Hagel: Bush “Can’t Unilaterally Decide That A 1978 Law Is Out of Date And…Violate The Law”
Hagel: Bush “Can’t Unilaterally Decide That A 1978 Law Is Out of Date And…Violate The Law”
Karl Rove wants the American public to believe only one political party disagrees with Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program. But this morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said the program was illegal:
HAGEL: I don’t believe, from what I’ve heard, but I’m going to give the administration an opportunity to explain it, that he has the authority now to do what he’s doing. Now, maybe he can convince me otherwise, but that’s OK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But not yet.
HAGEL: Not yet. But that’s OK. If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country.
Hagel joins other prominent conservatives — including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) — who have questioned the legal basis of Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Calling Chuck hagel a Republican is a bit of a stretch. HEHE
January 29th, 2006 at 10:49 amWill the Specter hearings be televised? C-SPAN? I hope so,there hasn’t been good government TV since the mid 70s for stuff like these hearings could be.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:00 amhow can other supposedly small government conservatives pretend that big brother spying is ok with them?
January 29th, 2006 at 11:05 amIf the program is illegal, stop it immediately. I haven’t heard any Congress member stand up and say stop doing it, either from those that know what the program is or not.
don’t mince words, if you believe it should be stopped say so. It’s been going on since late ‘01, Congressional outrage at this point is self serving at best. You either believe it’s legal or not, speak up on the floor demanding it instantly stop.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:09 amI’m sure Dubya will suddenly have a lapse of memory when he is directly questioned on why he needed to go around the law on the wire taps.
Lets review a few other things he has avoided: Producing his service records, getting to the bottom of the Valerie Plame leak, providing Harriet Miers court rulings, disclosing who was in his energy meetings, telling us why he hand picked the intellegence that lead us to war…etc, etc.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:10 amHave you guys read this Raw Story(and Newsweek) about how Bush pushed out Goldsmith, who opposed the wire tap program?
There was one catch: the secret program had to be reapproved by the attorney general every 45 days. It was Goldsmith’s job to advise the A.G. on the legality of the program. In March 2004, John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, Comey, Ashcroft’s No. 2, was acting as attorney general. The grandson of an Irish cop and a former U.S. attorney from Manhattan, Comey, 45, is a straight arrow. (It was Comey who appointed his friend—the equally straitlaced and dogged Patrick Fitzgerald—to be the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak-investigation case.) Goldsmith raised with Comey serious questions about the secret eavesdropping program, according to two sources familiar with the episode. The White House was told: no reauthorization.
Ultimately, a compromise was worked out. But Goldsmith would eventually be sidelined and leave for Harvard, taking a post in academia.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:19 amWho decides? The Administration doesn’t get to change laws without telling anyone when it thinks there is a threat. Duh. Wake up America!!!
Like the rest of America, Russert is finally waking up to the failures of our Republican Administration. Russert just ripped Senate Majority Leader Frist a new one this morning over bad Republican policy, Iraq and our threadbare stretched military, illegal spying, corruption, Frist’s own insider trading, and Frist’s political pandering in his remote diagnosis of Terry Schiavo by watching a videotape. Frist left open whether he would run for President of the United States. Just what we need, another one of them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
January 29th, 2006 at 11:20 amCheck and Balance.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:23 amhow can other supposedly small government conservatives pretend that big brother spying is ok with them?
Comment by Jack — January 29, 2006
Because they don’t think they themselves will ever be spied upon?
January 29th, 2006 at 11:23 amWhy do we even need political parties? Why don’t we just abolish them and let people run on issues…?
January 29th, 2006 at 11:27 amAny Rep with presidential aspirations should be insisted upon to state his position………
January 29th, 2006 at 11:28 amYou’re either with the president or your against him…….
Every ONE of these guys is trying to have it both ways: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS),
they’re all questioning the legality of Bush’s FISA violations through warrantless spying….
…. yet they’ll go right ahead and vote for Alito who will be ready to decide the first case of Unitary Executive power that comes up; a divided Supreme court will go with Bush.
The objections are empty, insulting B.S. if they go ahead and vote for Alito. They obviously think we’re deaf, dumb and blind… and stupid.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:29 am#4 It has been stopped… NSA isn’t sping on domestic —> domestic spying. Not since NYT told Bush admin they know what they were doing. Writing on wall… Please read. Hint… How many terrorist in the US have been charged with treason. Just Libby. Come’on keep up. Hey what happenend to the VP… Don’t tell me Bush is running the country on his own!!! Oh God!!!
January 29th, 2006 at 11:30 amRepublicans want Bush to get a slap on the wrist for NSA Spygate Scandal, but he broke the FISA laws and must be impeached!
When Clinton lied about sex, did the Repubs say bad boy, but do not do it again? Nope they screamed for his impeachment!
January 29th, 2006 at 11:30 amhegel, the anti patriot, eh?
how can we keep the country polarized with a turncoat like hegel spouting democratic ideas?
another war veteran soon to be smeared by herr rove, lil w, and hallichainy…..the real patriots who really care for the rule of law and democracy….really…
really…
what? you don’t believe them anymore…after all their lies…..
well, they only lie to protect you from….
the truth
we are just the peons…..we don’t need to know the truth….just “trust us”
trust us….another way of saying fu, eh?
January 29th, 2006 at 11:30 amdon’t mince words, if you believe it should be stopped say so. It’s been going on since late ‘01, Congressional outrage at this point is self serving at best. You either believe it’s legal or not, speak up on the floor demanding it instantly stop.
Comment by richb — January 29, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Good point – ’cause if any of us broke a law, we’d be hauled away in hand-cuffs not be allowed to keep repeating
January 29th, 2006 at 11:30 amit.
Just perhaps the repubs in congress are figuring out that they may not always be in charge. The question they must be asking themselves is, “Would we support a Democratic President if he acted this way?” Obviously, the answer is no. The contridiction would prove difficult to justify. The polls have to be scaring them. The vast majority of Americans don’t want the President to have this amount of authority, so eventually voters will replace those who support the Presient’s abuse of office. The lame duck President cannot help congress members get re-elected. They will continue to distance themselves from him.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:33 amOr maybe the repugs in congress can read the writing on the wall and see if they don’t run as far away from the illegal and immoral policies of the current administration they will end up as a minority party if not actually individually replaced. I enjoyed Chris Shay’s comments on C-Span this morning he recounted the 1994 elections and tried to warn the neo-cons that they weren’t immune from a place on the growing unemployment line come November, if they didn’t clean up the mess in DC and really start doing the people’s business not the radical rights’s. But I guess he’s another RINO? One other thing out of seven callers who called on the repug line ONE agreed with Bushco, FOUR stated they were going to have a hard time voting repug this fall, and the other two stated they had left the repug party since 2000. Chris Shay even stated if the repugs in congress were not going to fulfill their constitutional duty of oversight then it probably was time for a democratic congress. Fire away wingnuts but he claims to be on your side.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:49 amWingnut trolls seem to be quiet today – it’s a Sunday so they can’t get their squawking points from Limbaugh and Hannity.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:51 amAs ‘unbelievable’ suggests, this is supposed to be a country governed by laws not men. Nationally laws are the purview of the Congress, and even the Executive is subordinate to those laws. None of this ‘co-equal branches’ stuff. Locally, it’s ‘law enforcement’ (in theory) not ‘do whatever you want.’ Do the crime and do the time. It’s an obvious and simple issue, really, and it’s too bad that there’s a need to straighten out the President (on the issues of wiretapping, torture, etc.) who, more than anyone, is expected to uphold the Constitution, as he swore to do.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:53 amThere hate us becase of our “freedoms”. By removing
January 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pmthese “freedoms” from the American people ‘they’ will not hate us near as much. GW is a real genius and you people
just do not get it!
Unitary Executive Power new words for Dicatorship?
America is in a sleep mode just do whatever but don’t wake me……
January 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pmDon, has it right. The President’s oath is to protect the Constitution; not to do anything the President sees fit — even thwarting the Constitution — to “protect the Country” and/or his political interests. And the branch really excluded in this current behavior is judicial (warrants). Congress, even if it passes laws, cannot exclude the Judicial branch from it’s responsibility without an Amendment.
Regarding the standing of Hagel as a Republican …he is. Like alot of plains states congressmen, they don’t swing too far to the extremes because the states have historically depended on social benefits and farm subsidies for state industry. Farm state representatives will typically not be flaming liberals or rock hard fiscal conservatives. It’s like saying Clinton was not a Democrat because of his stance on deregulation and international trade agreements (NAFTA, China). On business (and on fund raising talents), Clinton was much more Republican than most of us progressives would like. But he still advocated a Federal solution to the health care issues, like a FDR Democrat.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:13 pmhttp://www.counterpunch.org/smith01292006.html
As a high-level State Department official in the first Bush term, John Bolton, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, received “raw” (unanalyzed) intercepts of conversations of U.S. government officials and private citizens opposed to going to war with Iraq. To hide the intercepts, the collection effort was reportedly run as an exercise. In accordance with the law, NSA destroyed its records when the “exercise” ended, but this was after copies had been provided to Bolton and other key pro-war supporters.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:15 pmEarp, eavesdropping on al Qaeda does not thwart the Constitution.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:16 pmATTENTION CONGRESS AND SENATE:
2008 Bush will be out of office you guys probably will not survive 2006:He can not save your hides. We the people hired you and we can fire you, we don’t need an impeachment either, just a vote for someone else.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pmIt is time to stop being a bunch of wussies and get to work doing the job you were elected for.
Guard Americans freedoms or go down with the ship: There is a voters revolt brewing and we are sick and tired of shennegans. No more career thugs with Dibolt rigged voting machines, we are onto the racket.
Rove is compartmentalized in to Neo-con LALA land
once out of his territory, the Majority non Partisan Sect, He has no room to Spin, and Spin will work against Him.
Roves whole Politico strategy relies on misleading Euphenisms and Talking Points Generally aimed at one ‘group’ or another.
Rover is Lost without his Latent Racists Parroting and he CANT attack a group of people, a Majority, because they are NON-Partisan.
So much for Rove and Norquists Game of Triumvirate.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pmRover red Rover let Rover come Over!
Naw, We dont want him, neither does America.
Rover Go join the HAMAS or other Islamist groups you and old Norquist supported. Because the PEOPLE are gonna, and I quote the Neo-cons;
‘Eat Cheese on You”
BTW a ‘Norquist’ has Switched Parties to Democratic side, DONT be fooled by this Pathetic attempt by Him to cloak himself.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:25 pmJack read #28
do you SEE Al Qaeda here?;
John Bolton, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, received “raw†(unanalyzed) intercepts of conversations of U.S. government officials and private citizens opposed to going to war with Iraq.
And if those are American Peace ‘Terrorists’, why are they Wanting Peace instead of War?
January 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pmAnd why does Bush not want the American Peace ‘Terrorists’ making Peace?
And calling Joseph Lieberman a Democrat is a stretch. Both sides have got them. Suck it up.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pmHey Jack whats the ‘Euphenism’ (doublespeak)or misleading ‘talking point’ is the Neo-Con FAX machine spitting out today?
January 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pmCalling Chuck hagel a Republican is a bit of a stretch. HEHE
Comment by Jack — January 29, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Calling Jack a Human is as Well.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pmCalling Bush a ‘Libera’l would be true though, are you a closet Liberal Jack?
You say Hagel isnt a Republican? WoW.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:38 pmSo you Know Hagel better than Hagel?
Funny how you Neo-kooks rabidly attack one another.
I guess thats the proverbial Rat leaping from the sinking ship syndrome.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:39 pmHuh Jack?
The WHite has yet to prove they were only spying on Al Qaida. That would go back to your partisan brain thinking Bush is always right. You can’t help yourself.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pmDoes anyone really think gw would put himself in legal harm simply because he is desperate to save the American people from harm? He wouldn’t spend one second, or a nickel of our money to protect the country, but if he were to make a nickel off of the death of 1000 Americans, I would bet he would be at the front of the line for his nickel.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pmHe has not done one honest thing for the masses, only squandered our countries wealth and trust. For those who argue that he has spent billions protecting us, I argue back that he has spent the billions to line pockets without regard to the level of protection that might have been gained.
I am curious if impeachment will be pushed by the republicans now while holding a majority, so that it might reduce the risk later if they lose the majority?
as Drowning Rats climb one upon another in battle for life, drowning their Brothers with their weight, forcing them down into the abyss yet exposing themselves, poking dark beady eyes above troubled waters, gasping for air, seeking purchase, they find none, tire of swimming, and sink back to the Bottom.
Bye Bye Jack-o
January 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pmSpudgeBoy, you have yet to prove the president was not only spying on al Qaeda. That would go back to your partisan brain thinking Bush is always wrong.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:46 pmWhen I talk to people that I know about the BushCo, all too often (99%) they have some measureable level of disdain for the BushCo. Be it war in Iraq, spy, or just party difference.
When I ask those same people what they feel should be done, 10% say nothing, 10% say impeachment, and 80% shrug and say why bother.
WHAAAAAAAAAA??????????*eyes wide open*
When I ask them why the hopelessness they firmly state that not much can be done with a Republican controlled Congress. They seem to feel that the Republicans have no brain. As is they are just pawns for the BushCo.
And in essence, the Republican Congress is.
That is the targeted audience. They are going either make it or break it.
More people like Chuck and Arlen are needed to realize the facts.
The facts about their job:
CONGRESS HAS BEEN SUMARIALY DISMISSED
Jan. 26, 2006
Presidential Press Conference
January 29th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Speaking of security:
I love how the right wingers will point to the 9/11 Comission’s Report as a source for an investigation into the 9/11 events. But, when we point out that the 9/11 Comission has stated that Bush hasn’t followed any of their guidelines or improved America’s safety one bit, the right wingers say the 9/11 Comission is wrong. WHich is it, right or wrong.
If the 9/11 Comission is right, then Bush hasn’t done shit for security.
If the 9/11 Comssion is wrong, then their needs to be a new investigation.
You can’t have it both ways.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmAye the Rats in the Barrel
#SpudgeBoy, you have yet to prove the president was not only spying on al Qaeda. That would go back to your partisan brain thinking Bush is always wrong.
Comment by Jack — January 29, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
But Bush IS much more WRONG than he HAS ever been Right.
Ergo hes incompetent.
Bush isnt a Weatherman, though he should be.
For What other Job can a man can be Wrong Most of the Time?
OH Jack, you try so hard yet you always Fail.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmGet in the Barrel Boy Lets hear you Squeal
Ahhhh, but here’s the rub buddy. I think he has done both. Why, because I know exactly what Eschelon was created for and what it is capable of. You might want to read up. Just Google Eschelon and you will find plenty of info.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:52 pmSpudgeBoy, Echelon precedes the Bush administration. Aren’t you lefties always saying not to drag Clinton into everything? HAHA
January 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI try not to Google anything since the liberals who run the company kowtowed to the left-wing ChiComs. Yahoo!
January 29th, 2006 at 12:55 pmOkay, then Yahoo! it idiot.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pmI already know about that Clinton program, you idiot.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:03 pmJack is such a moron.
ECHELON has been around since after WWII.
Yahoo and the other search engines never even fought the Red Chinese on censorship. They all acquiesed righ away.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pm#51 Comment by Jack
Oh, oh, oh.
The US Government collects data, and is allowed to do so through the US laws, on other countries. The US government is also permitted to collect data on companies that opperate from outside the US. This goes for internet, cellular, and telephone. According to US law, those companies are open game.
According to US law, currently as is written, the Government is not allowed to collect data without probable cause and when doing so must gain a warrent to do so against their will. No warrent is needed if you give them permission. The reasonableness is the cause in which you justify the probability to the court. Without reasonableness, the court cannot grant a warrent on probability, as there is no reasonable cause.
This is the crux of the current Impeachable, er… Warrentless wire taps, er… Domestic spy program, er…
[pc]“International Terrorist Surveillance Program”[/pc]
The US law is very specific.
And the law is the law.
US business law requires any company opperating within the US, to comply with Federal Law. And US business law requires any US company doing business in a forign country, to comply with the laws of the country that which they are conducting business in.
G00gLe is safe as long as they stay DOMESTIC.
~ Keep in mind ~
~ The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter.
IN FAVOR of SEARCH ENGIN PRIVACY.
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY IS VALID in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
~ It is the President that is challenging this ruleing, and to do so, must provide evidence that proves the government’s case to overturn the Supreme Court ruleing.
~ The Supreme Court will also hear alternative arguments concerning rewritting the proposed law so that it falls within the boundries of the constitution, if the Government cannot supply the necessary evidence to their case.
~ Nothing can happen to G00gLe’s search engin as things are, now.
~ If G00gLe resists the subpoena, nothing happens to G00gLe, its self. It will be the CEO that will be held in contempt of court.
~ His argument? Since the government is not allowed to go door-to-door to monitor who is looking at your Pr0N and check under every bed, matress, coffee table, or where ever you keep printed/vidcapped Pr0N, how is your computer any different?
* The terms REASONABLE, REASONABLENESS, PROBABLE CAUSE, and PROBABILITY all have defined leagal parameters. And each word and combination of words to create a term, is of and in its self unique.
This is where the Unitary Exicutive and Protectorite of the Commonealth of the 50 States of America has gotten himself in a bit of a pickle.
He and his Generals have confused those terms.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:05 pmJack the troll must be in an Iron Lung.
He’s too stupid to remember to breath.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:08 pmJack,
January 29th, 2006 at 1:09 pmIs the President obligated to obey the law, or not, in your opinion?
“Jack the troll must be in an Iron Lung.
He’s too stupid to remember to breath. ”
Another intellectual argument from the left. HAHA
January 29th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThe winger trolls truly are dumb and dumber and dumberer and dumberest.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:13 pmDon, it depends on the law in question. Congress may not infringe on the inherent constitutional powers of the executive branch. Congress is obligated to adhere to constitutional limits.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:14 pmYou can’t have an intellectual argument with an anti-intellectual, Jack.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:15 pmNot a New Series on Fox:
Rovin’ Rovin’Rovin’
Though the pockets are swollen
Keep them bribes comin’
Bush lied!
Spies and lies and Enron
Offshore shares in world.com
Wishin’ the law was on my side
All the things I’m dissin’
Good values, love and kissin’
Aren’t waitin’ at the end of my ride
Hush it up, sell her out
Sell her out, hush it up
Hush it up, sell her out Bush lied!
Spy on them, leek that out
Leek that out, spy on them
Spy on them, leek that out Bush lied!
Keep spinnin’ spinin’ spinin’
Through the shit storm whirlin’
Keep the vote from guessin’ Bush lied
Don’t dare to be honest with ‘em
Just entertain, deceive and scare ‘em
Soon we’ll be living lobby side
By Delay’s calculatin’
My payoff will be waitin’, waitin’ at the end of my ride
Hush it up, sell her out
January 29th, 2006 at 1:19 pmSell her out, hush it up
Hush it up, sell her out Bush lied!
Spy on them, leek that out
Leek that out, spy on them
Spy on them, leek that out Bush lied!
In fact, Jack, as you well know, there are only two courses of action one can take with your ilk: Step back and let them annihilate themselves, (always the best course of action) unless…
Or annihilate them yourself, (which is where the unless comes in), because we can’t just step back in this instance, you are here, not in Cambodia or some other place trying your “cultural revolution” bullshit so I guess that only leaves one choice…
January 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmWhich is why I’m not trying to. HAHA
January 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmBombshelterman: YOU’RE the genius! Your comment was priceless.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:32 pmWhich is why I’m not trying to. HAHA
Comment by Jack
Proves my point.
Jack, if you aren’t trying to (what? we don’t know because you lack specificity in your pointless rhetorical wanking )you are just here practicing rhetorical wanking. You are just here to argue for arguments sake. Because you actually have no position, just any position that is contrary to any position taken here. That’s not intellect, Jack. That’s rhetoric without meaning or substance. It’s ejaculation without procreation. It’s a form of mental masturbation. It’s oratorical onanism. You probably have a jumbo size box of Kleenex by the computer and a sticky keyboard.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:35 pmJack,you wrote:
Don, it depends on the law in question. Congress may not infringe on the inherent constitutional powers of the executive branch.
Jack,
Here is a verbatim, ccomplete listing of Presidential from the Constitution:
*****************
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pm***************
Now, where are the “inherent powers” to violate the law? Are you trying to say, as others have, that because the President commands the military forces in time of war, he has the “inherent power” to wiretap and torture in violation of the law? Hasn’t the U.S. often supported the prosecution of foreign wartime leaders for violating the law? Aren’t military commanders subject to the law? What’s so special about George Bush?
Don, the president didn’t violate the law.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:37 pmThat’s Presidential POWERS.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:38 pmJack,
January 29th, 2006 at 1:41 pmAgain, you stated that the President has the inherent Constitutional power to disobey some laws, and I’m asking you where this power is stated in the Constitution.
Don, it depends on the law in question.
It depends on the law in question? Meaningless nonsense. All laws must pass constitutional muster. The SCOTUS determines what laws are constitutional. So it depends on the constitution and the interpretation of that document by the Supreme court at the time.
Congress may not infringe on the inherent constitutional powers of the executive branch.
As proscribed in the constitution as it is for the executive branch.
Congress is obligated to adhere to constitutional limits.
As is the executice branch.
I think I’ll go back to calling you names. And if you decide to practice law, I’d try something easy, like Landlord/tenant. I see you at an eviction mill in 5 years.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmGiddy, the fact I’ve written you off as an anti-intellectual doesn’t mean I can’t post here. A non-moron would’ve caught that. HEHE
January 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmJack,
Again, you stated that the President has the inherent Constitutional power to disobey some laws, and I’m asking you where this power is stated in the Constitution.
Comment by Don
This is why it’s better to ignore him or insult him or just shoot him. He’s arguing for omnipotence for the executive in time of war. I might have no problem with that if vast navies of invasion troops were poised off our shores or if a countless nukes were about to rain down on our shores. Not in this case.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pmDon,
January 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pmThe president has powers independent of Congress, that’s a basic constitutional concept. There has been surveillance of the enemy in every war without judicial oversight.
No one has argued for omnipotence for the executive. Giddy will obviously lie about anything and everything.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:49 pmRhetoric: insincere or grandiloquent language
Jack.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:52 pm[...] From: Think Progress Hagel [R-NE]: Bush “Can’t Unilaterally Decide That A 1978 Law Is Out of Date And…Violate The Law†• • • [...]
January 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pmNotice that Hagel is basically saying:
“I think the president is breaking the law. He needs to come to us so we can change the law and make it legal”.
Not likely to stop the wiretapping, not likely to bring Bush to justice, just another despicable capitulation of our supposed “checks and balances”.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pmDon, the president didn’t violate the law.
Comment by Jack
Why did he then admit to violating the law? Is he an idiot? Rhetorical question.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pmPresidential Primary Poll
Evan Bayh 9%
January 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pmJoe Biden 1%
Wes Clark 13%
Hillary Clinton 7%
John Edwards 6%
Russ Feingold 11%
Al Gore 45%
John Kerry 4%
Tom Vilsack 0%
Mark Warner 4%
Total votes: 493
The president didn’t admit to violating the law. That too is a lie.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pmDon, the president didn’t violate the law.
Comment by Jack
tracert
jack=
Geoffrey Burnham
AKA Gordon the magnificent
his blog
Dogsnot Diaries (Diarhea)
http://www.dogsnot.net/mt/
January 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pmUS President George Bush admitted, in his weekly radio address on December 17, 2005, that he ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic surveillance of US citizens without seeking warrants.
How’s the jobhunt going Burnham?
Did they fire you for suspected pedophilia?
January 29th, 2006 at 2:02 pmRightPunch admitted to violating the law agaisnt necrophilia. Gee, just saying so is easy, isn’t it?
January 29th, 2006 at 2:02 pm#81 Comment by unbelievable
Yea, I saw that earlier today.
LMAO He’s denied even wanting to run.
His numbers are there only because he grew a pair and delivered a speach to the American populace on the BushCo’s misdeeds.
TRANSCIPT
VIDEO
Try not to yell too much if you watch the video.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pmIt stirrs much passion for Democracy.
Geoffrey?….
Geoffrey?
Bueller?
January 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pmThat nut Gore has as much chance of being president as his soulmate moonbat Cindy Sheehan.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:06 pmJack, you said (again):
The president has powers independent of Congress, that’s a basic constitutional concept. There has been surveillance of the enemy in every war without judicial oversight.
Jack, I say (again):
January 29th, 2006 at 2:06 pmWhere is this Presidential power (to disobet certain laws) stated in the Constitution? Do you believe that the Constitution is not the definitive document for our government? Please stop repeating yourself by saying that the President has powers not stated in the Constitution.
RightPunch admitted to violating the law agaisnt necrophilia. Gee, just saying so is easy, isn’t it?
Comment by Jack
Perhaps he did, in private, and maybe the NSA heard him, but it’s not admissible in a court of law because they didn’t have a warrant to obtain it. Bush, on the other hand, made the addmission of his guilt in public, on the radio, and millions of Americans heard it, and it was recorded to. I suppose you could argue that he made the confession/admission under duress….
January 29th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#63 Comment by Bruce Gorton
I’m gonna do a cut and plaster with that one.
GREAT JOB :)
January 29th, 2006 at 2:09 pmDon, where is it stated in the Constitution that Congress may infringe on the Commander in Chief powers? Where is it stated specifically in the Constitution that the president may not deport all liberals?
January 29th, 2006 at 2:10 pmJack, I say (again):
Where is this Presidential power (to disobet certain laws) stated in the Constitution? Do you believe that the Constitution is not the definitive document for our government? Please stop repeating yourself by saying that the President has powers not stated in the Constitution.
Jack has powers not stated in the constitution. He can fly!
Go try that from the top of the Empire state building, Jack.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pmJack is wallace. Please ignore it. Judd asked that we not feed him so it’s easier to remove it from the community dialog.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pmProve it unbelievable.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:13 pmSee how they turn on a dime? Now they are all for broad interpretive readings and activism in construing the constitution. They were strict originalists last week.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:13 pmThat cuts both ways, Gordo:
See how they turn on a dime? Now they are all for strict interpretive readings in construing the constitution. They were for a “living breathing” Constitution last week.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pmYea, I saw that earlier today.
LMAO He’s denied even wanting to run.
His numbers are there only because he grew a pair and delivered a speach to the American populace on the BushCo’s misdeeds.
Try not to yell too much if you watch the video.
It stirrs much passion for Democracy.
Comment by Max-1 — January 29, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Exactly, and this is the point trying to be made to the rest of the Democrats. That people will sooner vote for a Republican than a Democrat who acts like one. Al Gore acted like a leader with his speech and the country is desperate for one. Whether or not he runs, the other candidates should learn something from him… but probably not.
I’m just trying to figure out which country to expatriate to when they begin building the Wall along our borders…
January 29th, 2006 at 2:15 pmSee how they turn on a dime? Now they are all for broad interpretive readings and activism in construing the constitution. They were strict originalists last week.
Comment by G. Gordon Giddy — January 29, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Yep, just the desperate clawing of a man drowning at the bottom of a well…
But don’t worry, our elected Democrats are sure to rescue and resucitate them all.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:17 pmBUSH/CHENEY ‘07
January 29th, 2006 at 2:18 pmIMPEACH AND IMPRISON
DON DON DON
To look for the “Inherent Powers” that which BushCo referrs to, you need to look harder. They are burried farther in the Constitution.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
That’s him. Here’s his picture. It’s a young statue.
jack / wallace/Geoffrey Burnham (real name
http://www.dogsnot.net/mt/
January 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#77 Ergo, all Jack’s posts are full of insincere and grandiloquent language, even those one-liners. In less than ten words. Congratulations.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pm“Calling Chuck hagel a Republican is a bit of a stretch. HEHE” Comment by Jack — January 29, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Ha-ha so funny – but true – unlike Cheney, Bush, and the other neocon Republicans, Hagel was’t a cowardly draft dodger – he actually served his country. Quite un-Republican, really.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#100 Comment by unbelievable
FIRST THEY HAVE TO FILL THE TUNNELS.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pmPresident Bush in fact served in the military, unlike that lying draft dodger Bill Clinton.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pmFIRST THEY HAVE TO FILL THE TUNNELS.
Comment by Max-1 — January 29, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Yes, the tunnels…
January 29th, 2006 at 2:25 pmhttp://dogsnot.net/mt/images/baerback%20mountain.jpg
here it is.
That cuts both ways, Gordo:
See how they turn on a dime? Now they are all for strict interpretive readings in construing the constitution. They were for a “living breathing†Constitution last week.
Not really. But you would try to make that argument. It fails, however.
The constitution is vague by design. As I said, if the threat were grave enough, I might agree. It just isn’t. And your argument for a newly elastic constitution hinges on a state of war existing. It just doesn’t exist, not in the sense that founders intended. Original intent is pretty clear in some cases and you had best prepare for a loss on this one. Even the yes men on the SCOTUS will have to go through some pretty obscene legal contortions to rubber stamp this power grab. I just don’t see it.
cument
January 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pmI know that it’s tempting to want to refute nonsense – but please ignore wallace (a.k.a. jack). He’s only here to disrupt the posts and get attention.
Judd banned him and he keeps switching IP addresses and emails. Know we’re all such wonderful company that he can’t stay away, but hardly the same can be said of him in return.
Please just ignore him.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pmHow typical of the statist left to try and ban dissent rather than make arguments. All who are capable of thought will notice unbelievable’s inability to provide any evidence for any of her assertions.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pmPresident Bush in fact served in the military, unlike that lying draft dodger Bill Clinton.
Comment by Jack
So did Jack.
He plays computer war games, and watches war movies so he has actually seen more action than Bush
January 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pmOf course it really goes without saying that Gordo has no idea what action I’ve seen. Talk is cheap, as they say, Gordo.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:34 pmHow typical of the fascist right to just not allow comments and dissent rather than engage in dialogue or debate. All who are capable of thought will notice Jack’s inability to provide any evidence for any of his assertions. He’s lucky he’s allowed to make them here.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmHagel as another Republican seeking the answers on the wiretaps is less important than who else is in the group listed above. The Judiciary Committee which will hold the hearing is chaired by Specter but includes both Graham and Brownback along with the same group of Democrats who “grilled” Alito. I hope they don’t make Alberto cry.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:36 pmHagel was impressive this morning though,particularly with respect to Rove’s comments. When have you heard any Senator,let alone a Republican, opine contrary to the White House line?I thought he did well.
I know who you are, Burnham and you have seen lots of action, even though few people know you cried at all 5 viewings of Brokeback Mountain so far. But we aren’t talking about that kind of action.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pmHey! If you hurry, I bet there is a discount matinee you could catch! I’m gonna go watch Xena, the Warrior Queen.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:39 pmTJM,
January 29th, 2006 at 2:42 pmI could not have said it better.
Jack, you wrote:
Don, where is it stated in the Constitution that Congress may infringe on the Commander in Chief powers? Where is it stated specifically in the Constitution that the president may not deport all liberals?
Jack, you really need to read the US Constitution. The military powers given to Congress are extensive, those to the President are limited to be the commander of military forces in wartime, which by no means gives him unlimited power to illegally wiretap citizens, torture people, or deport liberals. Your presumption that a military commander (any military commander?) has unlimited power to do anything he wants, in violation of the law, is just silly and without any basis, as your fancy foowtwork around the issue has illustrated. For additional reading, check out the Nuernburg Principles, which includes: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: Crimes against peace:
January 29th, 2006 at 2:44 pmPlanning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;”
I can’t get a read on this guy bin laden.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pmI was thinking he was just an arms dealer, but everything leads nowhere.
Maybe he doesn’t exist. I don’t have solid evidence of that though.
There is no solid evidence on bin laden.
You people are addicted to arguing with Jack and the likes.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pmIt can’t possibly be helping anymore.
Says it all.
January 29th, 2006 at 3:01 pmI firmly believe in equal treatment for all. Treat Bush like any other criminal who believes he really didn’t do anythnig wrong. Let a court decide, and one with a jury not a bunch of political hacks like the Supreme Court is becoming.
January 29th, 2006 at 3:02 pmArrest the bastard and charge him with the crimes he is suspected of, then let the jury decide.
What I don’t get is:
The constitution is the highest law of the land right?
So high and important that if other laws are deemed to violate it, they are by default, no longer laws, right?
Even presidential action may not actually go against the constitution, right?
Further, Amendments to the constitution, being amendments actually outrank the original provisions, right?
So here you have the fourth Amendment. Nothing about it saying anything about special wartime powers invalidating it or anything. In fact, looking at the wording of the constitution, war is in fact irrelevant to the argument. There is nothing there giving the President of the US any special war-time powers. Go look it up if you don’t believe me http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments
So where the fuck, does the Rightwing think the president gets the right to spy on people without a warrant from, in view of the Fourth Amendment specifically forbidding it?
“Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
No mention of a war exception there now is there?
January 29th, 2006 at 3:04 pmDoesn’t that go without saying. Didn’t we hear a lot last week about “settled law?” Would Bush also decree that the Civil Rights Act is old and can be disregarded? Or the 19th Amendment? Or the Constitution and its Bill of Rights? Oh, wait, I forgot he has already declared the Constitution to be a “goddamn piece of paper.”
January 29th, 2006 at 3:05 pmWho does this tyrant think he is that he can write laws and ignore others at will? He has shown nothing but contempt for Congress as the legislative body, contempt for American citizens, contempt for world treaties; ironically he is the “contemptible” one.
Hardy Haberman,
Yep.
If they have nothing to hide and want “a more tranparent government” then stop covering things up.
January 29th, 2006 at 3:05 pmWhat if Bush says the NSA spying program is too sensitive to national security to be reviewed by any judicial body, SCOTUS, Senate, whatever. Can he. Will he. What then?
January 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pmSence GWB, states that the FIAS law is out of date. then the other laws on the books should not be followed by the public. Speeding laws, traffic fines, tax laws,voting laws. Pick A name out of A hat. All prisoners should be let out. because they were tried with real old laws. Pension laws are old don’t follow them. This is great we get to pick A law that we like and the hell with the others.The impeachment law is old as dirt. Do we get rid of it too?
January 29th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI have a plan to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito.
For Tennessee residents:
Tell the people of Tennessee who want to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to get on the phone right away
and call Senator Frist at
1-877-851-6437 or 1-888-355-3588
1-888-818-6641 or 1-800-426-8073
and tell him to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito or Dominos pizza, the company that contributes exclusively to the Republican Party and the pro life until birth movement, will suffer a boycott.
Then call Dominos Pizza at 800 468 4726 and demand the employee get the CEO of Dominos Pizza, a hardcore Republican, to get Senator Frist to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito or you will never do business with Dominos Pizza again. You can also call a local Dominos Pizza and tell the store owner this too.You can also do this with Wendy’s Hamburgers Restaurants and Outback Steakhouse too if you like, as these two companies contribute exclusively to the Republican Party.
Then go and buy a roast beef sandwhich at Arby’s or get some Boars Head Brand Roast Beef as these two companies give money to the Democrats.
Do well and work fast.
For residents in other states:
“A Demand without a boycott will most likely fail†: Mighty Maximus
URGENT: Call your senators NOW at
1-877-851-6437 or 1-888-355-3588
1-888-818-6641 or 1-800-426-8073
and tell them “Vote NO on confirmation of Alito or I boycott GOP contributor and antiabortion supporter Dominos Pizza.†Then call and tell that to Senator Frist. Then call Dominos Pizza and tell the employee that unless the CEO of Dominos to get the Republican Party to withdraw the nomination of Samuel Alito or get the Senators to reject Alito, you will never do business with Dominos Pizza again. No CEO wants 50 percent of his customer base to disappear.
Dominos Pizza 800-468-4726 gyselk@dominos.com
http://www.dominos.com
Spread the word on the net and post this at libraries and supermarket bulletin boards. A demand without a boycott will not work.
Join the revolution for progressive legislation.
http://www. boycott – republicans . com
Get your “Mean, Abusive people vote Republican†bumper sticker here.
http://www.cafepress.com/revolution09.45584186
Read the Liberal America Forum
http://www.network54.com/Forum/259017/
WHO NEEDS IMPEACHMENT WHEN THE CITIZENRY CAN DEMAND BUSH AND CHENEY RESIGN OR A FULL SET OF REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTORS WILL GO BROKE UNDER A CITIZENS BOYCOTT/REFERENDUM.
February 12, 2006 do not use Google, protest their support for censorship !
Send Google a message that you don’t want them to cooperate with the censorship of Chinese people in Red China. Google should not set up a search engine for China with built in censorship.
Do not use Google on February 12, 2006. Spread the word.
Tell the world.
January 29th, 2006 at 3:35 pmHey Judd,
Looks like your Spam filters ain’t working or did you take that off, due to the technical issues.
January 29th, 2006 at 3:39 pmSome apparently do have the courage to stand up to Bush, but they are soon marginalized and eventually leave, a la Colin Powell. Check out tomorrow’s Newsweek and this excerpt from Raw Story:
January 29th, 2006 at 3:44 pmhttp://rawstory.com/news/2005/Newsweek_Bush_appointees_revolted_over_executive_0129.html
Wiretapping presents serious concerns especially when our existing Administration(s) have demonstrated they enjoy overstepping their boundaries! My point here is that I know a few things that many people DON’T know and “Wiretapping†is only the tip of the iceberg with what is really going on!
From reviewing the news, few if any at this time, are considering Political Corruption as a possible motive behind SNOOPING. But of course, why should we even consider that our Administration(s) HAVE BEEN or currently ARE actively involved in anything that even smells of criminal intent? THIS IS THE PROBLEM! We absolutely need to look at every possible motive for why “strange†and “insane†excuses are surfacing for what is considered unlawful behavior!
There’s something everyone needs to know about me. I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined Organized Crime. However, this isn’t any ordinary Organized Crime System! It’s considered the Worlds Largest Criminal System in World History! Sounds strange huh? But you need to know the details so you can determine this for yourself!
How is it that I can be married into a family who’s involved in this and be deep in the belly of a Criminal Corruption Laundromat somewhere around Chicago AND know ALL about important and undecided issues being considered at the top most part of our Political System? It doesn’t stop there because I personally know that the communication link extends from where I was to beyond our shores aswell! This is how well connected they are.
So why is Snooping so important? Of course the only way to SELL us on the NEED for snooping is because it’s for our OWN protection, but is that ENTIRELY true? I will tell you that it isn’t. I will also tell you that SNOOPING is a required activity to help them MANAGE and SECURE their CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES. Like it not, look for your self at ALL the different news reports floating around involving FRAUD! What you haven’t pieced together yet, is how they are doing it! But parts of it are there.
Why is it that MY life’s experience in this family also crosses more than a few times with the “Abramoff and Gus Boulis†story? It starts way before Gus was murdered, even BEFORE and AFTER when he bought his Casino Boats! Why is it that I have friends who also have life’s experiences that involve other more serious and horrible criminal activities with these people? It’s not only me folks! There’s a whole criminal system involved in this and also other very serious and extreme criminal activities too.
The bottom line is, if you consider Wiretapping SHOCKING, just wait till the other high crime levels surface! You’ll think wiretapping is nothing in comparison to what’s on the horizon.
I know well that there are more than enough news floating around to give anyone the most remote consideration that something really fishy exists. So there’s NO excuse what so ever for anything to play games with not noticing this. Also, I know there has been news articles published targeting suspicious groups that I know as HUGE LAUNDROMATS that almost immediately were BLOCKED on the Internet. One was published by the Tribune for an example! This particular Laundromat is supported by our tax dollars but we aren’t the owners! It’s time to wake up!
Marty Didier
January 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmNorthbrook, IL
Hey Judd,
Looks like your Spam filters ain’t working or did you take that off, due to the technical issues.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Spudge,
That’s not the kind of spam filters are designed to stop,
If there weren’t spam filters working here, there would be porn ads, and gambling site ads and all kinds of cprap.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:44 pmSo where the fuck, does the Rightwing think the president gets the right to spy on people without a warrant from, in view of the Fourth Amendment specifically forbidding it?
“Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.â€
No mention of a war exception there now is there?
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 29, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Good point,
And if you study your history, you know that the wording and specificity of the amendment itself grew out of the specific acts of the crown during wartime. The revolutionary war. It’s bullshit and the right wing is as opposed to this nonsense as anyone.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:50 pmThat is not true. My Senator Russ Feingold does respond to my letters I write to him. On the other hand my House Representative Sensenbrenner will respond but if you don’t agree with him he is very rude and arrogance. He is one person we need to vote out of office.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:57 pm137 Right Punch
Blogs are doing a good job of substituting for unresponsive members of congress. I remember a few months ago the blogs were labeled “news recyclers”. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Blogs don’t recycle news anymore than the 10:00 local “news personality”. In fact, it’s more interactive and investigative.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pmBlogs are a powerful tool. Moreso than I realized just a few months ago. Why waste it arguing? Trust me, my Texas reps don’t listen to me. So I blog. I don’t see myself giving money to PACs anytime soon, for sure. And why would I give money to the Dems when Mr. Blogger is going to spend it more wisely?
I think GWB was hand picked for his position because he has a exploitable religious infirmity and because of his compulsion to be isolated and reward those who keep him isolated. In about five years he went from not batting an eye at the name of saddam Hueisen to pulsating with hatred for him when mentioning him in speeches at the build up to the Iraq war. It smacks of someone doing a psychological number on him. Brain washing. That he is so isolated makes this more workable for the brain washers. In view of the fact that all the precepts GWB had about what the likely course of events of the war would be turned out to be so wrong, adds weight to this being possible; that he’s living in a fantasy world. They also told him saddam tried to kill his dad. Credible doubt is cast on whether that occurred, if you can believe anything that you read. They tell him he’s a hero for God and he laps it up.
January 29th, 2006 at 5:01 pmI don’t have a shred of evidence for any of this and I hope I’m wrong.
Mary Poppin,
Hutchison has me on an automated letter system here in Texas. Last month I specifically asked my rep his position on the NSA spying. He will not state one. He is Sam Johnson. So I blog. I talk to my neighbors. And I tell them Sam Johnson does not care that the government is spying on his constituants.
January 29th, 2006 at 5:03 pmG. Gordon Giddy,
A little porn ain’t so bad. ;)
I’d rather see that then some of the trolls here.
Can we get troll filters installed. You know, something that would block bullshit and let freee thinking flow freely.
January 29th, 2006 at 5:12 pm[...] Think Progress » Hagel: Bush “Can’t Unilaterally Decide That A 1978 Law Is Out of Date And…Violate The Law†[...]
January 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pmWell, I don’t know exactly where Jack lies in the spectrum of “Republican” thought, but I guess it doesn’t really matter to most. There are many Republicans moderate (i.e. Spector, Hagel) to conservative (i.e. George Will) that have problems with the way priviledge is being claimed by the administration in this action of avoiding the law(and Constitution) and in otherareas (signing statements – I’ll interpret what we signed this way; not the way it is written).
This is not a liberal thing. The best that we can hope for is to pull them into the fold rationally. There are consciensious Republicans and Democrats that are not afraid to stand up for the Constitution, separation of powers, and oversight. Frankly I find it refreshing to see some not playing politics with this and rather addressing the issue in earnest.
January 29th, 2006 at 9:50 pmAnybody wishing to understand what is going
January 29th, 2006 at 10:26 pmon the America in 2006 should review the
history of Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Ignore trolls. Go Steelers.
January 29th, 2006 at 10:33 pmIgnore Trolls – Go SEAHAWKS!!! :-)
January 29th, 2006 at 10:43 pmSeahawks all the way!
January 30th, 2006 at 12:06 amGrennels
Apartheid South Africa.
Same view of the law, by the same idiots spouting much the same shit really. First it was die swart gevar, then die rooi gevar and always die Engelse duyvels. Of course you also had an emphasis on protecting Afrikaner Culture, and the Dutch Reform Church to go with it. Even the same tactics and the same lies, the same control of the press and vilification of any who question it.
The reason for why American politics currently interest me? Well apart from the fact that America’s economy has a nasty habit of destroying everbody elses when it crashes, your nation is following mine rather then vice versa. You even have the Northerners effectively being turned into guests in their own country, much like the English Speaking South Africans.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:07 amA letter of concern to Congress and the American people.
TO: WE THE PEOPLE
Both you and I are fully aware that what we are witnessing before our country, is possibly the largest power grab that American history will attest to. The volume of books are already into their second printing, and the future of Rove, Rumsfeld, and all of the like, will be dependent on their soon to be Doubleday@ contracts. History will be replete with the testimony of this power grab from the predictions of the perdition in the new American Democracy.
So lets examine their works. The volumes that which they will be speaking of. This power grab of the millennia.
The Art of Deception: A book that can be attributed to being the bible of the RNC.
I have an idea. Possibly so Machiavellian in nature, that the RNC won’t even see it coming, and they might possibly walk away thanking the us.
In the Art of Deception, one learns the power attributed to being capable of manipulating one’s opponents into doing your bidding. Evil indeed, yet almost necessarily so. A taste of their own medicine.
As a whole, the DNC may be fractured and the American public is being sold a bill of goods from the RNC; that Humpty Dumpty can never be but back together again. More fairy tales from the spin masters. So if Humpty Dumpty is broken, then Humpty Dumpty needs the Kings horses and men to do some healing.
TO: CONGRESS
The president all but has thumbed his nose at Congress as a whole. The Legislative Branch. He has stated, equivocally, that he turned down an invitation by Congress to allow them to assist him in crafting the necessary laws and amendments to the FISA laws back in 2002, and in 2003. And has reinforced his unyielding position to Congress’ Constitutionally mandated job description to be the sole craftsmanship of law for the land.
Rise up Congress. You’re president dismissed you. His words smack of his arrogance. Take back your jobs and legislate.
RNC, DNC, Green Party and Independent. One and all, your president’s nebulous words spoken to the US populace have left more scratching their heads than following in suit. There is something a foot and America’s chagrin needs to be comforted, not ignored and lulled into submission.
Stand up Congress, and take your jobs back. It was our Founders express mandate that there be three EQUAL branches. One not to be more than another.
Executive, Legislative, Judiciary. Three equal branches, that if left unchecked will lead to the corruptive downward spiral of the Democracy that our Founding Fathers created for us.
The president dismissed the necessity to go to the FISA court because of the antiquation of the laws, as he would have you to believe. But that begs the bigger question. Why not let Congress assist the president in the craftsmanship of new FISA laws that ARE inclusive of the 21st century technologies? The absurdity of the president’s response all but begs for a subpoena from the DOJ as his recusal toward any necessity of explanation to his concept and legality rests only in National Security.
Be heard Congress. The silence beset upon the Democratic party that which is parlayed in the media, is infesting the integrity of Democracy its self. RNC, DNC, Green Party and Independent alike. Your president has made clear, that he will resist any attempt at including Congress in the craftsmanship of necessary law to make what he is doing, legal in the eyes of the court.
Something is a foot. And it is trampling upon Congress’ Constitutional job description. It is riping at the integrity of American values. And Congress needs to address the elephant in the room. With pole numbers bottoming out for both the RNC and the DNC members of Congress and a midterm elections at the door step, how can Congress sit there and take this? The lack of voter confidence, and the summarily dismissal by the president, all but shows that Congress needs to rise up and take their jobs back.
Show the voters what integrity looks like. Three equal branches that follow Constitutional law and implore a sense of checks and balances.
Rise up. Stand up. Be heard.
Congress is needed as mandated by WE THE PEOPLE through our Bill of Rights.
Comment by Max-1
January 30th, 2006 at 2:13 am#143 – Oh SpudgeMAN – your Seahawks are a great team!!! But I’m hoping the momentum is going to propel the Steelers into another surprise victory. It will be fun at our Super Bowl party as Mr. Aphrodite and his friends are betting on the SeaHawks – what do they know?? HA!
An aside – I have not seen any kudos expressed here for the inspired stance of Sens. Kennedy and Kerry and their filibuster efforts. This morning, listening to the “moral giant” discuss women’s issues and the rights of the disabled, I thought perhaps some of our esteemed Senators could propel another group of preyed upon people to the forefront of the despicably treated – young, blonde women.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pmAn aside – I have not seen any kudos expressed here for the inspired stance of Sens. Kennedy and Kerry and their filibuster efforts. This morning, listening to the “moral giant†discuss women’s issues and the rights of the disabled, I thought perhaps some of our esteemed Senators could propel another group of preyed upon people to the forefront of the despicably treated – young, blonde women.
Comment by mighty aphrodite #146
Puny Hermaphrodite,
Time to change that pad, it HAS been months…
January 30th, 2006 at 3:52 pmSeahawks all the way!
Comment by SpudgeBoy #143
Awwww Spudge,
Say it ain’t so…
Last chance…c’mon now, get on “the BUS”…
January 30th, 2006 at 3:54 pmApartheid South Africa.
…Of course you also had an emphasis on protecting Afrikaner Culture, and the Dutch Reform Church to go with it. Even the same tactics and the same lies, the same control of the press and vilification of any who question it…
Comment by Bruce Gorton #144
Bruce,
As a redneck Al Cracker congresspig,
L’il Dick voted against sanctions on SA and the release of Mandela…
This is the kind of racist, facist, right wing, inbred scum that sh*theads like Jack “Crack” worships and defends…
January 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pmEmma- I don’t kno what this curious implement moral giant is you speak of but soon your repugs will have propelled those despicably treated young blonde women in your porn collection in to public view.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pmOK fine, we’ll take them downtown on this issue…see whose head explodes first. Heh heh heh
check out more Hagel comments at this interview at Rolling Stone
“This idea or slogan of ’staying the course’ is not a policy,” Hagel told me. “It’s not a program. It’s not an exit strategy. It’s nothing — other than this mindless stumbling along saying, ‘We’ll get there. We’ll get there.’ We heard that in Vietnam.”
A: I have been accused of being disloyal to my president and the party, but I have reminded my colleagues that war should never be a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans both die in war. War is the most important issue anyone in Congress will ever have to deal with. We should never, ever take a back seat on this. Every elected official swears an oath to the Constitution, not to a party, or to the president, or to any other partisan political interest.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pmWe really need a prosecutor to take a stand and crimnially indicte the Bush and Cheney gang. These illiegal wiretaps took place all over the country and involved tens of thousands of innocent victims. Surely there is at least one prosecutor in this country willing to do the right thing and stand up to the Bush/Cheney healots.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:30 pm“The FISA law was written in 1978. We’re having this discussion in 2006. It’s a different world”
Ummm, the Constitution was written around the 1780’s, the Old Testament was written around 4,000 years ago so using King George’s convoluted thinking I guess that means these things are outdated and no longer valid in todays world.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:38 pm[...] Specter is one of many conservative Senators who have been very critical of the program. Hearings on the program, chaired by Specter, start Monday. UPDATE: Watch the video at Crooks & Liars. [...]
February 5th, 2006 at 8:06 pmThere is no issue with respect to the or constitutionality of the program.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pm[...] Oh, and the little communist references to “purity” and “purges” are cute, but in looking back on Stalin and his fellows the author appears incapable of seeing the same things his his own party today. Pity, really, but then stupid people usually do bring that emotion out in me. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:38 ami sometimes think no-one in america has an elderly grandparent when it comes to the average response to healthcare issues. just on its own, a fairer policy on healthcare would be a huge vote winner.
today, my wife needed to have allergy tests. we called the health insurance people. they intimated that if she had basically anything equivalent to a sniffle in her medical records, there was no coverage, as it was a pre-existing condition (they offer no information on just how far back through your records they will go). we had to cancel, not enough money.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:23 amLet’s be fair too. The Democrats always want you to think they’re the party that’s against war. That’s a quasi half-truth. Many of them opposed the Iraq war but supported military action against Iraq when their party was in control of the Presidency. Also, ask the Democratic front-runner what her views on the Iraq war are. Unlike the flip-flopping John Kerry Mrs. Clinton firmly supports her decision to invade Iraq.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:30 pmI am disgusted with the undermining of our military efforts in the middle east by politicians like you.
This war could have been won years ago if the military were permitted to do their job as they know how. More people are murdered in our nations capitol than military people in combat in Iraq.
Your grandstanding in the senate committee was ludicrous.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:25 pm