18th, 2006 at 10:21 amTerrorism, the new Communism.
Why is it that the militant, courageous, tough-on-everything Republicans and their witless minions are so fu*king scared all the time? The cycnical GOP leadership creates and perpetuates an omnipresent monster that's invoked to whip up support for their militant and imperialistic goals, and you suckers bite every time.
"A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither." - Thomas Jefferson, The United States of America's 3rd President
January 18th, 2006 at 10:21 amThis is all so funny when read through. If read critically though some things become apparent. The right wing mud slingers have no problem attacking another person who dares to criticize the Dear Leader or his policies. They attempt to say that two wrongs make a right etc… few, if any actually address the situation realistically.
Think about this…a private citizen criticizes the president or his policies. What is the response? From the White House the response is to put forth their version of "well, they did this too, so it makes what we do OK" In other words for the White House two wrongs do make a right, In their case the right to excess presidential power. Beyond that though is that their argument is a matter of public record and easily verifiable or disprovable. In the current case their argument is disproved by simple observation of their argument and comparing it to the historical timeline. Their argument was shattered so quickly it raises some very basic questions, again…sigh.
Since the argument was shattered one has to ask does the White House understand the law at all? Do they have any grasp on how this law has evolved over time to come to where it is today? If not, what level of competency do they have ? If they do not understand the law I would presume that their competency level is exceedingly low and they need to be removed from office and replaced by competence. If they do understand the law and its evolution, and I think they do, then what they are doing now is far more sinister.
Sinister when you think that they know what the law is, how it evolved and what they said. In this case their statements have to be for other reasons. Political hackery, damage control as 30% of the population will believe anything they say, or is it something worse? Is this one more step on the road to total presidential power? Do their statements on the matter amount to a post-signing presidential signing statement? We know why they make these statements, because the president wants the law to mean what he wants it too, in effect they believe that the presidents signing statement is the equivalent of the small print at the bottom of your military contract (something to the effect that everything above the note is all well and good , but the military reserves the right to use you in any capacity they have a need for…sign up for computer programmer, no problem, they'll take you. Where you end up is in the infantry).
The legality of the presidential signing statement is in my mind very questionable. Sure the supreme court has supposedly used them in the past, but I don't know how much weight they carried in those decisions. They may simply have been mentioned and then the actual law was followed. Of course items that are not law are also frequently looked at, things such as committee reports frequently make it into courts to decipher the intent of the law, but ultimately the actual law is what has ruled.
Anyhow, in either situation (incompetence, or presidential power grab/political smear) people should be very alarmed when the source of such obvious disinformation is coming from the White House.
The other thing I wanted to note is the Ames case. People have their panties in a bind over this one. It appears that if they dislike Clinton/Gore these people have a sudden new found reverence for the 4th amendment that they did not have previously. My reverence for the 4th and all other amendments is undiminished however. In the Ames case though the scream is that Clinton broke the law. If that was the case then Ames would most likely be walking the streets today, but he isn't. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the case or the various laws that apply, but if the searches were illegal all evidence from those searches and all evidence gained from evidence of those searches would have been tossed. According to the right, the courts are/or were decidedly liberal (another falsehood, even at the end of Clintons term most judges nationwide were republican appointees, though the courts should be neutral). If the courts truly were liberal then the judges would have delighted in throwing out illegally obtained evidence and Ames would be free. I already know the counter argument, but they ignored the law to protect Clinton, blah blah blah. Show the proof, until then stow the "but Clinton…" argument until the next fantasy comes along. Right now the legality of the searches is evident by the fact Ames is living a guest of our government for the rest of his life.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:28 amWhat I want to know is how far people on this site are willing to go in defending this country against terrorist attacks.
You guys scream at every tactic the administration uses to locate the bad guys and find out what they are planning (interrogations at GITMO, warrantless surveillance, e.g.).
So let's just let the captured terrorists go and forget monitoring known al Qaeda operatives. They'll like us better if we do and then they'll leave us alone, right?
January 18th, 2006 at 10:29 amMy local wingnut radio host immediately goes to the "are we in a war or not?" "Are we willing to fight this war or not?" Wrong question.
CC: who has said stop the surveillance? All we're saying is follow the law. As far as Gitmo goes, all we're saying is follow techniques that are, yes, humane, but more importantly MORE EFFECTIVE.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:33 am#53 the young let us all down in 2004. They had all the losers from MTV out there telling them to vote or die and such and they still couldnt turn off Survivor long enough to go out and vote.
My hope is with people like my parents. I grew up right wing christian Indiana republican where Reagan was our hero and there was a grand conspiracy against us christians by the whole damn world... crazy nut job life style I can tell you...growing up like that. BUT my parents still believe in the christian way ...they just dont think Bush, inc. are following christianity. They think Bush, inc. are sleaze balls and worship a false idol called $$$. Some conservatives believe in libery and America... and they vote. Would they like to see abortion illegal? yes. Do they think they should be spied on? No. They understand that democrats are going to get back in the White House like always and they dont want to be spied on by them either.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:34 amBefore you guys go all goo-goo over Gore you might want to balance what he said in this speech with the position of his administration in 1994:
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Hypocrite or crass opportunistic partisan? You decide.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:37 am#92 at one point most of America believed that American citizens of Japanese ancestry should be imprisoned. At one point a majority of Americans believed interracial dating should be illegal. At one point a majority of Americans believed that the native Americans were pests and should be exterminated. At one point a majority of Germans believed that all the countries problems were caused by the Jews. At the current point in time a majority of Saudi's believe that America is the great Satan. My point being that being in the majority in no way makes you right…being right makes you right. Besides a majority of Americans do not support illegal wiretapping…they support wire tapping know al-queda types of which we have zero proof that any actual al queda types have been monitored.
#99 I'll bet he still does except he believes that he as president can change the law to mean whatever he wants it to mean from moment to moment.
#102 I believe in the case of FISA they can simply use the numbers. Of course if they don't have the name of the person, how do they know who they are monitoring?
January 18th, 2006 at 10:39 amCC: and in 1995 they changed the law to cover physical searches. And, Bush's spying is happening on our shores. What is your point?
January 18th, 2006 at 10:40 amConcerned Conservative,
I don't know how to say this without using a few words of more than one syllable, but I hope you will understand it anyway.
We do care about defending the country. We do agree that wiretapping is a necessary tool. We simply want the president to obey the law set up to cover this situation. If he doesn't like the law, he should work to change it, then operate legally under the new law. (This is what Clinton did.)
We are demanding that the president obey the law. We believe that the president is not above the law; that he is a president, not a tyrant, king, or emperor.
Now some questions for you. Can you explain to me in simple terms why you believe the president is not bound by the laws of our nation? Do you have any concern at all regarding the Constitution and the continuation of the three-branch system of government that has served us well, up until now? How do you feel about checks and balances on the presidency?
January 18th, 2006 at 10:40 amIf anyone would like to e-mail Congressman Sensenbrenner to ask him if he still feels the same way as he did when he made the statement in comment #99, his e-mail address is: sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
Let's all ask him to put an end to abuse of presidential power and to initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush. You know he has no respect for presidents who think they are above the law.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:40 ampaydirt!...when the trolls get fired up...lolol....Gore is the MAN....that's why HE WON in 2000. *Thanks to Spudge boy for the pic. of bushe kissing the saudi prince. I printed it and it hangs in my business wall,no caption needed.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:41 am#111, but the law was changed in 1995. Stop the broken record. Jeez you keep repeating the same shit when it flies in the face of the evolution of the law. At the time the statement was made 1994 (which came BEFORE 1995 I believe) the physical search loophole had not been closed. It was closed in 1995.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:42 amCC,
The issue isn't how far opponents of this administration are willing to go to protect American citizens, but how far we fear the Bush administration will go with the never-ending excuse of "terrorism" to achieve their very public and obviously radical worldview. Here's an example of the GOP and this administration lying and manipulating the public using the "terror" card.
In the runup to the last presidential election, there were dozens of serious threats to our domestic security that got extensive coverage in our media daily. The HSD security matrix yo-yo'd regularly and we had Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft out front heralding folied plots and alarming and/or actionable intelligence to the point that we underwent a full four months of a nonstop state of fear as a nation. Much of this was exposed as fraudulent, bogus, out-of-date and we were told that we're better safe than sorry. Remember?
After the election, did the perpetual domestic fearmongering subside? It absolutely disappeared.
I rest my case. They're using the threat of terrorism to achieve political goals and maintain power. Fearmongering, plain and simple.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:43 am#118 Jay, You are absolutely correct. I remember all that. I remember, too, how Secretary Ridge said after he stepped down that many of these alerts seemed completely unnecessary to him and that the only reasons they seemed to have to raise them were political. They absolutely did use terrorism to achieve political goals, and they were shameless about it, and they lied afterwards about it.
How can the president's supporters be so blind? They love to quote the Founding Fathers, but like to conveniently forget the Founders' warnings about people like the bush administration. Ben Franklin's words fit them best: Those that are willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security. (I think that's about right.) Especially when it's other peoples' security they are so quick to give up.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:51 am118 -- But Jay, why are you afraid of efforts to protect us? There is no evidence that Bush is doing this to gain power. None.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:54 amAmerican,
The administration's act regarding secret wiretaps without warrant are illegal because they are contrary to the laws of Congress.
Gore's admission that the President might take unilateral action does not contain the phrase "unilateral action that breaks existing law".
Gore allows for Presidential initiative. He is against initiatives like COINTELPRO, gathering Japanese-Americans into internment camps, and pre-emptively invading a nation that posed no threat under false pretenses.
Please tell me what you liked about COINTELPRO, gathering Japanese-Americans into internment camps, and pre-emptively invading a nation that posed no threat under false pretenses.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:56 amIt was reported by that NSA insider that blew the whistle a week or two ago that there were millions of Americans that had their communications intercepted. In essence, the current administration is spying on its own citizens and using the the "terror" threat as an excuse, much as the Nixon administration used Communism and Vietnam as an excuse to undermine privacy and civil liberties. This is the same crew. Cheney, Rumsfeld, many of these clowns were a party to this same set of tactics back in the 60's and early 70's, so this isn't something new. The problem is, as it was during Vietnam, that the administration is trying to intimidate and crush public dissent by those opposing their imperialistic foreign policy goals and secret surveillance is a tool for them. A paranoid, illegal tool. The threat of terrorism is only the excuse, and you dupes fell for it.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:57 am#120 CC: Why are you okay with a president breaking the law on his whim?
But the boogedy-boogedy hasn't gone completely away. When this illegal spying scandal broke the Dick was front and center trying to scare everyone...same with Shrub
January 18th, 2006 at 11:00 am#122- Jay, you said: "The problem is, as it was during Vietnam, that the administration is trying to intimidate and crush public dissent by those opposing their imperialistic foreign policy goals and secret surveillance is a tool for them"
This is just paranoid speculation unless you can produce evidence of them "trying to intimidate and crush public dissent".
January 18th, 2006 at 11:02 am#123 -- Because I want him to become dictator.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:06 amCC, can we hope that you're joking?
January 18th, 2006 at 11:07 amCC -
President bush is doing all this to gain power. it;s all part of their Unitary Executive theory (debunked by many legal scholars) that esseentially says that the president can decide what the law is, too. Ther are out to greatly expand the powers of the Office of the President.
As for evidence of them trying to intimidate and crush dissent? That's exactly what the "free speech zones" were about. Whenever the president was out campaigning someplace, the Secret Service illegally ordered local police to set up areas away from the president (out of sight, mainly) where protestors could go and not be seen by the president. This was suppressing dissent.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:08 am#120, there is no evidence that Bush is not using his tactics to gain political power. But I think there is plenty of evidence that he is using the tactics to gain presidential power.
How about signing statements, damn near every law has the Bush interpretation attached to it.
How about the alert system. Are we really safer now that the election is over than we were the day before the election? The Alerts are gone now…circumstantial, yes, but better men than him are in prison because of circumstantial evidence.
With the domestic spying program is there any proof, other than his word (and we know how good his word is *cough* WMD *cough*) that the program only targets AlQueda?
What about his absolute refusal to cooperate with congress on any of their oversight duties?
What about all those statements coming out of the administration about how the president has this right or that right, even when congress says "nope, we did not give him that right" Or evened when Gonzales says "nope congress never would have allowed that"
How can you be blind to the obvious power grabs? One wonders what insidious not so obvious moves have slipped by undetected.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:09 amnow, see...up to now we've been able to have a reasonable conversation...that kind of comment starts you into parrot territory
January 18th, 2006 at 11:09 amThe unitary president was debunked when Nixon wa simpeached.
I can't believe that in spite of the mountains of evidence that Nixon was spying on political opponants, people still think he was doing nothign wrong.
#125, that may be the most honest thing you have pposted here. Thanks for being truthful.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:11 am#129 -- sorry, lost it there for a second -- didn't mean to be flip but I get so tired of the hyperbolic claims that this is just part of Bush's grand scheme to take over the world.
Of course he should follow the law. Seems to me though he hasn't stepped over the line very far.
Jane, any relation to Wayne?
January 18th, 2006 at 11:13 amCC, yes, we're married. You should listen to Wayne, he usually knows what he's talking about (and when he doesn't, he says so!)
January 18th, 2006 at 11:18 am#102 You should be embarrassed .. I know I am embarrassed for you. You clearly do not understand the facts or you are a liar... You have 72 hours to tell the FISA courts what spying you did up to 72 hours IN THE PAST. Thats right. You spy FIRST ...then you let the courts know that you spied and how. If you can spy FIRST but cant go to the courts afterwards to document what you were doing ...then you have a secret to hide from the courts... which means you broke the law and know it or else you wouldnt be hiding from the FISA court whos sole purpose for existance is for the president to report what spying he has been up to. It doesnt get much more black and white than that... and dont try to fool me about truth ..I grew up in right wing churches in Indiana going to church a couple times every week... I heard ALL about what is a lie and what is truth and HALF A TRUTH IS STILL A LIE.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:24 am#132 -- Jane, he seems like a reasonable guy to me even if we don't agree on many things...
#127 -- Wayne, not to nitpick but moving dissenters away from a site is more like displacing dissent than suppressing it. They did get to protest, did they not?
January 18th, 2006 at 11:31 amCC - " Seems to me though he hasn’t stepped over the line very far."
How far is okay? Please be serious about this. A little too far is has bad as too far. What part of that don't you understand?
January 18th, 2006 at 11:32 amConcerned Conservative -
Liberals are fighting and dieing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats won WWII. Every liberal that has a family wants Al Qeada stoped not an invasion of Iraq. The money spent on Iraq could have funded getting Osama instead. It could also have funded totally securing Americas ports, nuclear plants, and chemical plants. Liberals want security based on INTELLECT... not false bravado. Liberals have read history and know that humanity seems stuck repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over until finally America was born and the people and reason were put above ALL else including religion. Conservatives never learn. They ALWAYS believe they can do empire better than the last emporer... and they always end up destroying the people and their country.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:35 amCC -- To add to Bob's comment in #135...I'm looking at this very narrowly. That's not to say I don't think this is part of a larger power grab, but I'm looking at this particular case. The problem I have is that Bush is breaking a law he doesn't have to break b/c it gives him all the authority he needs.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:37 amCC - "So let’s just let the captured terrorists go and forget monitoring known al Qaeda operatives. They’ll like us better if we do and then they’ll leave us alone, right?"
First, many of the "captured terrorists" are just captured and were never terrorists.
Second, if they are monitoring known al Qaeda operatives then they should be able to "capture" them as well.
Third, I guess Osama does like us because, let see now, hhhmmmm, Oh yes Bush HAS LEFT OSAMA ALONE.
How about this CC: Let's get the hell out of Iraq because Iraq had ZERO to do with 911 and send all those troops to find Osama because HE DID IT, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 911. And then let's try another thing, let's FOLLOW THE LAW. Not just of our own land but the GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:39 am#134 CC,
Respectfully, what was suppressed in the "Free Speech Zones" was not the right to free speech so much as the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. When you tell people who want to show their president that they are unhappy and the government makes them stay out of his sight, that is denying them their First Amendment rights.
I could protest in my own living room, but it's meaningless if nobody sees it. This administration has made a policy of preventing the president from seeing that anyone thinks he's wrong.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:39 am#102 Let's count the lies:
To gain a warrant, you have to name the person you want to listen to, which isn’t always available. Also, the average time to get the warrant is about 72 hours, more than enough time for the suspected terrorist to switch to another cell phone or land line number.
John Doe warrants are perfectly legal. The warrant can name a person based on context, as in "persons using cell phone number xxx-xxxx" or "persons at xxx address". Since surveillance can legally begin up to 72 hours before a warrant is even requested under FISA, your second point is invalid. And since the warrant process is completely secret under FISA, there really is no reason that a suspect would be tipped off to change phones.
Liberals are totally blowing this out of proportion and we are not buying it. Most Americans would rather give up some liberty for safety.
Wow. Ben Franklin would say you deserve neither. Let me ask, how do you get the urine stains out of your sheets?
It has been proven that several planned attacks have been twarted through the wire taps.
Actually, the administration has given exactly one example of an attack that was thwarted through this program, the idiot truck driver that was planning on bringing down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. That's almost as good a plan as destroying the Pentagon with a pickaxe. I suppose it's possible, but it would take more time than most people have. Also, recent reporting shows that the NSA program has been mostly a washout, diverting needed resources from important counterterrorism activites to hunting down and interviewing unthreatening, mild-mannered American citizens.
There is no way they are going to stop.
Sure there is. When sensible Republicans finally realize that the Rule of Law isn't just a cudgel to punish lying over infidelity, Bush will be impeached.... BWAHAHAHAHA. Okay, sorry. Seriously, though, after Dems take back both houses this fall, we'll see how long this program continues.
Liberals are making a mockery of this country in their desperate but futile attempt at regaining their power. It has to stop.
What has to stop is Republican corruption, incompetence, and cronyism. Most Americans understand or are beginning to understand that. You almost certainly never will. See you at the polls!
January 18th, 2006 at 11:47 am#102
January 18th, 2006 at 11:52 amThe FISA court judges are available 24/7 to issue warrants. Bass, the legal counsel who participated in drafting FISA, and who directly worked on nitification, explained clearly how FISA was written to be effective in all contingencies and scenarios.
CC,
Wayne, not to nitpick but moving dissenters away from a site is more like displacing dissent than suppressing it. They did get to protest, did they not?
How about the next president order the secret service to only allow christians to pray in their own basements at home. I mean they can still pray right? So whats the problem?
January 18th, 2006 at 11:55 amI have already lost what developing hope I had in AP. Today in my two newspapers, the AP article was lopped off so as to not include the fact that the FISA law regarding physical searches did not become law until 1995.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:56 amAlso, the man involved was already a known spy; the Clinton administration was not on a "fishing expedition" which is illegal.
#124 CC,
Provide evidence that they're trying to crush dissent? You are joking right?
Listen to their rhetoric. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, all of them have publicly stated that criticizing the administration undermines the "war on terror". Not allowing citizens that oppose Bush's policies to attend public events is an example of not tolerating dissent. Smearing Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke and John Murtha with their rightwing echo chamber is not tolerating dissent. Bush claiming that "it'd be a heckuva lot easier if this were a dictatorship so long as I was the dictator", GOP'ers trying to pass legislation that imprisons war protesters is not tolerating dissent, and I could go on and on and on. Everything they do is about spin and destroying their opposition. Come on man, you know this.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:56 amLike Al Gore said > Bush broke the wiretaps FISA laws, so there must be a Special Counsel investigation of the NSA Spygate Scandal!
January 18th, 2006 at 11:58 am#134 CC -
One important point I neglected to mention (possibly because it was so obvious to me that I didn't think it needed to be said, but I guess it does): With the exception of military installations and certain federal buildings, the entire United States of America is a Free Speech Zone! There was absolutely no justification for moving protestors.
And if anyone thinks for even a second that these people were a threat to the president, then I hope that person has nothing to do with security. If someone who did want to harm the president paid any attention in his planning, he would have seen that people who wore Bush/Cheney '04 stickers were allowed to get real close to the president. So moving the protestors was not a security issue. It was an effort to suppress dissent. (They wanted Americans who disagreed with the president to believe that protesting was a waste of their time because they would never get near enough to him that he would see them.)
January 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pmLast night on TV Azteca in Guad there was a report that Bus had been caught spying on Mexico using the NSA.
There was a WRITTEN apology from Condi Rice and evidently thousands of pages of documents were released to Mexico after they got caught red handed.
The TV anchor, when speaking of Bush, put his forefinger to his temple and did small circles when talking of Bush.
Check this out folks, now Mexico, who is next? Canada. Why not England and Austrailia?
January 18th, 2006 at 12:12 pmPaul, seriously, the TV anchor made the "loco" sign? I love it. Unfortunately, it's not at all funny that Bush has not only been spying on American citizens, but on our friends and allies. Obviously, though, no one tried to make the bullshit excuses to Mexico that they're making to Americans! Paul, if you can get a hold of a transcript of Condi's apology letter, pass it on!
January 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pmI love how these people accuse Republicans of smear. The sole purpose of this site is dedicated to SMEAR. You don't have an agenda and once the Barrett Report is released tomorrow, you will have tough time pushing the culture of corruption charge when Hillary has to answer to illegal IRS audits of political enemies.
Liberals don't get it. You're not needed anymore. Move to Canada.
January 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#149 Tetra -
Event: Bush caught spying on Americans without warrant for past 4 years.
Wingnut response: Clinton did something in '94, (the only minor difference being that was legal and what Bush did was illegal.)
Event: Jack Abramoff caught in scandal, connected to dozens of Republicans.
Wingnut response: 10 years ago one Democrat may have done something wrong. Wait for the "Barrett Report", that'll show ya!
Tetra, you just need to be be hugged you sad, sad fool...
January 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pmAP Reports Facts on White House Smear of Gore...
I swear one of the only victories that the blogosphere has granted America is probably the most critical victory since the Revolutionary war. Thousands of fact checkers double checking the Republican controlled media and printing the truth has started ...
January 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#149
The Barrett report was meant to focus on his investigation of former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, who was found to have lied to FBI investigators regarding hush money paid to an ex-mistress. But the independent counsel went far beyond Mr. Cisneros and also examined improprieties in the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service meant to protect the housing secretary as well as other Clinton appointees.
The Republican leadership has been wary to press for the release of the report. The sources said that with several Republican congressmen tainted by links to indicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff, the Republican leadership believes the sleaze issue could boomerang against the GOP in the 2006 elections.
January 18th, 2006 at 12:59 pmWhat ever you do don't bring anymore light to the illegal dealing of the GOPissants
January 18th, 2006 at 1:02 pm#136
January 18th, 2006 at 1:04 pmYou really must be naive if you think that getting Bin Laden would end all threats of terrorism in this country. He is but one man. Here is a theoretical - say we did capture or kill him, does that mean there aren't ten ready to follow in his footsteps? Taking the fight to enemy on their turf has left them disorganized and uncapable of carrying out another large scale attack. They have been reduced to a few train bombings. The left in this country will never understand how to defeat terrorism. Fortunately, they won't have to because they will never return to power like they once had. Excuse me, the Democrats won WWII. Thats a new one. Never read that in any history book. Next, you are going to tell me that FDR or his administration never made any mistakes either. I know Bush is not perfect, but he has prevented another attack for the last four and half years. If you don't like living here, why don't you just move to Canada or France where they like your kind.
#152 - whatever. Drink your own kool-aid, but the American people are not dumb. They understand that corruption is a bi-partisan issue. With Dingy Harry refusing to give $$ back to Jackie and friends, we'll have a strong case to fight back on.
The GOP House is cleaning house literally while Democrats keep the same haggered hypocrite Nancy in charge. GOP will run on reform and BEAT you at the polls when it matters. Not to mention issues - the Democratic platform of slandering the right-wing base, the President and America will not be a winning one.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#146 -- Wayne, why did they move the protest groups far away from the Fleet Center in Boston during the Democratic presidential convention? Safety? Nope. To suppress free speech? Not really. They did it because they were afraid of the potential political fallout. Same reason Bush did it.
Just politics, that's all. Nothing more sinister than that.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pmTetra King ... even if it takes violent revolution and exercise of our 2nd amendment rights people like you will be side lined in this country. It is people like you that were defeated in the American revolution and in the civil war. You can keep thinking all your BS about how HALF of America will just sit by and let you facists take over... think again. Real Americans will die defending freedom here at home. Give me liberty or give me death is from America ...not Iraq. Real Americans want liberty and democracy... not conservatism and republicanism... That is the whole point to America in the first place. The moment we give up on that dream we let people like you destroy the memory of people like Ben Franklin. And frankly I would rather see people like you dead than to let the work of people like Ben Franklin be destroyed.
There is one thing about humanity that you seem to ignore. Humans are DONE with slavery. We are DONE with KINGS. We are DONE with being ruled over. From the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights WE THE PEOPLE have shown we will die defending our rights ...against people like you. Be careful what you wish for... because when we get the Presidency back we may still be very very angry like we are now ...and the Patriot Act just might be looking into YOUR bedroom... and listening to YOUR phone calls... and if we dont like what we hear ...maybe YOU will be an enemy combatant... Dont take my word for it... look at the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, all the uprisings against the English Kings, and even Ghandis uprising in India.
Ben Franklin was a loyalist of the English crown... until they treated him like dirt. Then he joined in with the "limp wristed liberals"... GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH! ... that is the cry of a true American. You better pray you never hear that cry from Americans again in the streets because if you do ... well revolutions get messy and people like you sometimes just disappear. Be careful what you ask for ..you just might get it.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#154 Randy,
There's that logical fallacy again.
If Event B follows Event A, it does not mean that Event A caused Event B.
Likewise, if Event B fails to follow Event A, it does not mean that Event A prevented Event B.
Just because we haven't suffered another attack like the one on 9-11, it doesn't mean that it is because of the President's so-called "efforts". Stop throwing out that chestnut.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pmCan someone please explain, or refer me to an internet explanation, why the 1994 Clinton/FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without a search warrant was not a 4th Amendment constitutional violation, as argued by the Bush administration, regardless of pre or post FISA law?
January 18th, 2006 at 1:12 pmRandy,
It takes local police agencies three days to get a warrant to search your house. The FISA courts are open 24 hours a day and grant warrants in the middle of the night. Most times imediately.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:14 pmWhen Jamie Gorelick said the President had the "inherent authority" it is presumed among some that the President has the inherent authority! Would the passage of any law take from the President his inherent authority? I presume no - focus on the real issue.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:18 pmCC,
I never heard about any protest groups at the Democratic convention being moved, and I find it quite hard to believe, but I will accept for now that what you say is true. It would still be wrong.
And it wasn't just at the conventions that protestors were removed from the President's sight. It was at every event he went to and I don't know that it has stopped. It may still be going on. Does anyone else have information on that? Are protestors stilled hauled away from the president's sight at his speech events?
Stop defending President Bush's illegal actions. It makes you look desperate, and I don't think that's what you want.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:20 pmAmes house being searched is being used as justification for illegal wiretapping of millions of Americans???
Get real how does ONE instance justify millions of wrongs?
Bush broke the FISA law willfully, so that is grounds for his resignation or impeachment!
January 18th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#154.. I dont leave because I cant wait to put people like you on trial for treason against America. After all these years since 911 we have yet to attack the country that attacked us..Saudi Arabia.
In fact you traitors have defended and protected the enemy. I live here in Indiana and I can tell you it is easy to shame my republican friends because they dont like defending the Saudis ... infact they cant. They wish those pictures of Bush holding hands with the Saudis didnt exist... YOU have sold out America to the enemy. And you WILL pay. You can go on dreaming that you will not lose power and retribution will never come. But those are fantasies. The reality is you will pay. You will be branded a traitor against America by supporting the Saudis. By protecting Osama and Al Qeada from American vengence. Yes YOU have protected Osama by diverting America away from the Axis of Evil that is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Afghanistan was nothing more than an outpost and Americans (Republicans and Democrats) dont like that Osama and his supporters were let go while Americans are dieing for a cause that does not hit the problem straight at its heart in the land of Saud. America will come to its senses and we will free ourselves from Saudi oil and then there will be hell to pay for 911. 911 was far bigger than pearl harbor and America deserved vengence ... and look what we got. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#153 I suggest you read your history and find out who were the obstructionists in WWII. Try looking under republicans against the world war. Or maybe republicans for Hitler, it's not hysterical made up shit either, it's documented historical fact, deal with it. Remember WWII - Democrat president, Democrat House, Democrat senate probably our nations high water mark in world affairs.
Also #154 So Binladen does not matter to you because there will always be more to take his place. If that is the case, then why bother putting anyone in jail for any crime? There will always be more to take their place. Why even fight the war on terror, there will always be more terrorists to take the place of the ones we get. I see you for what you are and that is a defeatist unamerican traitor. By the way you suggest that others move the Canda and France, how about you moving to Cuba, they already have the type of all powerful government there that you seem to be longing for.
#155 - Cleaning house? How? The only house cleaning is coming in the form of indictments. Besides that lets see, the most recent rule that repubs want hmmm...oh yes if you take a trip, or get a meal, or some other sort of gift froma lobbiest you can only accept it if they also make a campaign contribution? Wow, that sure sounds like some pretty severe house cleaning. Good job.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:27 pmRemember republicans think any warranties searches authorized by the president are legal, we know that much. Now with the Ames situation…
I don't know the particulars, but there has to have been some loophole in FISA, since closed in 1995, that allowed the search. Other than that I'm not certain, though I am certain that Ames is in prison and the evidence obtained was not tossed, so somehow it was legally obtained and did not taint the whole case.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:31 pmCan someone please explain, or refer me to an internet explanation, why the 1994 Clinton/FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without a search warrant was not a 4th Amendment constitutional violation, as argued by the Bush administration, regardless of pre or post FISA law?
Comment by pmse57 — January 18, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
Here are some resources for you:
(...)at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.
The Echelon Myth
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
the Ames case is a textbook example of how the FBI was able to uncover a deadly foreign agent without the use of extra-legal authority from the President.
The FBI followed proper protocol for searches of Ames's home and office through the Attorney Generals (AG) office. Also, as required by FISA, all electronic surveillance of Ames was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:32 pmAldrich Ames spy case is not an example of illegal warrantless wiretaps or searches by the Clinton Administration.
Gerald - you've been watching too much Braveheart and I have no idea why. A better movie you might see yourself in is Schindler's List you brownshirt!
AND no asswipe, people like me were the ones on the right side of the Rev war, not you. You take anything Old Europe has to give instead of thinking for yourself. We left Europe to get away from their govt excesses, not continue them the way liberals want to.
AND your threats of exercising your 2nd amendment rights show how unglued, unstable and pathetic you are. Thank god people like you are working for the Democrats. The biggest problem to unseating the GOP majority is morons like yourself.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#162 -- Wayne, re. the Dem convention, check this out:
http://www.wpxi.com/politics/3575057/detail.html
I'm not defending Bush. I say let's have an open discussion about what we (American people) think should be allowed -- not this legalistic finger pointing. I believe the President should have more leeway in times of war. If you don't, then fine, we can agree to disagree. But the question should be put to the people.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:39 pmTaking the fight to enemy on their turf has left them disorganized and uncapable of carrying out another large scale attack. They have been reduced to a few train bombings.
And a few embassy attacks, a dozen or so attacks on American ex-pats residences, a few dozen disco bombings worldwide, a missile attack on our navy in a Jordanian port, plus several thousand dead American soldiers, and a civil war in Iraq. That's all they've been able to accomplish since Bush started his ... what's that strategy again? Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here? Except we do, hence the need for illegal wiretapping.
The left in this country will never understand how to defeat terrorism.
By trading arms for hostages, and inviting the Saudi King over for some hand-holding?
January 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#170, as soon as Congress passes a declaration of war, and Bush declares that he is conducting military operations on American domestic soil, then we can talk about stretching his powers in that regard.
And the question has been put to the people through their elected representatives in Congress, and they said no domestic wiretapping without court oversight. It is Bush who does not want this question put to the people.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:45 pmThis president pissed away any chance at being granted "leeway" a very long time ago, like as soon as they changed their rationale for Iraq from "imminent threat" and "mushroom cloud" to "freedom from tyranny". Puuuuleeeze! This administration has worn out its welcome and torched its credibility a long time ago. They deserve nothing in the way of credit or leeway as they work to destroy everything that this country is supposed to stands for.
If you support them, you are accomplice to a crime.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:45 pm169... The second amendment rights are not a threat. They are a right. A right written into the Constitution by people that most certainly were not crazy. Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. No craziness there. They were men of reason. And when they reasoned that the conservatives thought they were "better" than the 2nd rate citizens of America... well the rest is history...
People like you were called "loyalists" ...the loyalists lost. You really should go beyond the little bit of history you read (maybe) in highschool.
The revolutionaries were called terrorists and traitors against the King... they were called lunatics. But they were not unhinged... they had been pushed too far by people like you ... People that were happy being "british citizens" had enough and were going to do whatever it took no matter the risk to be free. Free from tyrany. Remember it is YOUR president that has disdain for the Constitution. It is YOUR president that wants to be dictator. A democrat would be called out in a second if he/she talked that way. Hell even most republicans would... but you right wingers hate America and what it stands for. You dont even feel ashamed of this wannabe dictator that hates the Constitution.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:48 pmWow #169 is seriously deluded about American history. This country was founded in liberalism. The conservatives of the day wer ethe Tories who wanted to preserve their way of life and keep the staus quo. And like today they were in the minority, but never fully realized that they were the minority...just like today. Sure the thugs control all three branches of power, and win elections, but that is more marketing than anything. When you get a true reading of how the American people feel about issues there is really no contest. I'm not talking about some dumb assed Faux News poll loaded with leading questions, I'm referring to honest polls.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#170 CC - I'll check the link later. Thank you for providing it.
As to giving the president more leeway "in time of war", the libertarian side of me is saying, "Not so fast, Louie."
When the framers said that the President would be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, they were thinking of wars in the conventional sense. The so-called "War on Terror" is no more a war in the conventional sense than the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". It was never their intention that the president could merely claim "We're at war with these people" and that this would justify him acting under "war time" powers. That is why they gave the Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, and it was meant that this would be war against another nation state, not a noun or concept.
The President has abused his authority and broken the law by his own admission. (Perhaps he didn't see it that way, but he admitted doing something that was illegal and his defense that it was legal is weak at best.) The libertarian side of all of us, whether Conservative or Liberal, should be highly agitated at what he has done.
It was illegal. It was indefensible. And it was impeachable.
And it should be "put to the people" only after they have been properly educated about what they are deciding. Too many bad decisions have come from an ill-informed decision maker.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pmHistorical delusion is part and parcel of the Bush strategy. The British loyalists who opposed the American revolution had no problem with domestic spying, if it kept them safe from terrorists.
Also, how many times have you heard Republicans refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln?" Yet when I look at Lincoln's electoral maps, they are nearly identical to Al Gore and John Kerry.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm#176 -- Wayne:
"The libertarian side of all of us, whether Conservative or Liberal, should be highly agitated at what he has done". Agreed.
I disagree with so much of what Bush has done, but I think he's right on how to fight terror.
I lean conservative but am more libertarian than anything else.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm178 ... Do you support the Saudis?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jan15,0,6282573.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Bush sure does.
Would you support FDR if in WWII he invaded Spain and said look we got the people that attacked us?
Do you love Saudi Arabia more than America? READ THAT LINK ABOVE... That is true because of Bush ... and his supporters.
Do you support Bushes handling of the Saudis?
January 18th, 2006 at 2:05 pmConcerned Conservative,
War requires a specific declaration of congress against a foreign government. No such declaration exists, therefore your beliefs aren't pertinent to the topic. The Al Qaeda is a criminal, not a governmental organization. You don't declare war on criminals, you arrest and prosecute them. Gangs and the mob are constantly a risk for cities and americans alike - yet we don't throw away the constitution in order to catch them, nor should we. In 2001, almost 21,000 homicides and 31,000 suicides occurred, which is more than an order of magnitude more violence than occurred in the 9/11 towers. Get some perspective, and it should prevent irrational fear make you believe irrational ideas.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:06 pm"I disagree with so much of what Bush has done, but I think he’s right on how to fight terror.
I lean conservative but am more libertarian than anything else. Concerned Conservative"
Why would you believe something that the facts indicate aren't true. Virtually ever international expert agrees that Iraq was a gift to Bin Laden and Al Qaaeda recruitment. And the use of torture and the warrantless spying just proves to the world that the US doesn't respect laws or human rights. Bush has done more to undermine our efforts to fight terrorism than Bin Laden ever could have.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pm178...
Do you like seeing Saudis smug little freakin faces on TV walking around in Crawford with Bush? Dont you see it in their eyes thinking "Heh ..we are untouchable... we bought Bushco.."
January 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pmI would like to thank ThinkProgress for its Service to America.
http://www.electgore2008.com
January 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pmCC,
If you're more Libertarian than anything, you should be extremely pissed about this issue. Libertarians do not accept the argument that it's okay for the government to spy on you because if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. The whole point is that they do not have the legal right to spy on anyone they want without gong to a judge and getting a court order. This is precisely what the president did, and his "war powers" excuse is not a valid one.
Also, I'm frankly baffled at how you could agree with how the president is (supposedly) fighting terror. He dropped his focus on getting the people who attacked us in order to begin the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq (and it was both unnecessary and illegal). It's hard to accept that invading Iraq had anything to do with fighting the war on terror. His public justifications have all proven false, and there is plenty out there that suggests they were less concerned with having us support them than they were with having us stop them in the first place. They knew their case was weak, and they knew the rest of the world wasn't going to go along with the invasion. (Any thoughts that they might have learned this from their illegal domestic spying?) So they went ahead and launched the invasion despite what anyone who knew the truth said.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:22 pmAlso, I’m frankly baffled at how you could agree with how the president is (supposedly) fighting terror. He dropped his focus on getting the people who attacked us in order to begin the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq (and it was both unnecessary and illegal). It’s hard to accept that invading Iraq had anything to do with fighting the war on terror.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Here...once again let me clarify things for you. It's not a war on "terror". It never was. The Muslims had it right from the beginning. It's a war on Islam. There, I've said it, again.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:34 pmAlso, the average time to get the warrant is about 72 hours, more than enough time for the suspected terrorist to switch to another cell phone or land line number.
Comment by Randy #102
Raggedy randy,
You're a liar and the truth ain't in you...
What expertise do you claim to have, other than the Bush*t talking poits you got from Pus Limphog and Scum Panties?
The 72 hours is the time limit NSA counterterrorism agents have to eavesdrop before applying for/gaining a warrant....
Fifteen days in time of war...
You're the one who's exaggerating and blowing sh*t out of proportion you treasonous bastich...
We need a purge to ensure that your recessive gene pool is completely eradicated...
January 18th, 2006 at 2:36 pmThe United States and France rejected Iran's request for more negotiations on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying Wednesday "there's not much to talk about" after Iran resumed some atomic activities.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2006/jan/18/011803737.html
Even the f'ing French are starting to get the picture. What's your problem Wayne?
January 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pmWe need a purge to ensure that your recessive gene pool is completely eradicated…
Comment by big papa
Did you get that blanket I sent you?
January 18th, 2006 at 2:38 pmI love that Gore is flailing his arms politically. He is such an irrelevant, hateful and pathetic figure. In other words, he is the perfect post Bush v. Gore Democrat!
Comment by Tetra King #91
Trichomonas King
Your inbred parents must either be rotting in hell, or at the ticket booth...
"He who laughs last laughs best" inbred and make no mistake this comedy of errors ain't over...
January 18th, 2006 at 2:40 pmYou. And people like you.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:41 pm186 -- hey I am blonde haired and blue eyed ...all recessive! Dont be purging people based on their DNA!!
Heh I just realized how the right wingers probably have no freakin clue what we mean by recessive DNA!! God did it!
January 18th, 2006 at 2:42 pm187 .. You are changing the subject ... Iran does not equal Iraq. If Iran wont stop or at least prove that they are not making weapons then lets go to War... lets just not let the reich wingers be in charge when we do because they will not only attack Iran, but will continue attacking America as well.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:44 pmYou. And people like you.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
We're the ones paying the bills buddy. I know you don't have a problem with that. Now, do you understand why our little visit to Afghanistan and Iraq has little to do with a few dirty faced scoundrels, or don't you?
January 18th, 2006 at 2:45 pmI-RIGHT-I...
Do you support the Saudis?
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ nationworld/ world/ la-fg-saudi15jan15,0,6282573.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Bush sure does.
Would you support FDR if in WWII he invaded Spain and said look we got the people that attacked us?
Do you love Saudi Arabia more than America? READ THAT LINK ABOVE… That is true because of Bush … and his supporters.
Do you support Bushes handling of the Saudis?
January 18th, 2006 at 2:46 pmIRI,
Excuse me? But what exactly do you mean by "We're the ones paying the bills"? And I don't understand the rest of your point, either. Could you try being just a little less obtuse (and racist, for that matter, although I know that's difficult for you.)
January 18th, 2006 at 2:47 pm187 .. You are changing the subject … Iran does not equal Iraq. If Iran wont stop or at least prove that they are not making weapons then lets go to War… lets just not let the reich wingers be in charge when we do because they will not only attack Iran, but will continue attacking America as well.
Comment by Gerald Gibson
I'm telling you we knew in the mid-eighties we'd be fighting the Muslim extremists and have been preparing ever since. The "War on Terror" was pure bullshit. The WMD's we did think were in Saddam's possession because he did use them and hey, we know he had them because WE (among others) sold them to him. But that was never the point. Saddam presented us with the opportunity to move men and material to the front line. The war is a cultural one. We must tame Islam or we will be forced to destroy them completely.
The choice is invade and conquer an ideology/religion and convert them to something less radical or kill them by the tens of millions. That's it in a nutshell. That's the big picture. What we are doing is necessary and the next round with Iran will be very important. I just hope the Surrender Monkeys don't offer too much help.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:53 pmDid you get that blanket I sent you?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #188
Yeah, your daughter loves it...
...she was getting tired of the carpet burns...
...You didn't teach her that doggy howl didja?
Curls the toes...she's goooood!!!!
January 18th, 2006 at 2:54 pm196 ...if that is true then you and all like you must be put in prison.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pmbig papa...you're a baaaaad man, but funny :)
This I-R-I creep is several sandwhiches short of a picnic and it does no one any good arguing with such a dimwitted, racist hatemonger. Fu*k him, he's not worth the keystrokes.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pmNo, IRI, you're the ones spending the money, not paying the bills. Our children and grandchildren will be paying the bills.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:02 pmIRI,
Excuse me? But what exactly do you mean by “We’re the ones paying the bills�
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Simple, the top 5% pays most of the taxes. Southern conservative boys make up a disproportionate share of the men fighting for our country, therefore "We pay the bills."
And I don’t understand the rest of your point, either. Could you try being just a little less obtuse (and racist, for that matter, although I know that’s difficult for you.)
Sorry you think I'm a racist. I prefer to think of myself as a racial gourmet and student of humanity.
Do you get the picture on Iran or not?
January 18th, 2006 at 3:06 pmStick to flies
January 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#178: Concerned Conservative:
I disagree with so much of what Bush has done, but I think he’s right on how to fight terror.
I lean conservative but am more libertarian than anything else.
Comment by Concerned Conservative — January 18, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
What has he done to fight terror that is right? That is a serious question. Are we safer simply because this administration tells us we are? Pure unadulterated bullshit. It's fine to spew all sorts of rhetoric about being "tough on terror", but actions speak louder than words. Answer a few questions for me CC:
Why hasn't this administration done everything in it's power to account for all loose nuclear material? No nuclear material. No mushroom cloud threat.
Why hasn't this administration improved border security, protected our ports and harbors or beefed up security at chemical plants?
Do you not agree that those steps would help keep us safe from an attack? Doesn't it make you wonder why these steps haven't been taken? Go ahead CC ask yourself why. Why are you safer? Give me specific things that this administration has done to keep americans safe.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe choice is invade and conquer an ideology/religion and convert them to something less radical or kill them by the tens of millions.
Now where have I heard such hatred before? Oh, yeah, I remember:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
- Ann Coulter, "This Is War,"National Review Online,9-13-01
That got her fired. You deserve no less. And you can "prefer" to think of yourself any way you want, but it won't change the truth that you make a lot of racist comments in here.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pmNo, IRI, you’re the ones spending the money, not paying the bills. Our children and grandchildren will be paying the bills.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Hi Jane! If that's the case then I suggest you make sure they don't go to public schools.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI-RIGHT-I ...
The top 5% made their money because of the infrastucture built by the other 95%... Without the PEOPLE you dont have 5% of squat. If you want to play that game then its time for a jubilee ... dont know what that is? Its Jewish ...look it up. Aristocracy is not what America is about... it isnt about communism either..which is what makes America special... we are in the middle... or at least we were. You dont want to be part of the team? You want to sit up high and slave drive THE PEOPLE??? Heh well then America has a surprise for you.
I grew up very poor. Now I make more money than almost anyone I know as a computer programmer. I have seen both sides... and your piss poor opinion of what America is about is a sham.
The southerns would be the ones gettin er done in Iraq. Eventually they will get a decent education in America and it will be much harder convincing them of all the rediculous BS they swallow today from anyone in a suit...
Also remember your place... the south LOST .. They lost the Civil War...they lost the KKK movement... and they LOST the civil rights movement. They seem to always end up on the wrong side of things you see... Their brand of christianity even allows them to think Jesus would have allowed slavery...
January 18th, 2006 at 3:23 pmWhat has he done to fight terror that is right?
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
According to you, nothing. End of story, but you're still alive, right?
January 18th, 2006 at 3:24 pm207 ...We were all alive before Bush was president ... you got to do WAY better than that.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pmI-RIGHT-I …
The top 5% made their money because of the infrastucture built by the other 95%
Comment by Gerald Gibson
Without the thinkers and the leaders there would be nothing for the 95% to do. In short, you'd be an African.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pmIRI the flies are winning
January 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pmWithout the PEOPLE you dont have 5% of squat. If you want to play that game then its time for a jubilee … dont know what that is? Its Jewish …look it up.
Comment by Gerald Gibson
I know what it is. Every 50 years all debts are forgiven. That would put quite a crimp in the call for reparations for slavery wouldn't it? It would also really upset a few Jewish bankers.
There is an aristocracy in this country and it is undeniable and irrepressible. The problem is most of them are godless heathen bastard Democrats without the slightest intention of holding themselves accountable to anyone or anything but themselves.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:38 pmIRI the flies are winning
Comment by Clif
Then they must be French Flies! (Run away and declare victory.)
January 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pmYes and their buzzing inside your head that is why you seem so angry, the buzzing just won't stop.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm209 ... Thinkers dont run the businesses ...Golf players, Salesmen (hucksters), and spoiled asses with a silver spoon in their mouths do...
Thinkers (Tesla) create things thinking they are making a difference from humanity and might make some money off it ...and then asses with money (westinghouse) come along and capitalize off their efforts.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm209 … Thinkers dont run the businesses …Golf players, Salesmen (hucksters), and spoiled asses with a silver spoon in their mouths do…
Comment by Gerald Gibson
It's that kind of illogical and irrational mind-set that keeps you in your place. Why try and be a leader when it's so fashionable to denigrate them? It's the ghetto boiz beating up the kid who had the nerve to bring home his school work and make A's. It's why you're a loser. Change.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:03 pm"Without the thinkers and the leaders there would be nothing for the 95% to do. In short, you’d be an African. I-RIGHT-I"
The 'thinkers' are rarely in the 5% of the leaders or exploiters, instead those folks who have money and means hire the 95% who are thinkers to do their work for them. Money and 'thinking' are often incompatible in fact. As for the comment on African, it's actually the opposite of what you say - no surprise. The issue in africa is that the 1% exploit the 99% so badly that the 'thinkers' in them never have a chance to improve their countries.
It's the fear of the wannabe 1% like yourself that always destroy a society by being uncle toms to the 1% and getting nothing real of value back in return from your masters.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pmReparations for slavery has already been paid... its called blood and it was paid during the civil war.
Growing up not a single ..NOT ONE... person that I have met that was "rich" were democrats. To this day I have not met a single person that has as much money as me or more that is a democrat...not a one.
holding themselves accountable to anyone or anything but themselves.
Wow ... if you really consider that a valid statement try applying it to yourself. I think people like you are completely hoodwinked by the right wingers... they SAY they are Republicans so you will accept them ...in the mean time they are taking away your liberty and sending your jobs over seas... There was a video I saw a couple years ago of Rod Parsley telling his church people that they needed to start adopting the "language of the left" so they could claim to support liberty and democracy which would leave the democrats with nothing of their own to convince the people to support them ... well you know what I learned growing up in church... HALF A TRUTH IS A LIE. Rob Parsley is a liar and was telling his people to lie and pretend they support the ideals of America to trick people like you to support them... or else you are one of the very same liars as they are.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pm"It’s that kind of illogical and irrational mind-set that keeps you in your place. Why try and be a leader when it’s so fashionable to denigrate them? It’s the ghetto boiz beating up the kid who had the nerve to bring home his school work and make A’s. It’s why you’re a loser. Change. I-RIGHT-I"
Denegrating those that would abuse others is being a leader, or at least that's what Bush claims. I can understand how you would want to criticize Bush for these claims however, consider how little he actually leads. But it's ok, you can forgive Bush for his false beliefs - it's because he's a religious fanatic like most of the lost souls of the rightwing. They know not what they do.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:08 pmIRI - "Sorry you think I’m a racist."
IRI, we KNOW you are a racist. So bugger off.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pm215... I know reading is hard for you but try anyways... I am not poor anymore. I taught myself computer programming without college...I was too poor for college. I have learned what it means to make something of yourself. I have also worked in the corporate world and saw first hand the types of asses these people are and how they think about people... they mostly didnt know I was once poor and so talked openly about what they really thought... hell once I worked for a GOP PAC back in the mid 90s and that guy was always bragging about being a Nixon bag man and how the republicans were using redistricting to take over America ...just like they did in Texas... it took them a few years but I guess their dirty work paid off didnt it...
January 18th, 2006 at 4:10 pmYup this is great... I thought there were only moonbats on DU... this warms my heart !
As long as your heroes are the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid, Ted the murderer Kennedy, and so on, the right will clean your clock in 2006, 2008.... If you really want to be considered "progressive" loose the dead weight!
Maybe if Al Gore and Pervert did a little more wire tapping, we would have avoided 9/11... or maybe if he didn't take $500,000 payoff from the airlines, and really did beef up security at airports and in airplanes, your other heroes, the Arab 19, would have been grounded.
So drink up some more kool aid and have some fun!
January 18th, 2006 at 4:11 pm"I know what it is. Every 50 years all debts are forgiven. That would put quite a crimp in the call for reparations for slavery wouldn’t it? It would also really upset a few Jewish bankers."
Wow an equal opportunity fear mongering bigot. At least you have no bounds to your ignorance, so clearly your habitation in a civilized society hasn't taught you restraint, wisdom or reason. If those 'debts' were forgiven, it would be by the government, and therefore why would bankers irrespective of their religion be upset for getting money? Wow, you fear everyone but those that oppress and spread violence - that's really sad.
"There is an aristocracy in this country and it is undeniable and irrepressible. The problem is most of them are godless heathen bastard Democrats without the slightest intention of holding themselves accountable to anyone or anything but themselves. I-RIGHT-I"
But it is taxable and restrainable. Who wants 'repression', that's a silly hate filled and irresponsible word. That's like saying there are poor people, and their will is irrepressible. It means nothing other than you're a silly classist hate filled person. I forgive you of your hate, and you really should forgive yourself for your ignorance if you can.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:11 pmpooky,
And pumpkin, maybe if Bush hadn't ignored terrorism by putting all of the law enforcement priorities on the 'war on drugs' and ignoring memos entitled 'Bin Laden intends to attack' which included specific references to using Airplanes as Weapons we wouldn't have been attacked. I can understand your fear, but fear kills reason, and no reason makes people do stupid things like give up their civil liberties instead of holding their leaders accountable for their failures. Don't let fear make you stupid, surely you're smarter than that pumpkin, pooky face.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pm#207 IRI:
What has he done to fight terror that is right?
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
According to you, nothing. End of story, but you’re still alive, right?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 18, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Thanks for such an insightful and informative response to the actual question. In my opinion, I'm still alive because rather than spend a ridiculous amount of time and money planning a large scale attack, OBL & his minions can kill americans daily in Iraq. Our soldiers are being used for target practice. This isn't what they trained for and they are being whoefully misused. If my safety depends on someone's son or daughter being blown up by an IED, then I think we need to go back to the drawing board. Again, just my humble opinion. It's actually worth about as much as Dumbya's since we have about the same amount of military experience.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pmRead about your heroes here !
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/01/airlines.html
The nation's airlines wasted no time in expressing their thanks. The day after Gore's letter, TWA sent $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee, which was headed into the final weeks of the 1996 campaign. A month later, American Airlines came through with three contributions of $83,333 made over five days—a $250,000 burst of beneficence that it has never again matched. In the last days of the push to re-elect Clinton and Gore, Democratic Party committees also raked in $83,000 from Northwest Airlines, $117,465 from United Airlines, and $15,000 from US Airways. In all, the major airlines poured more than $500,000 into various Democratic soft-money accounts in the weeks following Gore's letter—two and a half times what they gave Republicans during the same period.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:23 pmIRI you must not have heard the news. Of Income taxes the top 5% earn soemthing like 80% of all personal income but pay around 67% of the taxes. So if you are in the top 5% ante up buddy, you are not carrying your load. Besides that nobody is actually paying the bills, that is why our debt is so high. Wait, actually the chineese and japaneese are paying the bills.
As to the military being madeup primarily of southern conservative boys, that is utter horseshit. The military is made up of primarily rural kids and inner city kids. Read: the miltary is made up primarily of lower class. Now if you consider that most large military bases are in the south and infer because of that most of the troops come from there, you are wrong. The large miltiary bases are in the south primarily to let you all know that the US government is in charge, not your local state governments. The more you speak the less sense you make, and the more obvious it is that you make shit up on a continual basis.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:27 pmPretty good article on Iran and their Nuke Program. COnservatives probably should not read as the article is full of logic and reason and is short on blow the crap out of them rhetoric.
Iran Nobel Winner Says UN Sanctions Over Nuclear Program Will Inflame Iran, Set Back Democracy
By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
TEHRAN - Lost in the international fury over Iran's partial restart of its nuclear energy program and the deplorable statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel has been the fact that respect for human rights and a democratic political system are the most effective deterrent against the threat that any aspiring nuclear power, including Iran, may pose to the world.
When the U.S. and its allies encouraged the Shah in the 1970s to start Iran's nuclear energy program at a time when it had no economic justification, they helped create the Frankenstein that ultimately became Iran's nuclear program. If, instead, they had pressed the Shah to undertake political reforms, respect human rights and release Iran's political prisoners, history could have been very different.
Since the 1970s, when the Shah started Iran's nuclear program, India, South Africa, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club. In the 1980s, South Africa's apartheid regime made several nuclear bombs, but the democratic government of Nelson Mandela dismantled them. India has developed a nuclear arsenal, but nobody perceives the world's largest democracy a threat to the world. Israel is not likely to be the first nation in the Middle East to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
But North Korea's nuclear program is a threat because its regime is secretive, and its leader a recluse. The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan is dangerous because Pakistan's military, which runs the country and is populated by Islamic extremists, helped create the Taliban, and allowed Abdul Qadeer Khan, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear supermarket, to operate freely but secretly for so long.
Iran's nuclear program actually began accelerating around 1997 when Mohammad Khatami was elected president, but it was no accident that the world started paying much closer attention to it in 2003. The first few years of Khatami's presidency witnessed the development of an independent vocal press and the election in 2000 of a reformist parliament. The reformists, while supporting it, were (and still are) demanding the nuclear program to be fully transparent and in compliance with Iran's international obligations. These were all reassuring signs that Iran's nuclear program would not get out of control.
But instead of backing Iran's fledgling democratic movement, which would lead to nuclear transparency, the U.S. has undercut it by demonizing Iran.
Whereas Khatami proposed people-to-people dialogue between Americans and Iranians, the U.S. government blocks every year a large number of Iranian scholars, artists and authors from visiting the U.S. In return for Khatami's government assisting the U.S. in the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. designated Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil." In response to the overwhelming victory of Iran's reformists in the 2000 elections for the parliament, the U.S. lifted sanctions on importing Iranian pistachio and carpet, which hardly made a dent in Iran's troubled economy.
By 2003, when it became clear that Khatami's reforms had stalled and Iran's independent press had been crushed by the hardliners, the world started paying closer attention to Iran's nuclear program. So, what has demonizing Iran achieved?
(More)
Addressing the issue of Iran's nuclear program entails neither threatening Iran with military strikes nor dragging it before the U.N. Security Council. While a vast majority of Iranians despise Iran's hardliners and wish for their downfall, they also support Iran's nuclear program because, aside from being economically justified, it has become a cause for national pride of an old nation with a glorious history. Moreover, the driving force behind Iran's nuclear program are the hardliners with a history of radicalism and an ideological view of the world. The hardliners, who now control the parliament and the presidency through rigged elections, oppose fiercely Iran's democratic movement, and will use any credible threat of military attack as an excuse to crush the democratic movement.
At the same time, a military attack on Iran would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iranians remember the U.S. help to Iraq during its war with Iran, and see the double standards when the U.S. offers security guarantees and aid to North Korea and advanced nuclear technology to India, but nothing but sanctions and threats to Iran.
Iran is not Iraq: Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military moves on Iran will receive a response that would engulf the entire region in fire, resulting in countless number of innocent people getting killed, and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. Taking Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council and imposing sanctions on Iran will prompt the hardliners to leave the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its "additional protocol." Is the world ready to live with such terrifying prospects?
The West does have leverage on Iran, which it can use to provide it with incentives to move toward a democratic political system without interfering in its internal affairs. The hardliners need continued commerce with the European Union, and would like the same with the U.S. However, during years of dialogue with Iran, the E.U. has been paying only lip service to the cause of democracy and respect for human rights in Iran. Instead, it has used the hardliners' dismal human rights record to extract more commercial concessions from them.
So, what can the West do? First, Western nations with clean human rights records should help the U.N. appoint a special human rights monitor for Iran, bring up annually to the General Assembly its human rights record for discussion and strongly condemn it if the record keeps deteriorating. Contrary to the general perception, Iran's clerics are sensitive to outside criticism. There has always been tangible improvement in Iran's human rights record whenever such criticism has been expressed by the U.N.
Second, the World Bank should stop providing Iran's government with loans and, instead, try to work with true NGOs and the private sector in Iran in order to strengthen the civil society. The West should support Iran's human rights and democracy advocates, nominate their jailed leaders for international awards and keep them and their cause in the public eye.
Third, the West should downgrade its diplomatic relationships with Iran if the hardliners continue violating the basic human rights of Iranians.
Fourth, the E.U. must declare unequivocally, backed by practical steps, that new investments that Iran needs badly will be provided only when Iran takes practical steps toward establishing a truly democratic political system.
As a signatory of the NPT, Iran is entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear technology including uranium enrichment, the main source of concern in its nuclear program. So, demanding that Iran set aside its enrichment program forever is a nonstarter. Even if Iran were to go along with the demand, what would stop the West from demanding that Iran should also not have access to, for example, advanced electronics because it can be used in modern warfare?
In addition, short of outsiders installing a puppet regime in Tehran, no Iranian government, regardless of its ideology or democratic credentials, would dare to stop Iran's nuclear energy program. The Russian proposal for enriching uranium for Iran in Russia is also not acceptable, since it implies that Iran give up its rights under the NPT.
On the other hand, Iran does not need enriched uranium for at least a decade. The latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate indicates that Iran is at least 6-10 years away from a nuclear bomb, an assessment with which most objective experts agree. In short, the crisis over Iran's nuclear program is not even a crisis. It has been fabricated by certain special interest groups in the U.S. There is ample time for political reforms in Iran before it ever develops the bomb.
Therefore, the West must insist that Iran can start a limited uranium enrichment program, strictly safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of Iran's proposal to the E.U. in March 2005, only when it undertakes meaningful and lasting reforms. These include freeing political prisoners, allowing true freedom of speech and the development of an independent press, and permitting all political groups to participate in the political process through elections that are considered free and fair by the international community.
Lastly, the U.S. and Iran should enter direct negotiations. It is simply absurd for the U.S. and the most important nation in the Middle East not to have any direct negotiations. The Bush administration should not allow itself to be seduced by exiled Iranian groups that have no support in Iran. Development of democracy is an internal affair for Iranians living in Iran. The West should only support them to achieve their goal, not to decide for them who should run their country.
Ahmadinejad recently said, "If we abandon our enrichment program, the West will bring up our human rights record," hence indicating that the hardliners consider their Achilles' heel to be not violation of Iran's international nuclear obligations, but violation of human rights of Iranians.
Given Iran's young and educated population that yearns for democracy, the above steps will be far more effective than any other alternative toward alleviating and even eliminating the concerns about Iran's uranium enrichment program. In fact, democracy would provide the ultimate safeguards, as a truly democratic government in Iran, backed by a great majority of Iranians, could well feel secure enough not to pursue dangerous nuclear adventures.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:29 pmPooky,
Now pumpkin, you do realize that luggage wasn't even involved in 9/11 - which is what this particular rant you've posted is about, right? It's nice that you feel compelled to dig up unrelated materials, but please try to stay focussed and on topic. I know it's hard pumpkin, but it will do you go to learn something new.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pmMark,
The middle class also donate to charity at twice the rate of the upper class (according to the lates IRS numbers). It's why the whole give the rich money and they'll donate to charity mantra of the rightwing is so silly. Trickle Down appears to only work with ice sculptures in the sun, it doesn't seem to work in the real world.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#93 I’m critiquing Gore and the DLC from the left not the right, I am an anti WTO protestor, tree sitter, anarchist sympathizer minarchist/Green/decentralist, NOT an “inbreed†right winger.
The Dems have done nothing to promote progressive causes
during Bush’s 8 year reign of error or during the Clinton error. Does rubber stamping the Patriot Act 49-1 in the Senate ring a bell? Does rubber stamping Bush’s war on Iraq ring a bell? Does Kerry calling for more troops during his 2004 campaign ring a bell? Does Hillary Clinton calling for 80,000 more troops for Bush’s failed imperialist war in Iraq ring a bell? Does Bill Clinton causing hundreds of thousands of people to die in Iraq from the sanctions on Iraq that Madeline Albright famously said were “worth it" ring a bell?
Gore authorizing warrantles spying in violation of the 4th amendment to the bill of rights impresses me no more Bush’s violation of our most basic civil liberties. Frankly it’s difficult for me to trust anything out of Gore’s mouth. For example he wrote an environmental book “The Earth in the Balance†yet as vice president endorsed the salvage logging scam Bill Clinton signed into law that doomed thousands of acres of old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest to extinction. Yes Gore has some good words, as in this speech as well: http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05154.html
I agree with these words even, but where’s the follow through on his or any Dems part?
Dems need to wake up and realize that their spineless rubber stamping means they are not only opposed on the right but on the left now as well. The only thing that is going to stop the erosion of our basic civil liberties by BOTH DLC Dems and Repigs is non violent direct action such as Dr. King showed us how to do. That meansprotest marches, aclu letterwrting campaigns, etc. The goverment needs to hear loud and clear from the grass roots that we will not tolerate erosions of our basic civil liberties from EITHER the Bushs or Libermans of the world.
I’m far more sympathetic to genuinely concerned paelo-cons, Libertarians, and true conservatives who want to stick up for the constitution like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, or conservative congressman Bob Barr who is now working with the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act than rubber stamping me too Dems. People truly concerned with our civil liberties wouldn’t try to whitewash Gore’s spying in a partisan fashion. Getting BOTH Repig neo-cons and DLC Dems out of Washington is going to take a lot of work from BOTH “concerned conservatives†and those of us on the progressive left willing to take an honest look at the crimes of BOTH Dems and Repigs.
And you should know using the term “inbreed†is an ad hominem attack
see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Of course I really shouldn’t expect better from those who support Dems who offer no clear policy alternative to Bush’s police state.
If you too find the policy options offered by both Repigs and Dems to be incredibly narrow and missing the point check out my blog http://treefunk.net/forum
And one final note please refrain from censoring me, you can take a critique from the left can’t you?
January 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pmPretty good article on Iran and their Nuke Program. COnservatives probably should not read as the article is full of logic and reason and is short on blow the crap out of them rhetoric.
Iran Nobel Winner Says UN Sanctions Over Nuclear Program Will Inflame Iran, Set Back Democracy
By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
comment by Mark
That was a total waste of energy and bandwidth. Next time just post the link.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:48 pmIRI you must not have heard the news. Of Income taxes the top 5% earn soemthing like 80% of all personal income but pay around 67% of the taxes. So if you are in the top 5% ante up buddy, you are not carrying your load.
comment by Mark
Wrong. It's the poor and needy who aren't carrying their load. They use 90% of the social services and pay next to nothing. I think you ought to improve yourself and get a job or a better job. You remember what St. Paul said don't you? "Those who will not work do not eat".
January 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pm[...] Of course, as I anticipated, the Gonzalez Twist proved to be another steaming pile of horsepucky. [...]
January 18th, 2006 at 4:56 pmMatt Rogers...
Right on.
Though I wouldnt lump Democrats anymore than I would lump McCain in with the Bushites.
Howard Dean was ready for a fight...and he got shot down because of a "scream"!!! A freakin SCREAM is what we needed... We needed Gore in 2000 standing at the top of the Senate screaming "The election is being stolen!!"
Democrats like having the image of being nice and playing fair. Image only goes so far. People respect someone that throws the BS to the side and says it the way it is... Oh I hurt your feelings?? Well thats life ..it sucks doesnt it? Suck it up and do what needs to be done. Democrats have over calculated their position to the point of letting the right wing assend unchallenged. The vote on Iraq and the Patriot Act as you mentioned are perfect examples.
TRUTH would have been on their side if they argued against Iraq and the Patriot Act. They could have qouted the founding fathers like we do on this sight over and over. They could have given clear reasons why they could support AN action but not the Iraq action. They could have openly fingered the bastards that attacked us instead of being afraid of upsetting the Saudis.
The democrats should put an END to this crap that I constantly hear from the right wingers like ..limp wristed liberals.... Shut those assholes up! The liberals are the ones that MADE America. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
January 18th, 2006 at 5:01 pmThat is what was said... not GIVE ME MONEY OR GIVE ME DEATH! ....not GIVE ME NO TAXES OR GIVE ME DEATH! ...not GIVE ME CHURCH OR GIVE ME DEATH!
Matt Rogers…
Right on.
Though I wouldnt lump Democrats anymore than I would lump McCain in with the Bushites.
Comment by Gerald Gibson
Wrong. Two sides of the same coin. You really don't get it do you?
January 18th, 2006 at 5:30 pm"Wrong. It’s the poor and needy who aren’t carrying their load. They use 90% of the social services and pay next to nothing. I think you ought to improve yourself and get a job or a better job. You remember what St. Paul said don’t you? “Those who will not work do not eatâ€. I-RIGHT-I"
But the social services are a small part of the cost of government. The cost of roads, airports, and international military bases are a direct result of the 'needs of the rich', and the costs are borne disproportionately by the poor. The poor are not exempted from taxes they can barely afford, even though their labor's disproportionate price often makes the wealthy disproportionately wealthy.
For someone who's so clear on the facts, you sure dig yourself deep holes of missing intellect. I feel sorry for you that you're so fearful and hateful. Did a poor minority scare you as a child, because clearly you're not developmentally normal or mature. I forgive you for your evil hateful and incorrect remarks, but clearly you need to seek forgiveness from yourself and those you've hurt before you'll ever become an adult. Good luck there little feller!
January 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pm235. Yes I do get it.
There are many democrats that grew up poor and feel an actual desire to help others while in congress... very few people in the republican side grow up hearing those qualities as being anything other than weakness...even though those are the same qualities that make Jesus special. Many democrats like Kerry were born with silver spoons also ...but many many more democrats "get it" than do republicans.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:34 pm#232
>Wrong. It’s the poor and needy who aren’t carrying their load. They use 90% of the social services and pay next to nothing. I think you ought to improve yourself and get a job or a better job. You remember what St. Paul said don’t you? “Those who will not work do not eatâ€.
Man, I-is a wrong republican-I, as with all of your posts you are factually challenged yet again. You need to get your facts about the saints straight. It was St. Anthony the Abbot not St. Paul who is associated with that quote and it isn't even anything he ever said. Instead it is something he had heard someone else say (probably a rich rePUBLICAN!).
St. Anthony the Abbot
"He gave himself up to the ascetic life, not far from his own home. He did manual work because he had heard the words: "If anyone will not work, do not let him eat." He spent some of his earnings on bread and the rest he gave to the poor."
January 18th, 2006 at 5:53 pmIRI 80% of the income should cover 80% of the taxes fair and square. However I do agree that the poor have adisproportionately low tax base. In fact the last stats I saw had roughly 40% of all filers having $0 taxable income. So that leaves the burden disproportionately on the middle class, which since you sound selfish, you really don't care do you? BTW that 40% figure has risen every year Bush has been in office from something like 27% in 2000. I think what it infers is that the Bush administration is as adept at making poor people as they are in incurring debt. Because Bush is creating these poor people, he should take care of them, remember the pottery barn rule... Of course the social darwinist in you does nto care about people or debt do you? Well if you have kids tell them to get ready for a lesser life style than you have because they will have a massive tax burden one day to clean up this mess.
I think you need to take a look at the federal budget, state budgets too, and see how relative little goes for social services. The biggest pieces of the budget are social security (which I'm sure you hate) the military and debt service. Who benfits from our military? Everyone to some extent, but mainly business interests who need protection overseas either directly or indirectly by protecting trade routes and resources. WHo benefits from the massive debt and debt service costs that Bush is accumulating...no one actually, well, maybe the chineese. But you are discussing social services, I'll guess that you are adamently against them why? Lets assume these services go away completely and your tax bill is lowered 1/2%. You'll feel great about yourself. But what will you suggest we do with the poor who can no longer pay rent on their appartments? Put them in the streets? What about those who can't afford health care without federal assistance? Out in the streets to die I presume? What will you do with the people who without food stamps can't afford to eat? Heck you don't care as long as you don't have to see them. Remember though that the majority of poor people are white and you and your hooded bretheren will be putting good white folk like yourself out in the streets. Our nation is at near full employemnt according to the white house. Full employment is described by economists as being roughly 95% but does not take into account those who are no longer looking for work because there is nothing available, true unemployment is probably in the 10% range when you consider these people. remember minimum wage, even three full time minimum wage jobs is not enough to pay rent and buy food. You people have had it your way for 5 years and each year has been worse than the previous. When will it get better?
You bitch about social services going to the poor, guess what...those services go to the poor because they need them. I don't have needs like they do and do not begrudge them one thing. Why should I? So I can selfishly have another $100 out of my tax bill returned to my pocket each year? Great, a lot of good that does me, it does them better.
By the way one of the largest welfare groups votes consistently republican and get money for nothing even when they don't need it...farmers. If they are losing money, and I know of none who are, it is because they feel the need to turn over their equipment every three to five years. They don't need to do that, but they do anyway. You want to tellt hsoe freeloaders to give your money back?
But you are a republican so you should love Jesus according to your party. According to you, you live in Houston, which is supposed to be a god fearing town down there in the bible belt. So I would guess that you follow Jesus teachings and care for the poor and are not inclined to ask why or how someone is poor and that you just care that they are and are taking it upon yourself to aleviate the situation (riiiiiiight). Of course reading your rants (a massive waste of bandwidth by the way) I can see that you don't like the poor as shown by your apparent love of social darwinism, you don't like blacks as shown by your stereo typing and you don't like Jews as shown by your Jew Banker comment, (You do know that Israel is a pet cause of your president don't you? Did you know Israel is populated and governed by Jews?...Just curious)
BTW I had no link for the article, but that is ok as I do not believe you can read anyway.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:53 pmIRI the top five percent primarily consist of the decendant so the original industrial robber barons, ie rockefeller, could vanderbilt morgan etc, most of the new ones like the decendants of sam walton use similar preditory practices to drive the small business owner out of business in order for their conglonerates to control the market, Even bill gates claim to fame really exists on taking the inovation of shareware in the computor industry and converting tit into a capital comodity where he could monopolise the market thus the two best examples of corporate growth in the last quarter of the 20th century involve people who show concern for the middle class of this country. Hell walmart has forced their suppliers to invest in china while microsoft outsources to India and latin america a good share of the high tech jobs. Keep railing for the upper 5% while they sell you out, like I said ..... foriegn car foriegn owned corporation
January 18th, 2006 at 5:56 pmMark I live out in farm country and some of them are friends, I actually asked three of them if they got money thru farm subsities, all three did and two actually got more money than they paid back in taxes last year. One program paid them not to grow corn, another paid them to not grow crops on a certain portion of their land. The idea to keep the price of corn or other farm crop up to a certain level, I do not begrude farmers, they work hard for what they have, but the view of IRI that the only ones who get money for nothing are the poor is not accurate
January 18th, 2006 at 6:08 pmI live in farm wountry too. I have a friend of the family that owns a family business. He earns in the 8 figure range every year. on top of that he owns & rents about 4,000 acres of farmlnad. You can bet your ass he gets more annually in farm subsidies than I earn in several years and I am in the top 10% of earners in this country. You can also bet your ass that he supports Bush and can't stand welfare people who have their hands out, though his subsidies are different of course.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:01 pm[...] Finally, how dumb do Gonzales and McLellan think we are? You’d think they’d be aware by now that pretty much every insinuation or statement they make is going to come up for factual verification by not just the msm, but the blogsphere. At this point they’re just insulting our intelligence. [...]
January 18th, 2006 at 8:07 pmI think you ought to improve yourself and get a job or a better job. You remember what St. Paul said don’t you? “Those who will not work do not eatâ€.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #232
I'gnorant-R'epugnant-I'dolator,
...No matter how much money you have you're going to die too...
Hey, was I supposed to return that blanket?
January 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pmIf AP is the only medoa that reports this, and the other major news hold back, I'm really afraid that this dishonest, dirty smear will be successful with Joe Public. Take back the media now! Gore is our REAL President, forcedly removed in a coup, but the Dems all stabbed him in the back, too. When are we going to fight for the legitimate leader we actually voted for???
January 18th, 2006 at 8:57 pmHi All:
To those of you who think Vice President Al gore was right on the mark in his speech Monday, please come and visit our website: http://www.algore-08.com
It is a volunteer based organization that believes that our country needs and deserves Al Gore to be the next and righful President of the United States.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:48 am[...] To those that have been paying attention the knee jerk reaction of the Whitehouse is to smear thie critics rather then engage in any honest dialoque. The Attorney general of the United States of America should be above such pettiness and intellectual corruption, but Alberto Gonzales is not , AP Reports Facts on White House Smear of Gore and In Desperation, Gonzales Smears Gore I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example. [...]
January 19th, 2006 at 2:51 amWake up folks! Republican dirty tricks are all around us.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pmCongress is now a puppet of the executive. We had better change this but fast or we will not only be subjet to a King again but a Supreme court that stand behind him. Vote democrats in 2006 and Al Gore 2008.
The Attorney general of the United States of America should be above such pettiness and intellectual corruption, but Alberto Gonzales is not...
Pingback by The Long Goodbye » I’m about as tired of your mouth as I am workin’ this stinkin’ hole! #247
Alberto Gonzales is a Bushite "slave", just like Clarence Thomas...
...Bushiva uses him to tweak the Mexican voters' "one of ours actually has some power" fantasy, like he does self deluding Blacks with Cundti and Colin...
Don't waste your energy thinking that any modicum of integrity, fairplay or "justice" emanates from the Bushiva/Gonzales DOJ...
Demons don't possess the ability to exhibit or promote such behavior/ideals...
January 20th, 2006 at 10:16 amIRI the top five percent primarily consist of the decendant so the original industrial robber barons, ie rockefeller, could vanderbilt morgan etc,
Comment by Clif
No babe, that would be the top .5%. Top 5% include guys like me who work 60+ hours a week, kids in college, a mortgage and a business that the thieves in every local, state and federal government office screw every chance they get.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmNo babe, that would be the top .5%. Top 5% include guys like me who work 60+ hours a week, kids in college, a mortgage and a business that the thieves in every local, state and federal government office screw every chance they get.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
You have kids in college? You act like you're in your early thirties... I never would have guessed you were that old!
January 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pmYou have kids in college? You act like you’re in your early thirties… I never would have guessed you were that old!
Comment by unbelievable
I'm about your age, just better preserved.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:07 pmI’m about your age, just better preserved.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
I'm not old enough to have kids in college - middle school, maybe high school if I started really young.
People routinely think I'm 25 to 28... I doubt you do better than that.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:23 pmPeople routinely think I’m 25 to 28… I doubt you do better than that.
Comment by unbelievable
I took a real cute 20 year old to Grand Cayman for a dive a couple of winter's ago. How's that?
January 20th, 2006 at 4:33 pmI took a real cute 20 year old to Grand Cayman for a dive a couple of winter’s ago. How’s that?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
18 year old boys at school ask me out all the time... And a 16 year old asked me to marry him (I really hope he was kidding though... I generally date younger men, but that's just about 10 to 12 years too young, since I refused to go out with a 24 year old friend of my brother's last summer). How's that?
January 20th, 2006 at 4:53 pmWait a minute - you're dating girls? Are these your son's/daughter's friends?
January 20th, 2006 at 4:57 pmWait a minute - you’re dating girls? Are these your son’s/daughter’s friends?
Comment by unbelievable
Oh no, much worse than that. She worked for me. It was a moment (long weekend) of weakness and never happened again.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:05 pmOh, and then I fired her.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:06 pmOh no, much worse than that. She worked for me. It was a moment (long weekend) of weakness and never happened again.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Yeah, that's usually how you Alpha males work... it's all about the chase.
Must be one of the ones you mentioned that you made cry, I take it? You do know women can't do casual sex, right? That there are bonding chemicals released when people have sex that make them feel an attachment to one another - except that testosterone erases it in men. Clarify a few things for you?
January 20th, 2006 at 5:11 pmOh, and then I fired her.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Are you serious? Or are you just trying to push my feminist buttons?
I hope you feel bad. You should.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:13 pmAre you serious? Or are you just trying to push my feminist buttons?
I hope you feel bad. You should.
Comment by unbelievable
OK, just kidding about the firing her part. Yeah, I do feel bad, or at least I used to. Now that I think about it I wonder what she's doing?
January 20th, 2006 at 5:47 pmIlleagel wire taps
January 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 amfailing Medicaid
corruption
imcopmitence Fema failores
staggering deficits
When will " we the People learn? It isn't just one political party's failures that have brought us to this point in time, but both.
During and election year " we the People" suffer at the hands of the he said/she said finger pointers until the day after the election is held. Then those hands unclench and the other three finger, thumb and palm are extended to congradulate the winners. Our politicians are not in anyway shape or form interested in what " we the People" want, need or have to have. They are only interested in doing what it takes to win their re-election by whatever means needed. The illeagel wire taps do not surprise me in the least, nor are they acceptable. But what is one man to do?, perhaps I shall sit in my chair typing more responses to blogs. after all what can one voice do? How can one man change the course of history and make things right? Hmm some honest questions
It is the right, privelage and more important the responsability for every man or woman who feels in the slightest way that they are an American to stand up and let their voice be heard. This is a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. not a government of the corrupt, by the imcompitant, for the power mad, ego maniacs. When anyone of us do something wrong repeated at out jobs we get fired. perhaps it is time that the current government, both Congress and the executive branch are dealt with in the same manor?
By the way, I apologize for any mis-spellings in my post. Just because I spell alittle crappy doesn't make me a nincompoop. at least I can speak rather articulate and every other word isn't umm, aaaah or huh?..lol
January 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 amIlleagel wire taps
failing Medicaid
corruption
imcopmitence Fema failores
staggering deficits
When will †we the People learn?
Comment by rightious reverand
You know the answer to that. We will never learn. Man is a fallen creature and his only hope of a decent culture and country are leaders both private and corporate and governmental who are slaves to Jesus Christ. As a righteous reverend it's your job to get that word out even though you know for the vast majority it will be a losing battle. Let me know if I can be of assistance but a good start for us would be you learning how to spell.
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:54 pmI admit that My spelling isn't exactly up to par,I-right-I, however the words are spelled it is the message that should be clear. Our selected president Mr shrub cannot speak correctly or inteligently on any basis and I for one would not want to see an example of his spelling errors. I do take up one objection, you state that man's only hope are leaders who are slaves to Jesus Christ? I find it hard to decide if your comment is supportive or derogatory in nature. First and fore most our founding fathers were mostly Diests, not catholic or protestant. The believe that every man had the right to whorship his own God his own way without interference from any form of government. The Government of the united states is based with a seperation of church and state, and regardless of my ordaination as a minister I firmly believe they should remain seperated. The shrub says he speaks to God and God answers, so does Pat robertson for that matter. I think both of them need a good mental evaluation, because whatever voice they are hearing doesn't belong to a God of love, mercy and justice. Either that or neither one of them own a standard bible or perhaps have just not read it lately
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:40 pmI think both of them need a good mental evaluation, because whatever voice they are hearing doesn’t belong to a God of love, mercy and justice. Either that or neither one of them own a standard bible or perhaps have just not read it lately
Comment by rightious reverand
My favorite part is in Revelation where the gentle Jesus' garments get soaked with blood as He treads the wine press of His wrath and slaughters 3/4 or more of the world's population. Some people deserve to die, that's justice.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pm