Malkin Owes Jane Harman An Apology
Malkin Owes Jane Harman An Apology
On January 4, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) wrote a letter to President Bush asserting that the administration briefings on his warrantless domestic wiretapping program violated the law. Specifically, Harman said the briefings, which only included the leadership of the intelligence committees, failed to comply with the 1947 National Security Act, which requires the administration to keep the entire committee informed about intelligence activities.
She was promptly criticized by right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, who lashed out at Harman with a post titled “Jane Harman’s Bogus Attack.” ThinkProgress noted, and Malkin later admitted, that Malkin’s rebuttal was based on a legal provision that was totally irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, Malkin stuck to her general claim that Harman was wrong.
Yesterday, the experts addressed the issue. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report, which supported Harman’s position:
A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are “inconsistent with the law.”
Email Michelle Malkin at writemalkin@gmail.com and tell her she owes Jane Harman an apology.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“The analysis was requested by Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee”
So, how much does a “non-partisan” analysis to support your position cost these days anyway? Did I pay for that?
January 19th, 2006 at 9:27 amMalkin looks like a $5 whore. Writes tabloid grade fiction.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:35 amHere’s my e-mail to Michelle the CUN…
If you’re worth your weight in salt as far as having any integrity, (which I doubt sincerely), you will publicly apologize to Representative Jane Harman for your disingenuous, and factually incorrect attack on her letter to Bush regarding his “illegal” wiretapping.
Let’s see what you’re made of Michelle, sugar and spice or Bushite poop!
January 19th, 2006 at 9:41 amBig Papa,
Neocons can’t admit guilt… the fear of fire and brimstone for eternity assures they defend any nonsensical thing they ever utter for the rest of their lives.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:50 amYou should ask Abramoff, I’m sure he could quote you a price.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:55 amHow much of my taxpayer money was spent on the Clinton witchhunt? More then was spent on Harman’s analysis I am willing to bet.
Back on topic. I doubt that Malkin will apologize. She and Coulter are cut from the same cloth. I wold imagine that much like Coulter this is a way to get attention.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:56 amDid I pay for that?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 19, 2006 @ 9:27 am
Nope, those of us who work and pay taxes pay for everything the government does.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:57 amI-R-I,
It’s time to get you banned. Why would you go to a website populated by people you hate just to throw crass, disgusting comments out about people whom you’ve never met? Normal decent people don’t so those kinds of things.
Representative Jane Harman has done nothing to you, and you go and call her a skank. You don’t know anything about her and I bet you couldn’t identify her if you saw a picture of her. I would surmise that you’re only doing it because she’s a Democratic politician.
You really are a creature to be pitied. And I have yet to see you post a worthwhile comment on this site since I started visiting it several months ago. Save yourself the trouble and just go away voluntarily. I have a feeling there won’t be any choice about it for you soon.
And no matter what you think about yourself, your posts are frequently racist and in violation of the terms of use agreement which you promise to follow every time you click that button that says “Post – I agree”. But then, I don’t expect you to understand honesty and truthfulness. Your type finds those qualities a weakness in people, and you value lies, deceit and deception more.
And this goes for all your other “online personalities”, too. Go away and stay away.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:57 am#1 I-RIGHT-I; You’re the typical groveling miserable kiss-up who has been the butt of jokes going all the way back to grade school. You’re in the comfort zone when begging for scraps from an ignorant harpy. Hugs and kisses for high-speed suck-ups? Typical. Hah! You’re a ridiculous bitch. Now sit on this and twirl.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:58 amIs it really necessary on this site to lower ourselves to name calling and petty insults?
Both sides seem to do this a little too much. Is it so difficult to have actual discussion of the issues and topics posted?
MM is really, really out there as a right wing supporter (I hesitate to use the word reporter) but do you really think an e-mail campign will get her to change her opinion?
The best way to counter someone that far off-base is by reporting the facts and sticking with the truth.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:59 amJudd, did you already delete one of I-R-I’s comments? I onlyt wrote what I wrote because I saw something there, or I thought I did. Or did I just slip out of a paralell universe?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:00 am#9 A universe where words are spelled differently.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:01 amMalkin is just a Bush apologist and paid stooge! She attacks anyone who dares to oppose her Dubya publicly!
January 19th, 2006 at 10:01 amShe is a fascist so ignore her!
Yeah, I deleted one of I-RIGHT-I’s comments.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:06 amThe right wing has run out of justifications for its illegal spying program. Keep up the heat Jane!
January 19th, 2006 at 10:06 amThank you Judd, for removing I-Right-I’s inflamatory comments. I confess that stuff like that can bring out the reactionary in me and then I tend to sink to the same lowest denominator. My apologies for deviating from the solid discourse that is the heart of this forum.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amEmails do have an effect, even if they are not read; the number of them is noted. Whether they have an effect is something else.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:11 amAs a prolific Emailer, I wrote to Ms. Malkin this morning telling her I believe she owes Rep. Harmon a personal apology, and, in her column, a correction.
Mr ho ask why report say Saudi Arabia not Iraq, not Iran, Not Afghanistan. Mr ho see mostly Saudi Arabian wahabbi.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:12 amAn honest person with intellectual integrity and manners would acknowledge a mistake publicly and apologize for making it. But does MM have either integrity or manners?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:15 amWe all know that Congressman can’t keep secrets. The Founding Fathers knew this from experience. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because “we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets.”
In 1790, when the first session of the First Congress appropriated money for foreign intercourse, the statute expressly required that the president “account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify.” They made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them.
So to make a long story short, the Founding Fathers would probably say that the 1947 National Security Act and FISA are unconstitutional.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:16 amOh c’mon, let I-R-I continue to foul his diaper in front of everyone. If you don’t want to get offended at his effluvia, then don’t read his messages.
Personally, I think his writing is entertaining. Of course, I’ve also been known to stick forks into electrical outlets just to say that I’ve done it.
Last thing we want is ANOTHER right wing martyr (”they banned me because they can’t handle the truth”).
January 19th, 2006 at 10:17 amdamn unbelievable, you beat me to the punch in #6. Guess I shouldn’t have logged on late this AM.
I’d e-mail Malkin, but I’m sure anyone who does immediately gets sent over to the NSA for “special consideration”. I don’t really want that all expenses paid unexpected vacation to Syria right now. btw – where did I pack my snorkling gear, I think I’m gonna need it.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:18 am#12 Judd,
Why stop there?
He constantly violates the Terms of Use in worse ways than any of us. Sure, we all technically commit infractions, and I don’t claim I’ve never been guilty myself. But what he and his other personalities post has absolutely no use whatsoever for any discussion.
So don’t stop yourself on our account. We won’t miss him any more than we don’t miss Northeast Dilemma.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:18 amMr. Ho Please go. You are not a grenade thrower but a blog flatuator.Please, if you have any coherentpoints ON TOPIC bring em on, but otherwise your manners are failing you. Sincerely, The Fly-Man.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:19 amMalkin is a repub whore… Ignore her
Bush will pay for his crimes one day…and he better hope there are no more attacks because if there are, hes going to be eviscerated by the American public.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:21 am$19 P_D, Except he doesn’t tell the truth, so he’d be lying if he claimed that. And if you saw what he first posted when this thread opened, I think you’d agree that he went way over the line. It was so bad that Malkin has less to apologize for than he.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:22 amI-R-I,
It’s time to get you banned. Why would you go to a website populated by people you hate just to throw crass, disgusting comments out about people whom you’ve never met? Normal decent people don’t so those kinds of things.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Here we go again. The last guy to try and get me banned got his pee-pee slapped by management much to the utter disgust and amazement of the local mob. But allow me to address your question anyway. There are NO normal people here. That’s for starters. I’m sure there are some decent people here but many of them do exactly the same thing you accuse me of but I never see you quoting the rules of the site to them. So, you’re a hypocrite, so what else is new?
Representative Jane Harman has done nothing to you, and you go and call her a skank. You don’t know anything about her and I bet you couldn’t identify her if you saw a picture of her. I would surmise that you’re only doing it because she’s a Democratic politician.
You are incorrect sir. She has spent my money to undermine our President in a time of war. I’m outraged and want her pilloried.
You really are a creature to be pitied. And I have yet to see you post a worthwhile comment on this site since I started visiting it several months ago. Save yourself the trouble and just go away voluntarily. I have a feeling there won’t be any choice about it for you soon.
Typical Leftist. You can’t beat me fair and square so you call in the judiciary.
And no matter what you think about yourself, your posts are frequently racist and in violation of the terms of use agreement which you promise to follow every time you click that button that says “Post – I agreeâ€. But then, I don’t expect you to understand honesty and truthfulness. Your type finds those qualities a weakness in people, and you value lies, deceit and deception more.
Sticks and stones, etc., etc. I like being politically incorrect and if you want to call me a racist that’s your business. It doesn’t bother me a bit as you’re not all that smart anyway and that particular epithet is abused by your kind. It’s like crying wolf. Even better, it’s a compliment coming from Left Wing Losers like you.
And this goes for all your other “online personalitiesâ€, too. Go away and stay away.
It’s just me and only I-RIGHT-I and I serve this site at the pleasure and convenience of the owners and operators, not you. I’d be careful calling for punitive action too much though. Nobody likes crybabies and nobody likes snitches. Not even Left Wingers.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:23 amIRI is like the wacky uncle we all have. I think as long as he isn’t racist I usually like to read his “Views”. It’s TP’s blog, their rules. This is not Survivor. I will admit I will always take time to read something if it is not a cut and paste tripe laden pontification. Hand made one by one, custom, that’s the best.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:24 amI’m not sure which side you’re arguing in #18 Jason.
Your legal credentials are pretty poor as the 1947 NSA creation has been found constitutional and even updated in the , what 70’s where they added requiring warrents.
Now I completely don’t agree with any secret court, thus I am against the FISA. Too close to “Star Chamber” for my taste in an “open” democracy. But I suspect the current SCOTUS would validate it’s existence, especially post Alioto-hitler which it looks like we are unfortunately all going to have to live through. Please, please please democrats grow the balls to filibuster the totalitarian defender.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:26 amYes, it’s true. I did call her a skank, and for that I am deeply and truly sorry. But, you’ll notice that I did not call her a low born gutter-slut. (with apologies to Judge Roy Bean)
January 19th, 2006 at 10:29 amYou want to talk about outrage? The administration has spent my money fighting an immoral, illegal and brutal “war” (I use that term loosely), and it’s a hell of a lot more money than Rep. Harman may have spent for this study. The study, incidentally, is only being done because of the stonewalling and refusal of your president to hire an independent counsel to look into the legality of his warrantless wiretapping. And, even though many experts, both on the left and right, have stated that this program did nothing to undermine national security and, in fact, hampered the FBI from doing real work because of the thousands of “leads” that the NSA dumped on them, you persist in believing this fantasy. Too bad.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:31 amKindness, I think Alito is more Federalist than Fascist, which would certainly be a valid point to argue against his appointment.i think the Federalist Papers will be quoted more than once in the near future. Here is a link to support my asertion. Enjoy
January 19th, 2006 at 10:31 amhttp://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200601131053.asp
#28 That is the third time this week that quote has been used by a troll. Do you guys all share a brain?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:32 amPlease, please please democrats grow the balls to filibuster the totalitarian defender.
Comment by kindness
I’d like to see that. Growing the balls that is.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:32 amI’m reminded of the definition of someone who is clinically insane when I read i-right-i’s stuff. What is it – Someone who does the same thing over and over and expects a different result (or something like that). guy, you are a wreck. Please seek help.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:33 am#28 That is the third time this week that quote has been used by a troll. Do you guys all share a brain?
Comment by progressive and proud
It was me stupid. And yes I do share my brain with you all. It’s my gift to the needy. Call it a service.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:34 amguy, you are a wreck. Please seek help.
Comment by kindness
I am having too much fun.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:35 amSorry, meant to say that “outing” this program did nothing to undermine national security – my bad! :)
January 19th, 2006 at 10:37 amYou want to talk about outrage? The administration has spent my money fighting an immoral, illegal and brutal “war†(I use that term loosely), and it’s a hell of a lot more money than Rep. Harman may have spent for this study.
Comment by CarolSoprano
Ok fine. You guys spend your money looking for ways to undermine the war and we’ll spend our money killing bad guys and looking for mass murdering Islamic thugs on our soil.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:39 amSee, I told you that we’d make a martyr out of I-R-I. Just the mere suggestion of banning him did it.
The “politically incorrect” schtick is wearing thin. Now-a-day, it’s “politically incorrect” to question the preznit. Ya got called treasonous for doing it. Of course, questioning the preznit was a celebrated sport during the Clinton years (not that I was a big supporter of his, either).
Just goes to show ya, the more things change, the more the right wingers will spew their diarrhea.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:43 amPlease, IRI – how many people responsible for 9/11 were from Iraq? 0. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing. We could have this argument from now until the end of time and nothing would change. We’ve very nearly abandoned Afghanistan and that country is deteriorating into chaos and Taliban rule again. That’s where the war on terror was supposed to have been fought, wasn’t it? bin Laden is now just a distant memory – Bush “doesn’t even think about him very often”. How whacked is that? Determining the legality of warrantless wiretapping is not undermining the war, and the American public has the right to know what’s going on. Didn’t work for Nixon and it’s not going to work for Bush.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:51 amJudd,
I give you credit for your patience with trolls like the I-RIGHT-I guy. If this was Redstate or Freep, he’d have been gone after his first post. I’ve seen people at Free Republic get banned for politely suggesting that they didn’t agree with the President’s assertion of power to spy on Americans. Judd, it’s a hard job you do, showing daily that our views are strong enough to withstand disagreement, unlike the right-wing blogs, which at their heart know they could never withstand a reasoned dissent, so they have to carefully excise any post that doesn’t follow their politically correct agenda. In the last few days, I’ve seen authentic conservatives who have been members of Redstate for years get banned because they said (this is a quote) “I take the right to privacy seriously”. That’s it. That’s what got them banned by the moderators at Redstate.
Judd, you do a great job here. I wouldn’t have anywhere near your patience with the trolls.
Also, I agree that an email campaign will have no effect on Michelle “Ping-Pong” Malkin. Just as the right-wing talkshows accuse anyone who disagrees with being “seminar callers”, she will just say the 50 thousand emails she’d get as being “extreme leftist attacks” and that’s it. She’s not worth the effort, since most people don’t know who she is or will ever read her nonsense.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:51 amJudd, I think the plethora of trolls on this site make it unbearable to read. It’s ridiculous. These people don’t want to discuss anything, they just want to make us evil liberals mad. Why don’t you publish each poster’s e-mail address so that these cowards can’t hide behind the anonymity that you provide?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:12 amI’m such a tool.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amDid anyone read this, including you Judd?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000413—b000-.html
From the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19nsa.html
“It notes that the law specifically allows notification of “covert actions” to the Gang of Eight, but says the security agency’s program does not appear to be a covert action program.”
Again from Title 50 of the U.S. Code:
(e) “Covert action†defined
As used in this subchapter, the term “covert action†means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include—
(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;
(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities;
(3) traditional law enforcement activities conducted by United States Government law enforcement agencies or routine support to such activities; or
(4) activities to provide routine support to the overt activities (other than activities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)) of other United States Government agencies abroad.
So the NSA’s eavesdropping operations after 9/11 the Bush authorized were not covert!? Does anyone have a link to the The Congressional Research Service memorandum regarding Harman’s request because Think Progress want’s us just to accept the NY Time’s reporting as fact.
Senator Feinstein wanted to know what she what intelligence information she entitled to see and what she was not back in December 2005 here…
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/M20051214_20051214.pdf
January 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amI have secret dreams about Hillary spanking me.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amWar or not, breaking the law is breakign the law period. If we can make exceptions to the law to fuel our hysteria, then the law has no meaning any more. It just becomes a convienience to have it applied properly when it suits us and a nusance when it is inconvienient to our desires.
IRI you paid for the study regardless of how you feel. Heck if those people sat and did nothing you still paid for it. Last year (2004) you paid for a political campaign and did not realise it. You have paid for false news to be published. You have paid for false news to be broadcast. You have paid for sub standard meals to be served to our troops. You have paid for gasolien in Iraq at excessive prices, when local fuel can be had for 1/4 the cost. You have paid death benfits and fuenral costs for 2,100 young men and women over the last few years. You pay for a lot of crap these days, but you are happy with that because its ok if you are a republican.
But the most outrageous thing is that this thread is about Malkin, her obvious lie and you have no ability to say, yep she lied she should apologize.
Remeber not every critic of the president is doing it out of hate for him, maybe just maybe his administration really is fucking things up over and over again and people are tired of the crap.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:14 amJudd, I think the plethora of trolls on this site make it unbearable to read. It’s ridiculous. These people don’t want to discuss anything, they just want to make us evil liberals mad. Why don’t you publish each poster’s e-mail address so that these cowards can’t hide behind the anonymity that you provide?
Comment by sohei
Bite me sushi boy. I-RIGHT-I@ivotedforbush.com
January 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amJudd, you do a great job here. I wouldn’t have anywhere near your patience with the trolls.
Comment by Pope Ratzo
That’s because you’re an ill-liberal little Nazi.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:21 amOooh… what a comeback. “Bite me” – that’s right out of the “Best of the 90’s” insult book, right?
Wow, I wish I were as witty as you. Then I could sit in my mom’s basement all day picking fights online like you do.
It’s okay, though. I know you only do this because you’re most likely physically inadequate and bad with women. So you act like a big tough guy online. I feel sorry for you.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:24 amThen, Aunt Jane will be apologizing to Jane Harmon, eh?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:25 amMalkin is a 1st gen who acts like she has deep roots here in the USA. Her genetics have yet to weed out the 3rd world where she comes from.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:25 amYou’re right, Sohei. I do suffer from erectile dysfunction. I’m glad I could finally admit it.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:25 amWhy am I such a weenie? Why do I still wet the bed? Please help me…
January 19th, 2006 at 11:26 amWow, now you’re just talking crazy, IRI. You need some professional help.
alltheliberalsare outtogetyouthisisn’trealitsjustthevoiceinsideyourhead
January 19th, 2006 at 11:28 amPlease, IRI – how many people responsible for 9/11 were from Iraq? 0. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing.
Comment by CarolSoprano
I agree that Saddam was not in one of those planes. But Iraq was a nice little place to park the world’s greatest military force and Saddam was a nice excuse to do it.
It’s too bad you don’t have the time or inclination to read what our military strategists have to say about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. If you did you wouldn’t keep asking stupid questions and making ill-informed pronouncements about what is and what isn’t the right thing to do.
Please note that the leaders of Iran are insane and trying to go nuclear and that George has conveniently got them surrounded.
Poor stupid George. He’s even got the French thinking his way now and Bin Laden wants a truce. Too bad George & Co. don’t know what the hell they are doing, isn’t it?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:31 amMalkin must be a lonely lady, her fellow conservative like minded men wouldn’t want to shack up with a somewhat intelligent, successful woman who does not know “her place”.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:33 amSame for Coulter.
ha, good stuff, i like IRI’s recent, revealing posts
On the topic itself, Malkin has no credibility on this, her “legal analysis” on this was terrible (as always). She is an apologist of the worse kind, both unintelligent and a free-wheeling liar.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:33 amOk fine. You guys spend your money looking for ways to undermine the war and we’ll spend our money killing bad guys and looking for mass murdering Islamic thugs on our soil.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 19, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Ooo, that’s a great idea. Let’s spend billions on another snipe hunt, because I think there are as many “mass murdering Islamic thugs on our soil” as there were WMD’s in Iraq.
Killing bad guys? There’s an endless supply, we’ll never kill them all unless we turn the Middle East into a glass crater. It’s a waste of bullets, and just gets our troops shot up. It would be far better to spend our time figuring out how to stop the creation of bad guys in the first place. But the guys in charge right now are having so much fun shooting off their guns and blowing stuff up, and they aren’t really interested in actually solving the problem, so we’re in for at least 3 more years of this BS.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:36 amMy mommy says there are Islamo-fascists hiding under your bed! And if you don’t pray to King Bush every day, then they plant dirty bombs in your underwear at night!
January 19th, 2006 at 11:42 amNeocons can’t admit guilt…
Comment by unbelievable #4
unbelievable,
It’s a kind of destructive, willful stubbornness they take pride in…
Probably pernicious influence from overdosing on Ronald Reagan and John Wayne movies…
January 19th, 2006 at 11:53 amSo don’t stop yourself on our account. We won’t miss him any more than we don’t miss Northeast Dilemma.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider #23
Careful Wayne,
Lest this site become a redstate.org
Is that what we really want?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:58 amOk fine. You guys spend your money looking for ways to undermine the war and we’ll spend our money killing bad guys and looking for mass murdering Islamic thugs on our soil.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #64
Time for you to come clean
Dirty I’nsidious-R’ecycled-I’ngrate,
You know full well the objections have to do with illegal eavesdropping on American citizens and Bushite political enemies…
…which neither you nor any of your inbred, scumbag, Bushba*licking cohorts can “disprove”…
…now take your Ritalin BEFORE you respond, focus, then try and respond sensibly…
January 19th, 2006 at 12:03 pmJudd, I’d support an e-mail log in system to add a level of accountability. It wouldn’t be as anonymous as things currently are, but it may reduce the troll problem a bit without affecting free speech. I know it’s quite an undertaking to implement something like that, so I won’t hold my breath.
What’s really ironic is that liberals would be the only people who would argue, on I-R-I’s behalf, to keep his agitating ass on this site. I don’t discount this sentiment, because if we conditionally allow only certain forms of speech and expression over others, we risk becoming as intolerant and freedom-loathing as our more radical right-wing counterparts.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pmbig papa – left you a message at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/18/medicare-pr-states/#comments …see post #62
a good one for all actually, IMHO…
another note – i think it was woolsey, on the daily show last night, who said, paraphrasing here: “islamo-fascist is not accurate – it should be islamo-nazi ”
January 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pmthe -fascist suffix always did confuse me…
Woolsey was differentiating between the political style of the Nazis in germany and the fascists in Italy during the30-40’s, his view the radical islamists like the wohabists in Suadia Arabia the were closer to the Nazis
January 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm#22
where did I pack my snorkling gear, I think I’m gonna need it.
Comment by kindness — January 19, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, but I think the U.S. gulags, where they’ll be sending us once Alito helps declare George King, are in artic tundra or arid deserts…
January 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#61 its too bad you think the military planned this war.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:39 pmI love their argument. We want the government to spy on us. What, you have something to hide? You commie! Are they trying to look stupid so they don’t have to run the country anymore?
All that illegal spying didn’t catch bin Laden, did it?
January 19th, 2006 at 12:58 pmIs this guy crying about paying for an oversight committee? Why not cry about the cost of warthat has so far only sent terrorism to record levels? Or how about the BILLIONS in missing Halliburton money? Or at least the money Tomlinson paid to an imaginary Fred Mann ? Aren’t you concerned with the amount of money Bush sunk into the faulty data-mining operation? That actually infringes on the Bill of Rights? You can’t be crying about an oversight committe during the largest and most ineffective administration ever?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#61 – IRI, what are you talking about? First you talk about Iraq, and then talk about Iran like they’re the same country. Would you get your middle eastern countries correct? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and our preemptive strike has created a hotbed for terrorists (many, many experts, both military and civilian, have made that claim). And because of this administration’s preoccupation with Iraq, credible threats to our country (from Iran, from North Korea, from Saudi Arabia for God’s sake) can’t be handled properly (I don’t care what you think of Madeline Albright – she was correct in saying that this administration can’t do more than one thing at a time – the mess in Afghanistan is a prime example).
January 19th, 2006 at 1:23 pmHere’s another analysis of the cost of war.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pmSpeaking of Bushes stellar performance in his GWOT, aren’t two of the remaining “axis of evil” nuclear (read:new-cew-ler) on W’s watch? Sounds like he is really scaring them.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pmIRI also misses the point that the only special force unit that had arabic language capibilities was moved from Afganistan, where they were employed in the search for Bin Laden who actually was involved in the attack on 911, to Iraq to search for Sadam who did not have any involvement in the attacks on 911. The geniouses in DC did replace the first special force group with another, the language speciality of the second?…. spanish. IRI won’t get it because to him all foriegn languages sound the same.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:35 pmI wrote her. For what that’s worth.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:48 pmWhat, you haven’t read anything intelligent here, Jason? I picked up 2 or 3 “insults” of MM, and the “skank” reference was made by IRI in regard to Rep. Harman, not MM. There are 80 posts here and there are only 2 or 3 derogatory references to MM. If you want intelligence, read some of the troll remarks, will you? I’ve read a lot of very intelligent and thoughtful remarks refuting MM’s ridiculous statements. You must be on another thread.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:03 pmWhat makes you think that Ann Coulter likes men?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:17 pm“You don’t know anything about her and I bet you couldn’t identify her if you saw a picture of her.” – Comment by Wayne
January 19th, 2006 at 2:23 pm*****Wayne, dear ol’Jane’s district is about 90 miles north of my home in San Diego. If you have never had the pleasure of watching a politician talk out o both sides of her mouth (besides the Dem-fatale, Hillary) listen and watch Jane Harman closely. She is in a district with strong aerospace influences and she can’t leap off the Dem plank too often. But when she thinks a particular audience needs some fresh political meat, she’ll jump on board the “we hate Bush bandwagon”.
“failed to comply with the 1947 National Security Act, which requires the administration to keep the entire committee informed about intelligence activities.” – Jane & Judd
January 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pm****tThe 1947 National Security Act??? And that trumps the Constitution where???? Maybe if several members of committee weren’t so openly hostile to the defense of our country they could be trusted by those with a higher pay grade and more intel info.
Getting an apology from Michelle Malkin must be like getting a blowjob from a corpse.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:40 pmMaybe if several members of committee weren’t so openly hostile to the defense of our country they could be trusted by those with a higher pay grade and more intel info.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 19, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Uh oh, is this a Murtha smear?
The 1947 National Security Act??? And that trumps the Constitution where????
Umm… what constitutional provision does that overstep? The right for the President to supercede the courts? Or are you saying th 1947 National Security Act needs to go the way of the Kyoto treaty? If you are so concerned about this act trumping the constitution, you should be concerned about a man who says he is above the law. Please be consistent.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pm“****tThe 1947 National Security Act??? And that trumps the Constitution where???? Maybe if several members of committee weren’t so openly hostile to the defense of our country they could be trusted by those with a higher pay grade and more intel info. mighty aphrodite “
Ironic you would talk about trumping the constitution, as Bush claims he can set aside the constitution in a time of war, even though I don’t remember seeing that congress ever issued a declaration of war. What country are we at war against exactly?
Old people like you often get irrationally fearful and write nonsense like this. I feel sorry for you honey. Did you take your medicine this morning? Maybe then you’ll feel better, and not be on the ‘I hate democrats’ binge that you were obviously on this morning. Why do you hate democrats so much, did a democrat scare you as a baby?
So if the 1947 act is unconstitutional, why hasn’t it been overturned by one of the supreme courts? The courts in the 1950s and 1960s were particularly rightwing, and clearly they would have overturned it if what you say is true. I know you’re afraid of Al Qaeda, most republicans are cowards that way. But being afraid of the big bad terrorists, surely shouldn’t make america stop being what we are as a great nation. You can’t really be that weak of mind and will can you? If so, I forgive you for your weakness and cowardice, and tell you that you shouldn’t fear. Those of us who are stronger of will and character and aren’t so weakened by silly religious beliefs will defend you – even from your senile old selves.
And you may not know this, but the constitution says that it’s Congress that declares war, not the president. Congress also has the responsibility to fund and produce oversight of the executive as a checks and balance – and that is also part of the constitution. Congress can always shut down the funding for the military and the intelligence if they don’t comply with the law of the land, this is also constitutionally permitted.
As for the 1947 act, are you saying that only laws that are in the constitution itself are valid, especially during the time of war? If so, then I’m sure all of the criminals would love to hear you’d like to give them a get out of jail free card. Sweetie, you just don’t make sense anymore. Perhaps you should look into some meds that help with dementia or mad cow disease. I worry about you and the rest of the republican retirees. You all seem so fearful and hate filled this days. Where’s the love, the joy, the happiness to be an american. All I ever read is you complaining about something – that’s no way to live, especially for an old woman like yourself.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#61 – IRI, what are you talking about? First you talk about Iraq, and then talk about Iran like they’re the same country. Would you get your middle eastern countries correct?
Comment by CarolSoprano
There ya go using that liberal female brain again for something it wasn’t designed for. Get me beer.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:11 pmThats right, use your heart to believe the truth not your brain to examine facts – especially those that would come up during an independent investigation of this case.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pm“What country are we at war against exactly?” RightSlap
January 19th, 2006 at 5:33 pm******Your idiotic question posed at the end of your first paragraph is unworthy of a response – next…..
ma there is NOTHING you say here that is worthy of a response. I can’t believe a dolt like you can afford to live in San Diego. Go figure.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:48 pmWHOA – Lot’s of hateful talk here! Does anyone remember where we stared? Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA) accused Bush of not sharing info with Congress officals as required by a 1947 intelligence info law. It’s simply obvious that Jane is part of a coordinated Dem attack on Buch about this issue (both parties do it regularly). There’s no need to get nasty – and certainly no need to take Jane seriously.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:17 pmlucky your post has alot more truth when it isn’t corrected
January 19th, 2006 at 6:47 pmCute, IRI, real cute. Not only are you racist but a misogynist as well. What a surprise (although calling Jane Harmon a skenk kind of tipped me off). Pathetic!
January 19th, 2006 at 6:59 pmAnd there is no need to take Gussie seriously.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:01 pmMaybe those interment camps weren’t such a bad idea…
January 19th, 2006 at 7:17 pm91.
I’ll answer it then. We’re at war with any country that threatens our way of life- and judging from our propped-up economy and insatiable thirst for cheap crap, that consists of pretty much all of them.
Now, we only actually invade countries that are guaranteed not to hand our asses to us. The others just get an impressive display of chest-beating.
My question is this: if drugs were a country and civil war broke out between coke and meth, would our government then support pot? I hope, at least, it would bring the price down, geez.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:23 pm““What country are we at war against exactly?†RightSlap
******Your idiotic question posed at the end of your first paragraph is unworthy of a response – next….. mighty aphrodite”
So in otherwords its easier for you to make up things and lie than to face reality. I understand how fear and irrationality makes you willing to lie so readily, and I forgive you for your immorality and inability to tell the truth. Fear often makes people lie to coverup their insecurities, and it’s OK if you don’t have to courage to face the fact that you lied about a state of war.
When Congress declares war against a country, come back and talk to us. I’d love to hear your ‘expert’ opinion on the matter, assuming they let you have access to the computer at the ‘home’.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:36 pm96. And there is no need to take Gussie seriously. Really, Marie? And just what is it that you do take seriously in a silly situation like this one?
January 19th, 2006 at 7:41 pmReply to RightPunch at #99: You said, When Congress declares war against a country, … Sorry, my friend – It’s true that Congress has the exclusive power to declare war, but congresspersons are so chicken-shit that they haven’t used this authority in recent history (1941 was the last time they did declare war, I think). If you’re betting on Congress to get things right, you have my sincere sympathies.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:51 pmIRI and Mighty Hypocrite,
January 19th, 2006 at 7:59 pmI have noticed that any time you trolls can’t answer a question with facts, you simply revert to either calling the questioner a foul name or simply ignore it and wait for the next thread to invade.
Aside from the illegality of the wiretapping, it could hardly be effective against real terrorists, as the US government still hasn’t hired–even in the wake of 9/11– an adequate number of competent translators of Arabic and other Middle Eastern/Afghani languages. Hundreds of thousands of intercepted telephone calls remain untranslated. And don’t forget that calls intercepted between actual 9/11 hijackers hinting of the coming attack didn’t get translated into English until after the event. If the Bush administration were really serious about protecting Americans from another terrorist attack, it would have hired more experts in Middle Eastern/Afghani languages and implemented more of the advice from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, etc. instead of trying to become the new King George.
#82- “I can’t believe a dolt like you can afford to live in San Diego. Go figure.” – kindness?
*****You sound like many envious progs I know – the first thing you can think of is “other people’s $$$$” – your “politics” is more understandable now….
Back on thread – in 1947 I think they were worried about the “pumpkin papers” and espionage of that sort. Do you think cell and satellite phones should be monitored between known or suspected terrorists and people (even citizens)in the US???
January 19th, 2006 at 8:56 pmI-Wrong-I, fess up . . . you spew your RWLemming flem about “my money,” yet you post during the day – during working hours. You must be a red stater on the government dole, being supported by blue-state tax dollars.
Guaranteed you take in more government handout cash than you pay.
Guaranteed.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pmYou know slightly afro-diejob, we agree that terrorists communications must be monitered, but we disagree as to whether the elected congress of this nation has any constitutional authority to set any standards as to how to go about it, and protect the constitutional rights of the american citizens in the process
January 19th, 2006 at 9:42 pmphlem . . . not flem . . .
January 19th, 2006 at 9:49 pmMighty Hypocrite,
January 19th, 2006 at 9:57 pmAgain in #103, you get off the topic. There are legal procedures for Bush to undertake before ordering the wiretapping of American citizens. He has chosen to ignore them, even though the FISA has very rarely refused such requests and even though in cases of emergency the procedures can be undertaken 72 hours retroactively. Particularly since the US government lacks the means to get prompt translations of the transcripts of calls and e-mails in Arabic and other Middle Eastern/Afghani languages, it should be quite obvious that this spying is mainly on harmless conversations in English and Bush’s political opponents.
And for your reference, I am a professional translator (though not of Arabic), so I have a pretty good idea of how important a good translation can be.
Absolutely – pursuant to the law. Once again, even though many, many people have explained it here, Bush has the legal authority to obtain warrants to wiretap Americans that he believes have ties to Al Qaeda. He can even get a retroactive warrant 72 hours after wiretapping or data mining begins. What we object to is the wholesale wiretapping and data mining of countless Americans, without a warrant, and the Administration’s arrogance in believing that it is somehow justified, under the dubious claims of Congressional authorization in wartime, in doing so. I don’t care how many pages the Justice Department’s brief is justifying the legality of this (how impartial can Gonzalez be, anyway), it simply is unconstitutional and I believe it won’t hold up. If the law was burdensome as they are claiming, they had 4 years to go to Congress and get it revised or overturned. They did not – they simply disregarded it. That cannot be allowed in this country, where we, theoretically at least operate under the rule of law. Can’t you see that? Again, it didn’t work with Nixon and it won’t work with Bush.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:39 pmDo you think cell and satellite phones should be monitored between known or suspected terrorists and people (even citizens)in the US???
I can’t figure out if this is trying to setup up the liberal strawman or if it is trying to take the attention away from the fact that, according to current evidence, the President did indeed break the law. No matter what you say about the 1947 National Security Act it is the law. Period.
If we have nothing to hide why should we worry about our phones being tapped, right? If the president has nothing to hide he shouldn’t worry about a minor investigation.
As for this being a coordinated Democratic assault, sigh, we are all still waiting to see one of those. If this was any kind of assault whatsoever the President would be gone already.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:26 amI have noticed that, when a poll is conducted, it usually stated something like this:
“Should the president wiretap suspected terrorists without a warrant?”
Answer: He must protect the US.
From what I have seen so far, this is a very misleading question. What seems to have gone on is that ALL communications have been data mined.
A question such as : “Should the president wiretap and monitor all communications both to and from the US in order to discover possible evil doers?”
I’m sure that the reponses would be much different.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:15 am“Back on thread – in 1947 I think they were worried about the “pumpkin papers†and espionage of that sort. Do you think cell and satellite phones should be monitored between known or suspected terrorists and people (even citizens)in the US??? mighty aphrodite”
Well that’s a great question. If it’s such an ‘obvious’ answer, clearly a president should be able to get a FISA warrant to investigate. But since FISA wasn’t engaged, it’s unclear exactly who was monitored now isn’t it sweetie. I’m sorry that you can’t really recognize this simply fact, but it’s what happens in the real world of ‘american values’.
If you believe that bush is so inept that he can’t get a warrant for this level of ‘investigation’, it could explain why he lost the 2000 election popular votes by so many votes.
Clearly your irrational fear of the terrorists is consistent of how out of touch old ladies can get when they’re homebound and their children abandon them. Don’t worry sweetie, we still love you no matter how insane your old lady ideas are. You’re still an american, even if you’ve lost your grip on reality. And we’ll try to protect you and your rights, even if at your age you don’t care about them anymore.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:46 amTo all of the Rightwing “Freaks of Nature” who are hanging on by their last mental fingernails; Sucks to be you, huh? I can’t help but feel sorry for you, but I’ll get over it.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:52 amMichelle is the early favorite for the 2006 Axis Sally/Ann Coulter award.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:32 amI-Wrong-I, fess up . . . you spew your RWLemming flem about “my money,†yet you post during the day – during working hours.
Comment by GK
There’s a cell company commercial I always get a kick out of, it goes like this; “…I can do what I want. It’s my way of sticking it to “the man”. “But sir, you are the man. So, you’re sticking it to yourself?” “Maybe”.
Something else as well, I don’t have a 9-5 job. While you’re frittering away your time on an X-Box or frying your brain in a club I’m usually working. It’s why I win. It’s why I’m better than you.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:02 amSomething else as well, I don’t have a 9-5 job. While you’re frittering away your time on an X-Box or frying your brain in a club I’m usually working. It’s why I win. It’s why I’m better than you.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 9:02 am
I-RIGHT-I, as you know, I used to have a job like that. Architecture was a 10 hour a day job, at least. It left me with no time for much else. It’s partly why I left. Because not only does it not make you better, it makes you narrow, stressed (studies out the yang that show how more than 8 hours a day is anti-productive), and a very dull boy.
There’s more to life than work. And if you ever realize that, as I did, you’ll understand why many people do not want you life.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:20 amIt’s why I win. It’s why I’m better than you.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #114
I’ntolerable-R’ank-I’nfection,
PLEASE tell us exactly WHAT it is you’ve “WON”?
…really, inquiring minds want to know…
January 20th, 2006 at 9:34 amYou know full well the objections have to do with illegal eavesdropping on American citizens and Bushite political enemies…
Comment by big papa
There’s no evidence Bush has eavesdropped on anyone other than those suspected or known to have connections to radical Islamists. It’s all speculation and knee jerk unqualified Left Wing paranoia. Show me I’m wrong.
Also, I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Check this out Buckwheat…
Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush’s decision to wiretap suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S. without first obtaining a court order – and a solid plurality believe those who leaked news of the secret operation are “traitors,” a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found.
Asked whether the president “should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?” – 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.
Just 36 percent disagreed.
According to Dick Morris, who reveals the poll’s stunning results in today’s New York Post – even 42 percent of Democrats back the Bush surveillance program.
In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!”
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/19/124752.shtml?s=ic
So there you have it. Now you know why you’ve been spinning your wheels and nothing is going to come from all this “Bush broke the law” bullshit.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:42 amThere’s more to life than work. And if you ever realize that, as I did, you’ll understand why many people do not want you life.
Comment by unbelievable
I’m trying to change, really I am but the right woman just hasn’t come along. I was a much happier man when I was getting laid regularly.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:46 amI’ntolerable-R’ank-I’nfection,
PLEASE tell us exactly WHAT it is you’ve “WON�
…really, inquiring minds want to know…
Comment by big papa
The respect and love of lovely people. If I didn’t have that I’d blow my brains out.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:50 amI’m trying to change, really I am but the right woman just hasn’t come along. I was a much happier man when I was getting laid regularly.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Keep looking for ‘the’ right one and you won’t find her, you know… there isn’t some perfect woman out there who will make you happy, and telling yourself there is is just making you feel worse in turn. I’m convinced it’s the reason the divorce rate is so high (like up to 65% for people married since 1990).
You should relax… do things that you enjoy, and you’ll be amazed at the number of women you meet with common interests. Just don’t expect them to be some fairytale ideal, or they will never live up to your expectation, and you will soon find yourself looking again, and again, and again…
January 20th, 2006 at 9:55 amIn other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!â€
Not in a milion years.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:57 amNot in a milion years.
Comment by unbelievable
You’ve been wrong before.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:31 amYou’ve been wrong before.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 10:31 am
In here? Only in the details… never in the general sense.
So how’s this work for you: Not in a range of 500,000 to 1.5 million years…
January 20th, 2006 at 10:53 amOh, IRI, one other thing… Your opposite sex parent is your role model in searching for a mate.
Didn’t you say that mom is liberal?
Uh-oh…
January 20th, 2006 at 10:55 amDidn’t you say that mom is liberal?
Uh-oh…
Comment by unbelievable
Old timey liberal. They don’t make ‘em like her anymore anyway.
I’ve got my eye on a little Mexican gal I met last weekend in SA. She sure is purty and I’ll bet she can cook I’m just not sure what her brother would think of it. You know how racist those Mexicans are.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:12 amI’ve got my eye on a little Mexican gal I met last weekend in SA. She sure is purty and I’ll bet she can cook I’m just not sure what her brother would think of it. You know how racist those Mexicans are.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Then you should date her brother – you two seem to have more in common…
For her sake, I also hope she uses her brain and wants more from a man than to be his personal chef and arm decoration…
January 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amAsked whether the president “should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?†– 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.
Just 36 percent disagreed.
Do we have to go over straw men and misleading polls here? The question, once again for those who need their Ritalin to stay on topic, is not whether we should find terrorists on our soil but whether the President broke a law by not getting a warrant (that is almost never rejected).
January 20th, 2006 at 11:51 amAnd the further question is how much authority does the President claim and does it even resemble the Constitution anymore (with checks and balances requiring the Executive branch to be accountable to other branches).
January 20th, 2006 at 11:53 ameven 42 percent of Democrats back the Bush surveillance program.
In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!
It would be nice if you came up with something origianl that hasn’t already been debunked. Even 42 percent in a misleading poll like that is paltry…
And if you are going to quote a news source please quote a credible one and not “newsmax.”
January 20th, 2006 at 11:57 amAnd if you are going to quote a news source please quote a credible one and not “newsmax.â€
Comment by Buckley Roberts
Nonsense. They report, you decide. The poll was taken by Dick Morris, one of yours.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pmFor her sake, I also hope she uses her brain and wants more from a man than to be his personal chef and arm decoration…
Comment by unbelievable
Bite your tongue.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pmNonsense. They report, you decide. The poll was taken by Dick Morris, one of yours.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
“In fact, when an Associated Press poll asked Americans if the Bush Administration should be required to get a warrant before wiretapping, 56 percent answered affirmatively.”
Truth hurts doesn’t it…
Any other misleading information I can debunk?
January 20th, 2006 at 12:55 pmHere’s the actually AP story.
Newsmax vs. AP? They report, you decide.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:57 pm“In fact, when an Associated Press poll asked Americans if the Bush Administration should be required to get a warrant before wiretapping, 56 percent answered affirmatively.â€
Truth hurts doesn’t it…
Any other misleading information I can debunk?
Comment by Buckley Roberts
Yes, you can debunk the notion that the AP’s bias is overwhelmingly liberal and that the “Nation” you linked to is run by a snake pit of ratbastardcommiemofofucktards….that think like you.
Your poll was debunked by my poll that is two weeks more recent and obtained by a more honest cross section of the public.
“The results flatly contradict a widely reported Associated Press poll two weeks ago, which sampled a disproportionate percentage of Democrats and concluded that the public objected to the Bush surveillance program.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:47 pmIn another stunning finding, the Fox poll found by that a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the American public believes that those responsible for exposing the super secret surveillance program have betrayed the country.”
56 percent want a warrant when it is asked in the poll question…
January 20th, 2006 at 1:55 pmDear Progressive Crybabys – This is not to insult the four or five of you who love the United States and the good, democratic institutions (NOTE to progs – I DID NOT say “perfection”) the US tries to promote. Should we implement your naive and frankly, revolting, “letter of the law I like” routine, PLEASE do not come whining and whimpering when you get hit by barbarians who hate you every bit (or more) than they hate the likes of me and my compadres. I have an idea – why don’t you make the trip and try to work out the details of a truce with the newly “reasonable” bin Laden?? That should keep you busy for about 20 minutes and who knows, maybe the Nobel Committee will honour you posthumously, God forbid.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:55 pmPlease source your quotes so they can be put in context. Specifically where you got this methodology that determined: “The results flatly contradict a widely reported Associated Press poll two weeks ago, which sampled a disproportionate percentage of Democrats and concluded that the public objected to the Bush surveillance program.
Your poll was debunked by my poll that is two weeks more recent and obtained by a more honest cross section of the public.
And how so? Please provide the methodology you are calling into question as well as the new methodology you are using so that we can evaluate this claim.
And you never responded to the fact that the questions asked in your poll are so misleading they can only produce answers acceptable to the right.
I back everything I say up with facts and numbers and neutrality (AP vs. Newsmax) so please provide sources that back up your claims:
January 20th, 2006 at 2:02 pm“Nation†you linked to is run by a snake pit of ratbastardcommiemofofucktards
#
Dear Progressive Crybabys – This is not to insult the four or five of you who love the United States and the good, democratic institutions (NOTE to progs – I DID NOT say “perfectionâ€) the US tries to promote. Should we implement your naive and frankly, revolting, “letter of the law I like†routine, PLEASE do not come whining and whimpering when you get hit by barbarians who hate you every bit (or more) than they hate the likes of me and my compadres. I have an idea – why don’t you make the trip and try to work out the details of a truce with the newly “reasonable†bin Laden?? That should keep you busy for about 20 minutes and who knows, maybe the Nobel Committee will honour you posthumously, God forbid.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 20, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Who are you arguing against? You come up with responses to things no one has said on here. Letter of the law is still the law. In fact that is what modern government is built on: no one is above the law as opposed to the king being the law. He had plenty of opportunity to comply (the FISA courts rarely reject a warrant) and chose delibrately not to and chooses delibrately not to claiming the law doesn’t apply to him. That is scary.
And the evidence points more towards W making the world more, not less, dangerous. Refer to my previous links about the rise of global terrorism. Or refer to your Osama tape. Cuz lets face it: the GOP controlled governemnt let him go. Or that Iran and North Korea went nuclear on Bush’s watch. Bush has divided the country, making it easier for our enemies to fight us.
Once again I say, if the president doesn’t have anything to hide he will let an independent investigation take place.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:11 pmhey, buckley – good to have you here…
you seem very brave – best not waste your talent with IRI…
by the way, i’m just south of you – corner of 57/70…
not many illini around here – welcome!
January 20th, 2006 at 2:14 pmAnd in case you still believed this:
In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!â€
From Zogby:
76 percent of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans.
Now are you going to try to smear Zogby. That’s a pretty tall order to try and take down the AP and Zogby in one day.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:20 pmI back everything I say up with facts and numbers and neutrality (AP vs. Newsmax) so please provide sources that back up your claims:
“Nation†you linked to is run by a snake pit of ratbastardcommiemofofucktards
Comment by Buckley Roberts
You’re late to the party, two weeks to be exact. AP is as biased as the NYT or LAT and if you didn’t know that the “Nation” was started and run by a bunch of imported Marxist Left Wing Jews then you’re just not quite up to playing on my ball field. It’s off to the minor’s with you.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:54 pmNow are you going to try to smear Zogby. That’s a pretty tall order to try and take down the AP and Zogby in one day.
Comment by Buckley Roberts
You just don’t get it do you. You can’t trust a poll. For starters they ALL have an agenda. Secondly, PEOPLE LIE to fool the pollster into thinking they are more politically correct than they are. It happens here all the time. If I actually thought that the losers on this board were as Left Wing and traitorous as they pretend I’d have my close personal friends at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Central hack this site, find them and have them all arrested. But I know it’s just a game. The real war for this country is being fought between people you’ve never heard of.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pmhey, buckley – good to have you here…
you seem very brave –
Comment by katy
He’ll get over being brave after I hand him his ass a few times. You all get over it.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:05 pmYou can’t trust a poll. Secondly, PEOPLE LIE to fool the pollster into thinking they are more politically correct than they are.
Do you realize that you’ve just taken down your own argument? And you still haven’t told me how Zogby lied or manipulated data.
if you didn’t know that the “Nation†was started and run by a bunch of imported Marxist Left Wing Jews then you’re just not quite up to playing on my ball field
Once again, evidence?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:06 pmHe’ll get over being brave after I hand him his ass a few times.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Still waiting…
January 20th, 2006 at 3:23 pmOnce again, evidence?
Comment by Buckley Roberts
Is your google finger broken?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:30 pmIs your google finger broken?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Was that me getting my ass handed to me?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:33 pmWas that me getting my ass handed to me?
Comment by Buckley Roberts
No, that was just me refusing to be your mother.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pmNo, that was just me refusing to be your mother.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
ooo..staying on track at least
January 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pmYou know I tried to google ratbastardcommiemofofucktards like you told me but it didn’t work out. Any more suggestions?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:38 pmBite your tongue.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Did you forget who you’re talking to?
January 20th, 2006 at 3:41 pmSecondly, PEOPLE LIE to fool the pollster into thinking they are more politically correct than they are. It happens here all the time.
Ah-ha! I knew you were a liar… thanks for finally fessing up REAL AMERICAN…
And no – not everyone lies. Only people with non-existent self-esteem.
If I actually thought that the losers on this board were as Left Wing and traitorous as they pretend I’d have my close personal friends at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Central hack this site, find them and have them all arrested.
I am this liberal. Good thing I don’t believe you have friends, or am manipulated by fear and empty threats…
But I know it’s just a game. The real war for this country is being fought between people you’ve never heard of.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
No, it’s not a game. And it infuriates me to know that callous people like you think that this is just some strategic manuever in a life-sized game of chess. Except you are playing little boys’ games with people’s lives. Why aren’t your kids in Iraq? Send them, and see just how seriously you should be taking this.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pmbuckley, please…”right-between-the-i’s” is an evil, racist, misogynistic, hateful thing…when you feed it, it gets worse…no one wants to “hear” it’s rants…best not to waste your time and energy on such a one…it will self-destruct soon enough…
January 20th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#
buckley, please…â€right-between-the-i’s†is an evil, racist, misogynistic, hateful thing…when you feed it, it gets worse…no one wants to “hear†it’s rants…best not to waste your time and energy on such a one…it will self-destruct soon enough…
Comment by katy — January 20, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
I’m just waiting to get my ass handed to me
January 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pmI’m just waiting to get my ass handed to me
Comment by Buckley Roberts — January 20, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Just don’t hold your breath… I’ve discovered that he generally disappears when he has nothing and you’ve called him out on it…
January 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pm#
buckley, please…â€right-between-the-i’s†is an evil, racist, misogynistic, hateful thing…when you feed it, it gets worse…no one wants to “hear†it’s rants…best not to waste your time and energy on such a one…it will self-destruct soon enough…
Comment by katy
Please Ma’m, you’re turning my head.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:24 pmJust don’t hold your breath… I’ve discovered that he generally disappears when he has nothing and you’ve called him out on it…
Comment by unbelievable
You know better than that. You become intentionally dense and nonsensical just to make me take my ball and go home. The problem with Buckley though is he’s too stupid to know he’s been whipped. I guess that could be a good thing though; no damage to his self esteem.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pmYou know better than that. You become intentionally dense and nonsensical just to make me take my ball and go home.
You mean honest? You would think that’s dense and nonsensical.
And you should know better than that.
The problem with Buckley though is he’s too stupid to know he’s been whipped. I guess that could be a good thing though; no damage to his self esteem.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
See, the problem here is that you haven’t whipped him. Just at the point that the exchange was getting started, you dropped out of it. If anything, that means he wins by default.
You’re not one to talk about anyone’s self-esteem, you know…
January 20th, 2006 at 4:42 pm#
Just don’t hold your breath… I’ve discovered that he generally disappears when he has nothing and you’ve called him out on it…
Comment by unbelievable
You know better than that. You become intentionally dense and nonsensical just to make me take my ball and go home. The problem with Buckley though is he’s too stupid to know he’s been whipped. I guess that could be a good thing though; no damage to his self esteem.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
I’m still waiting for facts from this guy…I’ve outlined some arguements he refuses to take up.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:15 pmAnd he promised me he was going to hand me my ass. Still waiting for that one too.
I’m still waiting for facts from this guy…I’ve outlined some arguements he refuses to take up.
And he promised me he was going to hand me my ass. Still waiting for that one too.
Comment by Buckley Roberts — January 20, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Running the risk that he’ll call me dense again… he isn’t here for facts, just attention. Why else would a supposed extreme conservative hang out in this progressive forum so much? No way I could hang out in a conservative blog for five minutes much less hours every day…
But, good luck!
January 20th, 2006 at 5:19 pmNo way I could hang out in a conservative blog for five minutes much less hours every day…
But, good luck!
Comment by unbelievable
I like the odds here. And of course I like to argue when it’s something worth the time.
Buckley, if you have a point about something I’ll take a look at it but I’m not going to write a book or take the time to “prove” to you things that are common knowledge such as the genesis of The Nation. I’m not going to do it. If you have something specific then spit it out, otherwise STFU and get me a beer.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:34 pmI am a Stupid right-wing idiot… so don’t pay any attention to what I write!
January 20th, 2006 at 7:58 pmComment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 9:02 am
I-WRONG-I . . . you’re wrong again.
Your nonsensical “Stick it to the man” post is pointless & irrelevant. Try to stay on topic.
Don’t know what an I-box is. Don’t care, and never will. Haven’t been to a ‘club’ in twenty years.
You never addressed the fact that you don’t work. You lose.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:07 pmYou never addressed the fact that you don’t work. You lose.
Comment by GK
Some don’t call it work but it’s still a living.
January 21st, 2006 at 10:36 am