Media Finally Reports That Gonzales Misled Congress
Media Finally Reports That Gonzales Misled Congress
This morning, prompted by a letter from Sen. Russ Feingold, the Washington Post reports that Alberto Gonzales misled the Senate Judiciary Committee during his January 2005 confirmation hearing:
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
Think Progress reported this story on December 18. Gonzales said “it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.” In fact, he personally approved Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program, in contravention of a criminal statute.
We have the full transcript of the Feingold/Gonzales exchange posted.
In addition to Gonzales, former NSA director Michael Hayden and President Bush also made false statements relating to warrantless domestic surveillance.
UPDATE: An important aspect to this story is that Gonzales’ testimony was under oath. From the transcript:
SEN. SPECTER: Judge Gonzales, would you now stand for the administration of the oath? Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. GONZALES: I do.
UPDATE II: Americablog has the photo.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
“Media Finally Reports That Gonzales Misled Congress”
Actually the “Media” did no such thing. The WaPo (leftwingnutrag if there ever was one)reported that some ditzy congresscritter has made a charge. Left Wing radicals make charges every day but they never pan out and this one will go the way of all the others. “Think Communist” is in fact misleading their readers to suggest the charge is proven when it certainly is not.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:34 amImpeach him!
January 31st, 2006 at 9:34 amOprah would get the truth out of him…
January 31st, 2006 at 9:35 amAh… good to see another blatant lie of the Bush admininstration exposed. Those guys are ruling from the moral sewer that is the conservative movement.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:37 amSo the conservative leaning WaPo finally prints the facts more than a month late — well better late than never. But how far will this go? It will be quickly overshadowed by the Alito vote, followed by the SOTU tonight and everyone will forget that Gonzalez lied under oath to the Senate.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:40 amNot until it is headlined and reported on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC, and pointed out to the absent-minded public that the representative of law for the nation, Atty. Gen. Gonzalez, lied under oath (isn’t that what they impeached Clinton for - and why they are failing to go after Bush/Cheney — because they never took the oath?) will we ever see justice in this country.
I think we have enough to Impeach this adminstration now if only we had more backbone for America this would happen.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:42 amGoddamn IRI, Karl hasn’t promoted you yet? Or is that WalMart Greeter cover your permanent “station”.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:45 amTuime for a new reality…the era of Democratic Spine! If any Dem’s in congress read this blog, let’s hope they can develop enough backbone to stand up to these criminals and expose them for what they are. Thugs and facists.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:46 amWhy am I not surprised anymore? It seems to be this adminstration’s plan to lie to us so much that we become so jaded that there is no more outrage.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:47 amWhen will ThinkProgress finally report that John Kerry disgraced himself and the left-wing base yesterday in the Senate.
Oh and BTW, Justice Samuel Alito will be seated later today.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:48 amYes Gonzales lied, but what is the Congress going to do about it?
President Nixon’s attorney general was indicted and removed from his position, but who has the balls to do that to Alberto?
January 31st, 2006 at 9:48 amYou can read the transcript yourself. He misled Congress.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:48 am#8 - it’s kind of hard to stand up to.. YOURSELF. Democrats are thugs and fascists. Kennedy proved that well yesterday. Republicans are the good guys.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:48 amUnfortunately the Post also has a headline, “Utah town asks about the President: What’s not to like???”
Let me count the ways, Utah town.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:51 amSomeday Alito who is confirmed for the Supreme Court, in an hour, might end up being impeached for lying?
January 31st, 2006 at 9:53 amJay - you wish. It’s over There is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it.
I am sure at some point, the radical left will endorse assasinating conservative justices, but that will only sink your cause further.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:58 am#13,
January 31st, 2006 at 10:01 amThis is from trhe online Encarta encyclopedia:
Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.
Now, I ask you, how can a Liberal be Fascist?
It must be so hard for this administration
January 31st, 2006 at 10:02 amto keep track of all the lies they have told.
I can see why they want to keep everything
secret as they would have no hope if more information
were available.
Reply to post 16 > Democrats do NOT assassinate anybody!
That is a Republican thing to kill people and warmongering!
As for Alito > you are proud that a liar and fascist is being put on the Supreme Court > shame on you & the GOP!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:02 amHey Judd,
Sorry to keep buggin’ you. At least i-right-i stays on the thread (sometimes). but innocent lite is nothing but a bomb thrower. Doesn’t talk about the thread, just uses inflamatory taunts and lies to inflame your audience.
We really don’t want a Jerry Springer show. Can you warn the butthead at least? We’d appreciate it.
I am down this week. Too many spineless Dems who won’t take the principled stand on Alioto. Gonzales, he’ll be free to lie like all hell and say it’s the truth.
Just wait till he goes in front of the Senate later today (or tomorrow).
January 31st, 2006 at 10:11 am#14 Ohdave:
Unfortunately the Post also has a headline, “Utah town asks about the President: What’s not to like???â€
Let me count the ways, Utah town.
Comment by ohdave — January 31, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Of course folks in Utah love Dubya. Not once during his whole tirade about the sanctity of marriage has he ever targeted the rampant polygamy in the state of Utah. Numerous reports have surfaced about this practice. Heck Dr. Phil even did an expose. Dubya hasn’t mentioned it at all. Not only are men in Utah’s religious communities allowed to have multiple wives, they take child brides as well. All of this is done in the name of religion. Right here in these United States. Nothing is being done to stop this practice and religious groups in Utah receive federal money. Hypocrisy at it’s worst.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:13 amYes Republican Mormons in Utah are hypocrites post 22!
Whenever Senator Oral as I call him fumes about Gay civil unions, I remind him about the rampant polygamy in Utah!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:17 amts a Fact that Gonzales Weakens National Security.
Its a Fact that Cheney spied His Own Office
Cheney Weakens National Security.
Bush spied Before the 2002, he ‘weakened National Security
Franklin was a SPY during Bush Admin
HE Weakened National Security and got 12 Years.
Safavian a White House procurement Officer was found Gulity with Franklin Another Bush Admin ‘Weakened National Security’
Bush admin cant keep track of Peope visiting White House
Jeff Gannon 200 Visits, By White House Records hes Still IN
the White House. Republican Shill reporter and Bush Admin again by giving press pass WEAKENS NATIONAL SECURITY
in case you have notice the NEW Faux ROVE POINT is
George W. Bush WEAKENED NATIONAL SECURITY
Repeat THIS over and Over, to all you know, reverse the Rover lies
January 31st, 2006 at 10:18 amIts about Facism that is what this adminstration is really about and they warp it in the clothe of security.
Nope I won’t sell my Freedoms for the crap that this adminstration is selling ,pure snake oil.
bush the snake oil man….
January 31st, 2006 at 10:19 amFebruary 6 - mark the date… Gonzo goes on the grill…
January 31st, 2006 at 10:20 amYeh Bush and His Corrupt Admin have WEAKENED NATIONAL SECURITY havent they?
January 31st, 2006 at 10:20 amBut they didn’t lie about sex, so it doesn’t really count right? I mean for this congress to stop the cover and denial routine over Abrarmoff to even consider looking into false statements by the leadership of the administration might mean they can’t cover their own crimes in enough time to get re-elected.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:21 amI mean think about it, When Bush lost 8 billion American Dollars, CASH money, alot of it got into the Hands of the Terrorists, that BUSH in EFFECT WEAKENED NATIONAL SECURITY by supplying them with American Cash.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:22 am8 billion dollars in the hands of Iraqi Insurgents.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:24 amMr Bush Weakened National Security for sure
Gonzales, point man for the Torture President, LIED? OMG!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:24 amI’m SHoCKed! SHOCKED! He lied to Congress? And they believed him?
Wow. I’m so surprised. Let me have another sip of coffee to calm down.
#18 WtM
January 31st, 2006 at 10:25 amJust as you have correctly pointed out (and researched) to call a liberal a fascist is an oxymoron. Unfortunately, the (oxy) morons just can’t get their brains to absorb fact.
Marie
and now Gonzales helps bush to Cover his Tracks. It would Seem to me that these actions of Gonzales Weakens National Security, not to mention undermining congress
January 31st, 2006 at 10:26 amJudd,
January 31st, 2006 at 10:26 amJust let innocent lite rave all it wants. Posts from the asylum are demonstrative of the right’s intelligence.
didnt some Phillipine person, steal documents from Cheneys office? Oh yeah, the Arroyo thing.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:28 amMr Cheney Weakens National Security
#18
“Encarta is a liberalnutrag encyclopedia” is what the response will be. Right wingers just discredit any source as being wrong or liberally biased.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:28 am#30 But, mr ho — that wasn’t Bush’s fault. It was those darn 19-year-old interns from the Ameritage Heritage Foundation who were placed in charge of the Reconstruction.
How was the President to know that a bunch of privileged high-school students who’d never held a job would be so frivolous and sloppy with billions of dollars of unaudited, off-the-books cash?
January 31st, 2006 at 10:29 am“37 That would be “American Heritage.” But I like the alliteration.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:30 ammr ho is right,
Abramoff sold weapons to militant groups. he was a College Republican
January 31st, 2006 at 10:31 amAbramoff and the Lobbyists helped to Weaken National Security
#30 But, mr ho — that wasn’t Bush’s fault. It was those darn 19-year-old interns from the Ameritage Heritage Foundation who were placed in charge of the Reconstruction.
How was the President to know that a bunch of privileged high-school students who’d never held a job would be so frivolous and sloppy with billions of dollars of unaudited, off-the-books cash?
Comment by RunningDogLackey — January 31, 2006 @ 10
according to the Bush, he ‘doesnt know’, or ‘forgets alot’
January 31st, 2006 at 10:33 amA President thats ‘out of the Loop’ Weakens National Security
#39,
January 31st, 2006 at 10:34 amI believe that mr ho is left, but he is correct.
A congressman that takes money Weakens National Security
liberal is poor, according to Bush, has no money to give, nor pay actvists, or lobbyists, and are the least likely to present a threat to national Security, they in effect enhance it thru the tracking of Governemnt programs and ID cards.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:39 amUntracked Leadership, Unwarranted spying, Corruption at high levels, unsecured White House Offices, Shill reporters, Misleading statement bu white house, is the weakening agent of NATIONAL SECURITY
Mondays never were any good anyway, Tuesdays I get a little bit side way’s, Wed. I get better just for spite. Old song. After yesterday and then all the troll crap this morning I don’t have a lot to offer in coment. Gongalez will probably go just like the rest of this administration, crimes with out punishment. After all if the dictator and his followers can do what ever they want then so will he. The Republican facist are running the country, there are no checks and balances, “the constitution is only a piece of paper” Bush quote, and untill this bunch is removed from office Bush is the pupet dictator. Period. Our own party is split just like our country, I expect to see lot’s of marching and yelling, maybe even spot revolutions when the furor does his marshal law thing. I’m bailing on my party of 44 years and joining up with the impeach Bush bunch and going to vote for the next rebel with a back bone, brains and loyalty to the people and constitution…..Blessings everyone
January 31st, 2006 at 10:39 ammr ho very centered
January 31st, 2006 at 10:40 amA president that places national guard overseas, and leaves the homeland vulnerable WEAKENS NATIONAL SECURITY.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:42 amA president that runs up the national deficit, trade deficit, increases dependence on foreign oil WEAKENS NATIONAL SECURITY
January 31st, 2006 at 10:45 amAn administration that uses religious right wing fundamentalists as a base, further dividing the country (look at the polls and election results for the last 5-6 years, it’s mostly and consistently closest to 50/50),
January 31st, 2006 at 10:49 amWEAKENS NATIONAL SECURITY
Just imagine if a Democrat had done this. The media would have been all over it.
This is fraud and Gonzy needs to answer these questions. At the very least he should not be holding his office. So he now supports breaking the law in addition to lying to congress. I think its time for Bush to give him a medal as he is doing heck of a job.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:50 amThe Corruption in the Bush Admin Negates Unitary Executive Powers.
Corruption in the Bush Admin Weakens National Security
Do you want a corrupt congress Weakening National Security?
I Dont.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:51 am#43 Sharon actually that was ‘godamned piece of paper’
January 31st, 2006 at 10:52 amActually, its a piece of parchment.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:00 amUnder new regulations okayed by Gonzales internet surfing will be tracked by what the FBI calls a “non-intrusive method.” The FBI says you will not notice anything different.
For a demonstration, click on the link below:
Homeland Security
January 31st, 2006 at 11:01 amYour right Terry, sorry, I chose not to put that part in….Blessings
January 31st, 2006 at 11:01 amSorry, didn’t work–don’t try it.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:03 am#53 I can understand why, but I guess quoting it is OK, and the full impact is shocking. Thanks for bringing it up, I was out of the country when that came through and missed it. So what do you think is next - someone will set fire to the Reichstag, er sorry, the Capitol Building?
January 31st, 2006 at 11:04 amThey’re going to claim that the Federal Appeals Court has already ruled that Bush has the authority to circumvent these laws as a matter of national security and thus he has not violated the law.
They’re keeping the actual rulings close to the vest so that nobody anticipates them when they come out at the hearings.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:06 am#54,
January 31st, 2006 at 11:14 amTry this:
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/
With Alito now freshly confirmed, there goes checks to executive power.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:19 amCome on, ThinkProgress. He didn’t “mislead” he freaking LIED. He lied and he was UNDER OATH.
He lied under oath.
Some folks find themselves impeached for such offenses …. guess lying about a BJ is more important to the nation’s interests.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:35 am#52 You will notice nothing… until the day the NSA MIB show at your door and make a new case of “extraordinary rendition” of you. Like travelling free overseas?
January 31st, 2006 at 11:36 amhey Ho, you blog no? It’d go mo fo sho.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:37 amI believe that misleading Congress is a federal offense.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:44 amWith Alito now freshly confirmed, there goes checks to executive power.
Comment by For Truth — January 31, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Think he’ll declare himself King tonight in his SOTUS?
January 31st, 2006 at 11:45 amI believe that misleading Congress is a federal offense.
Comment by The Fool — January 31, 2006 @ 11:44 am
Well, it used to be. With Alito now in place, the Executive branch can do anything it wants…
January 31st, 2006 at 11:46 amTerry and all, I don’t expect any on the left to bomb anything here. I would not put it past the radical right to do so and blame the left however. Note all the radical right on c- span now critisizing the left for their questions and coments aimed at Alito. The radical right are all liers, thieves, waromongers and pretend holier than thou. Sickening mess. I listened to all the hearings and think Alito and this entire bunch need to be surgicaly removed from Bushe’s butt. Nothing is going to happen to Bush over the spying or anything else he has done to our country and the world untill a lot more citizens get fed up and remove him. Guess it’s not bad enough yet…Blessings
January 31st, 2006 at 11:46 am#62, nope, its a resume requirement for your own show own Fox.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:46 am#16 - to quote you: “I am sure at some point, the radical left will endorse assasinating conservative justices, but that will only sink your cause further.”
Does it sink the conservative cause that Ann Coulter just suggested that John Paul Stevens be poisoned so that the Court could be further changed?
January 31st, 2006 at 11:53 amSee http://edition.cnn.com/ 2006/ LAW/ 01/ 27/ coulter.stevens.ap/
#65 - Don’t forget, the Republicans were questioning Judge Alito when his wife ran crying from the room.
The Republican’s still refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions in making Judge Alito’s wife cry.
No, we can look forward to Big Government and Big Business taking precedence over the rights of average citizens. Look at Judge Alito’s decisions and his dissents: he hates the common man, and thinks government is right in over 90% of the cases. He obviously hates America and everything it stands for.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:54 am#67 - Conservatives refuse to see behavior of that nature in their party. They (Republicans) are the party of willful negligence, and big government and big business.
They (Republicans) refuse to hold the current administration or Pres. Bush to the same standards they held for Pres. Clinton. The “rule of law†is something they refuse to accept as being applicable to themselves.
They (Republicans) have turned their back on taking personal responsibility for their actions, so don’t expect them to say anything about Ann threatening the lives of anyone.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:58 amOnce again Judd mischaracterizes the statements he attacks, and thereby begs the question. If the NSA program is what it has been described to be - electronic surveillance of terrorist communications - none of these statements are false. The Constitution gives the President inherent power to conduct such enemy surveillance during wartime. The FISA court has recognized this fact on several occasions. And the passage of the AUMF only adds to the President’s powers in the fight against terrorism.
Judd, you write as though you haven’t read the relevant cases. Try reading Truong, In Re Sealed Cases, and Hamdi, for starters. Then go back and re-read the Cass Sunstein article I cited to you several days ago. Then maybe you will understand the real legal issues here and be better able to post on them honestly.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:06 pmHere’s the official count on the cloture|filibuster yesterday. So we know who the real Democrats are:
On this vote, a “yes” vote was a vote to end the debate and a “no” vote was a vote to filibuster the nomination.
Voting “yes” were 19 Democrats and 53 Republicans.
Voting “no” were 24 Democrats and one independent.
Democrats Yes
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bingaman, N.M.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Conrad, N.D.; Dorgan, N.D.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.
Democrats No
Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Boxer, Calif.; Clinton, N.Y.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Menendez, N.J.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Obama, Ill.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.
Democrats Not Voting
Harkin, Iowa.
Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.
Republicans No
None.
Republicans Not Voting
Ensign, Nev.; Hagel, Neb.
Others No
Jeffords, Vt.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:08 pmPS to Judd: The WaPo didn’t report that AG Gonzales “misled Congress.: It simply reported Sen. Feingold’s charge to having been misled. I’m sure there are plenty of members of the Judiciary Committee who do not believe they were misled.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pmAnyone know who the stray Republican was who voted against Alito’s confirmation?
Alito got the fewest opposition party votes ever - even less than Clarence Thomas!
January 31st, 2006 at 12:12 pm“Think Communist†is in fact misleading their readers to suggest the charge is proven when it certainly is not.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #1
I’m-notR’esponsibleforbeing-I’gnorant,
The brave new cowardly McCarthyite…
January 31st, 2006 at 12:13 pmJudd, you write as though you haven’t read the relevant cases. Try reading Truong, In Re Sealed Cases, and Hamdi, for starters. Then go back and re-read the Cass Sunstein article I cited to you several days ago. Then maybe you will understand the real legal issues here and be better able to post on them honestly.
I’ve read all that stuff. I think you should check out the CRS report that deals with all these issues pretty nicely.
Here’s a quick rundown:
1. Truong — before FISA was even written
2. In Re Sealed Cases — conclusory dicta
3. Hamdi — dealt with battlefield detentions, a completely different issue.
Further, no one seriously disputes that the proceedures are in contravention of those laid out in FISA. Some people argue that he could legally do so. But that doesn’t change the fact that Gonzales misled Congress.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:21 pm[…] Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens. Think Progress reported this story on December 18. Gonzales said “it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.†In fact, he personally approved Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program, in contravention of a criminal statute. […]
January 31st, 2006 at 12:21 pmBut that doesn’t change the fact that Gonzales misled Congress.
Comment by Judd #75
Judd,
Isn’t that “contempt of Congress”?
…a felony?
So does Gonzales go to jail or not?
January 31st, 2006 at 12:31 pm#77 - Of course not!
Don’t you know, the “rule of law” doesn’t apply to Republicans! Silly Democrat, rules are for you, NOT Republicans!
January 31st, 2006 at 12:36 pm#18 “…Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy…. Now, I ask you, how can a Liberal be Fascist?”
Comment by WaltTheMan — January 31, 2006 @ 10:01 am
******” Freedom and individual rights?? As in the implementation of politically correct speech regulations, the heckling and protesting of conservatives speakers on college campuses, onerous gun ownership laws?? Yep, that sounds mighty tolerant to me. You must mean the inidividual rights to blame everybody else for one’s bad behaviour, drug addiction, abortion-as-birth-control, etc. As for elections, Florida is an excellent example of progressive corruption - and lets not forget the Dems attempt to block military voters from being counted. Gotta love progs - just for the entertainment value alone.
So Walt, perhaps you understand why proud leftys seems to get their hackles up when we correctly point out the title change - from socialists to progressives - or when we mock progs for defending Communists.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:39 pmunbelieved - the RINO who voted against JUSTICE Alito was Chaffee of RI.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:41 pmNote to Russ “I’m testing the H2O” Feingold - Repeating something often enough doesn’t make it so. OK - to the “President lied” crowd - it does…but to normal people….
January 31st, 2006 at 12:49 pmActually, Alito’s in legal trouble for his statements whether or not he was under oath when he made them. Lying to Congress is a felony; just ask Oliver North.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:12 pm#79, cherry-picking your ‘facts’ again MA?
Here’s your light reading for today
Interesting you highlight Florida (run by Chimpy’s brother and friends) as a corrupt state. You forgot about Ohio…
January 31st, 2006 at 1:15 pmLex not if you have a president like bush baby’s daddy who will give you a free pass
January 31st, 2006 at 1:16 pmSorry; link to statute is here.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:19 pmWow, so many lies and misperceptions in one post, ms mighty wrong, leaves everyone pretty blah. No time to address such a mishmash of FOX news propaganda. Way to go, babe. Lift your dress, you sure showed us.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:21 pmRepublicans are the good guys.
Tell that to the kids in the Murrah Building day care center.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pmOh, sure, next we’re going to be told that Alito lied during his confirmation hearings! Nobody lies under oath! Every crony Bush appoints is as innocent and wide-eyed as the day is long. Obviously enough of the democrats in Congress seem to think so.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:32 pmunbelieved - the RINO who voted against JUSTICE Alito was Chaffee of RI.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 31, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Thanks Magda, should’ve known you’d know who the traitors are :)
January 31st, 2006 at 1:32 pmMarie #5 - You’re probably right. Nothing sticks. The right wing-press alliance can bury any story. The NSA spy scandal is starting to fade, and if that story can’t stay in the news than nothing impugning this administration will. The situation is getting desparate.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:34 pmBlessings Sharon. Well said.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:38 pm#81 - Sort of like “Pres. Bush has made us more secure”???
Or how about “We KNOW there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”???
Ohh! My favorite! “We’re returning honorism and dignitude to the White House”!!!!
Yup! That’s probably my most favorite thing that, repeated often enough, eventually is thought of as true. No matter how much of a lie it truly is.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:46 pm#70
You say:
“If the NSA program is what it has been described to be - electronic surveillance of terrorist communications - none of these statements are false.”
Good point. Let’s spend as much as we did on the Whitewater investigation to see if it “is what it has been described to be”.
According to reports last week, of the thousands of the “leads” generated by this program, many led to groups like Grandmothers for Peace and NOT ONE led to a terrorist.
If Bush doesn’t have anything to hide, he shouldn’t mind if we look around.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:47 pmI’ve read all that stuff. I think you should check out the CRS report that deals with all these issues pretty nicely.
Here’s a quick rundown:
1. Truong — before FISA was even written
2. In Re Sealed Cases — conclusory dicta
3. Hamdi — dealt with battlefield detentions, a completely different issue.
Further, no one seriously disputes that the proceedures are in contravention of those laid out in FISA. Some people argue that he could legally do so. But that doesn’t change the fact that Gonzales misled Congress.
There are none so blind as those who will not see, Judd.
Truong demonstrates that inherent presidentioal powers were recognixed before FISA was enacted. In Re Sealed Cases recognizes the same inherent powers post-FISA, and states that FISA cannot limit those powers. Hamdi recognizes that these powers include the “fundamental incidents of war” in addition to any express grant of statutory authority. Call me crazy, but I’m guessing that electronic surveillance of enemy communications falls pretty squarely within the “fundamental incidents of war.”
Thus, in this case, the President has all powers granted to him, expressly or impliedly, by the constitution, plus any additional powers granted him by statute. He is at the zenith of his powers, according the the Youngstown case, and where his aggregated powers give hime multiple options, he has the discretion to act in the best interests of the nation. That is what he has done, and, in that context, the AG’s statement was perfectly true. Under these authorities the President has not violated any criminal statutes because he had the constitutional and statutory power to target terrorists for warrantless electronic surveillance. That’s what all responsible presidents do during wartime, dude. They protect us from the enemy.
Add to that the fact that the President briefed congressional leaders of both parties about the NSA program - without any public protest, I might add - and it’s more than a little difficult to see how you could claim that the AG, or anyone else, misled Congress. The only person who has been misleading on this subject is you, Judd. You’re being intellectually dishonest.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:56 pmIf Bush doesn’t have anything to hide, he shouldn’t mind if we look around.
He does have something to hide: the specific details of our intelligence gathering sources, means and methods. Calling for a public investigation into such matters while we are at war is like dmenading that we email our secrets to the enemy. You act like nothing would make you happier.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:00 pmFitting that Alito is confirmed the same day that Coretta Scott King dies. The end of the era of civil rights and personal liberty is truly at hand.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:11 pmBull Sh*t RED the breifing for congress expliciately stated they could not disclose the program so no public protest was possible with out violating the law, ie; releasing of classified information.
Typical wingnut trick make a statement that leaves most of the truth out.
Talk about intellectually dishonest, Karl must be proud
January 31st, 2006 at 2:11 pm#96 BSR:
Nobody is asking for specifics. He doesn’t have to give specifics to the FISA court. Even if he did, it is a secret court. Please explain how “terrrorists” will find out about information exchanged between the executive branch and FISA?
Our democracy doesn’t cease to exist during wartime. There are serious questions about the lagality of this program coming not just from Dems, but Cons also. This is not a partisan issue, it’s a legal one. Either the president broke the law or he didn’t. He’s admitted that he has. An independent investigation is warranted.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:12 pmYou mean like the way Anne Coulter said that somebody should put rat poison in Stevens coffee?
January 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pmthe breifing for congress expliciately stated they could not disclose the program so no public protest was possible with out violating the law, ie; releasing of classified information.
All someone had to do was leak the news to the NYT, like Leahy and others have done a thousand times before. In fact, it was a leak that eventually brought the NSA program to public light. An illegal leak, at that.
Senate Democrats have a history of leaking classified information from Intelligence Committee briefings (See, for example, Leahy, Rockefeller and Wyden). Pat “Leaky” Leahy once was kicked off the Intelligence Committee for breaching security with unauthorized leaks. It seems that, where national security is concerned Democrats just can’t keep their pie holes shut.
Any congressional leader who truly objected to this program could have spiked it with a few well-placed leaks back in 2002 - but no one did so. Or they could have incorporated a few provisions on the subject into the Patriot Act. No one did so. As far as I know, no one even tried. Under the Youngstown case, this congressional acquiescence is even stronger evidence in favor of the President.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:31 pmNobody is asking for specifics. He doesn’t have to give specifics to the FISA court. Even if he did, it is a secret court. Please explain how “terrrorists†will find out about information exchanged between the executive branch and FISA?
You obviously haven’t ever filled out a FISA warrant request. It takes days to fill out and it requires detailed information sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant. This procedure is far too slow and cumbersome when intelligence officlas are in “hot pursuit” of terrorist communications.
In addition, the more the specifics of the program are discussed, the more likely leaks are to occur. Even Senate Democrats (See, for example, Lehay, Rockefeller and Wyden) have been known to leak classified material.
The bottom line is, the President has the authority to gather warrantless electronic surveillance of enemy communications in wartime. How could anyone disagree with that proposition?
January 31st, 2006 at 2:39 pm“Pat “Leaky†Leahy once was kicked off the Intelligence Committee for breaching security with unauthorized leaks”
Leahy paid the price for leaking classified information, that is why others wil not leak classified info, dumb ass
January 31st, 2006 at 2:40 pmFrom Wikipedia:
“Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.”
Certainly sounds like the American right wing to me. Trolls don’t either know what “fascism” means or they’re projecting like a multiplex.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:45 pmTrolls read the word “fascism” in the rightwing talking points and run with, they never bother looking it up, Rush said it so it must be true
January 31st, 2006 at 2:47 pmUnbelievable,
I think it was Lincoln Chafee.
#100
January 31st, 2006 at 2:48 pmWay to go,Spudgeboy!!
The bottom line is, the President has the authority to gather warrantless electronic surveillance of enemy communications in wartime. How could anyone disagree with that proposition?
Wartime=for the rest of our lives.
Come on, asshat, you can get wiretaps for 72 hours without a freaking warrant. If it takes you more than 72 hours to fill out the NSA paperwork maybe you should look into a different line of work. The wiretaps are approved 99% of the time.
There’s a reason for the warrants– so there is a paper trail. WIthout the warrants, Chimpy McShitwhistle can just conduct surveillance on whoever he wants at any time with no accountability. You may trust that monkey motherfucker with your privacy, but I sure as hell don’t. And I don’t think you’d be cool with it if it was President Hillary wielding that power.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:51 pm#79 MA:
Freedom and individual rights?? As in the implementation of politically correct speech regulations, the heckling and protesting of conservatives speakers on college campuses, onerous gun ownership laws?? Yep, that sounds mighty tolerant to me.
Political correctness wasn’t invented by liberals. Just this past Christmas, Bush sent out Holiday cards. Was he being a liberal then? The fantasy of black conservatives being hit by oreos has been debunked. Protesting isn’t illegal. It’s done all of the time. Just as the speaker is entitled to free speech, so are the protesters. As far as gun ownership goes, give it a rest. Nobody needs an AK-47 assault rifle to shoot deer. On the off chance that you do require one, the waiting period and subsequent background check won’t kill you. Better safe than sorry. Although I am amused that you care nothing about the erosion of other freedoms under our current administration, but balk at gun legislation. That is comedy.
You must mean the inidividual rights to blame everybody else for one’s bad behaviour, drug addiction, abortion-as-birth-control, etc.
You mean the way Tom Delay is blaming Ronnie Earle for his legal problems? The way the Bush administration blames it’s incompetence on the prior administration? The way corrupt republicans caught with their hand in the cookie jar immediately point a finger at liberals instead of owning up to their theivery? Accountability is not this administrations strong suit. If I were you, I’d leave it out of future debates. Drug addiction and abortion are not limited to liberals. Get your head out of the sand. Hell, one of the right wings main mouthpieces (Rush Limbaugh) is a oxycontin addict. But hey, u gotta love a hillbilly who chooses “hillbilly heroin” as his drug of choice.
As for elections, Florida is an excellent example of progressive corruption - and lets not forget the Dems attempt to block military voters from being counted. Gotta love progs - just for the entertainment value alone.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 31, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Since you mentioned Florida, I’ll help to educate you a little.
Florida Gov. Bush Expresses Concern About State Elections Systems In Light of Leon County Hack Test:
General Accounting Office Report on Electronic Voting:
This site has followed the corruption from the very beginning:
So you see dear heart, once again facts aren’t on your side. If ignorance is bliss, you’re one jolly chick. Peace and blessings.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:53 pmAll to the right,
January 31st, 2006 at 2:55 pmI can’t change your mind, but your arguing on frivilous issues,republican talking points, semantics and semi colons, obscures the very real thrust of this government-to take away our rights. Instead of; he said, she said, you might want to consider the fact that;
We are fighting a war factually based on lies.
a war that costs 6 billion dollars a month(That’s conservative?)
We use torture as a coersive force, that avails us nothing, and we have a president who has issued a signing statement to a bill passed 90-9 outlawing torture, exempting him from that rule of law Which means our country created with this rule of law, our constitution states this explicitly, is now being abandoned for the rule of man, a very grave mistake that if allowed to continue will make us like every other country ruled by tin horned dictators.
The Election was not representative of the peoples wishes i.e.-it was rigged, so we have a president who has been unelected twice.
911-as an example of our secure protection form terrorists-and should have never happened-we had the intelligence-open minded investigation bears this out.
The war based on lies is like a vegetable garden, only we are growing terrorists-bush is doing Osamas work for him, quite well I might add.
We are being spied upon, and not just overseas calls, they are spying on Quakers for god’s sake! and anti war activists-this is a country where dissent is the backbone of our freedom, I will say that again so you get it, dissent is the backbone or our freedom, and they are spying on that dissent, or do you think the Quakers are a sleeper cell of Al Qaida operatives.
We had a budget surplus in 2000 we are now in debt deeper than anytime in American history, and the economic tsunami that is coming will make pale the great deprssion.
Unless you are very wealthy support for the bush regime is support for the very people that have left you hanging in the wind-The bankruptcy bill is a shining example of what you get from this administration.
The new medicare bill disaster is another example of the lack of care this administration exhibits, and I might add that these two bills were not written by legislators, but by lobbyists-the equivalent of the fox being welcomed in to the hen house-permitted to wreak havoc at will.
Again, I can’t change your mind, nor do I care to, if you are so blinded by your refusal to look at the truth that you would essentially sign your own death warrant-I mean that metaphorically-go ahead and believe what you will, just don’t be surprised when you are left in the lurch by the very people you defend. In conclusion I would say that, in spite of what I have said, it would be a good idea to stop slamming each other and come together for the greater good of our country, the one beautiful thing we have in common, and if you cannot see this, then god help us.
Burnie
Bull Sh*t Red the leak was by NSA employees not members of the House.
Not discussing the program means just that, you now fault the democratidc senators for NOT breaking the law.
Have you filled out a FISA warrant since you state how hard it is,
I dealt with highly classified material while I was in the military, including the war plans for what was called at the time Desert Shield and was told not to discuss with anyone what I saw, so i have an idea of what Cheny meant when he told the congressmen and senators not to discuss the program with anyone.
I have had to fill out paper work dealing with classified materials and programs, yes you can’t do it in five minutes, but that is why the 72 hour rule was included,
I ask again;
HAVE YOU EVER FILLED OUT A FISA WARRANT,
or are you just repeating the latest troll talking point
January 31st, 2006 at 2:57 pmDamn you TP! Here are the links MA:
January 31st, 2006 at 3:02 pmthe “President lied†crowd
God that’s funny. Nice line mighty A. As if anyone can demonstrate the truth of, oh, say, the WMD claim, or Rove’s involvement in the Plame case, or……
The poor little conservative college boys are getting heckled? I guess if they launched a nationwide smear campaign in the mass media it would be ok. That’s just the way the “Liberals Are Weak On Defense” crowd thinks.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:10 pmI give up on the links. Damn you TP.
#102 BSR:
You obviously haven’t ever filled out a FISA warrant request. It takes days to fill out and it requires detailed information sufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant. This procedure is far too slow and cumbersome when intelligence officlas are in “hot pursuit†of terrorist communications.
And obviously you have? Give me a break. I understand that the Presidency is “hard werk”, but you need new material. Are you really trying to justify circumventing the law by using paperwork? That’s sad. As far as the process being to slow, that’s untrue as well. A warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours AFTER the wiretapping has begun. 3 days to do paperwork? I think not. Not to mention the fact that in wartime a warrant can be obtained up to 15 days after wiretapping has begun. If the paperwork can’t get done in that amount of time can you admit that those folks are incompetent?
In addition, the more the specifics of the program are discussed, the more likely leaks are to occur. Even Senate Democrats (See, for example, Lehay, Rockefeller and Wyden) have been known to leak classified material.
So again you feel that the President has the option of obeying the law. He doesn’t have to when he feels leaks will occur? Does it occur to you that we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the President had simply followed the law. A senate leak is not what happened. Hypothetical situations don’t apply here. BTW, who the hell are Lehay and Wyden? *insert chuckle here*
The bottom line is, the President has the authority to gather warrantless electronic surveillance of enemy communications in wartime. How could anyone disagree with that proposition?
Comment by Blue State Red — January 31, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Not disagreeing at all BSR. Riddle me this. How does the President know that someone is a terrorist? How does he know who to wiretap? Do terrorists announce the date and time that they plan to call Osama? Do terrorists only call on jihad phone lines? You aren’t retarded. Pretend this President is a democrat and start asking questions.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:14 pm#99 - That’s putting it plainly. You can also add that the only logical reason BushCo didn’t go to the FISA courts within 72 hours after the fact is that he was breaking the law. Didn’t have to disclose anything. It’s an extremely lenient law. It’s to prevent the executive from working in secret. Like that’s possible.
Only in America can the President break the law, admit to breaking the law, and claim to be a national hero.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:16 pmBlue State Red —- Does this guy work for the White House?
January 31st, 2006 at 3:23 pmThus, in this case, the President has all powers granted to him, expressly or impliedly, by the constitution, plus any additional powers granted him by statute.
I always get a belly laugh when republicans try to justify things that they very recently railed against with all their heart. So now “implied by the constitution” replaces “strict constructionism”, wingnut?
January 31st, 2006 at 3:27 pmRight on 99-facts are facts-and the ignorant sheep blindly following and believing this administrations lies, will not be happy when the see the consequences of those lies manifest themselves in reality. I just wish they would see it for what it is-a takeover of America by people who could care less about freedom and democracy, and who, by the way, love to see this fighting among the cannon fodder-us. So..fight on in ignorance whitey righty as is your right.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:32 pmBurnie
Republicans were very unhappy about Clinton’s legal, constitutional Echelon program. Which I don’t fault them for - the government is the People’s employee and therefore should always have its feet held to the fire.
Too bad the Republicans don’t actually believe that. It was just anti-Clinton posturing. When Bush does it, they want full-steam-ahead eternal secrecy, no matter how often the law is broken, and even if the employees within the NSA itself are saying the spying is politicized and not related to terrorism.
To most of you, I’d say it’s past the point where we can argue with members of the Bush Cult anymore. They don’t care. This is about Bush Before Country.
It’s time to just investigate. They’ll find out what Bush did, then impeach him, and then remove him from office.
If THIS is the kind of stuff Bush is pulling, he is actively helping al-Qaida win, and he needs to leave.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:33 pmI RIGHT I IS AN A-HOLE,
WE’RE ON TO YOU, fascist pigs…
don’t try to post at the top of each thread like you have something to add,
you belong in the mud with my boot up your ass!
January 31st, 2006 at 3:33 pmI messed up my own username! My Empirical Platoon Commander is gonna be angry…
January 31st, 2006 at 3:36 pmAll the democrats who voted yes for cloture on sam alito
January 31st, 2006 at 3:45 pmAkaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan(D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
For those that give a shit, a list of dumb dems-blind to the implications of putting this man on the supreme court
If you live in their state-give ‘em hell.
Burnie
Blue State Red —- Does this guy work for the White House?
LOL! That’s right, Lefty. We’re keeping an eye on you and all your friends.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:58 pmBlue State Redcoat: “LOL! That’s right, Lefty. We’re keeping an eye on you and all your friends.”
Maybe if you would have been watching terrorists all this time September 11 wouldn’t have happened. That spying was LEGAL and still you buffoons didn’t do anything with the intelligence. Overpaid morons!!!
Have fun amassing all my Google searches while right-wing religious terrorists keep hatching their plots - which they are doing more and more, with greater success, as the years pass.
But you haven’t spying on them, so how the hell would you even be aware of their plans?
January 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pmBlue State Redcoat - LMAO
January 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm#125: It’s appropriate and funny.
The complaints against being forced to house and getting searched by British soldiers were the direct basis for our third and fourth amendments. The third amendment has generally been viewed as the one which protects privacy, since it says that the government can’t just use someone’s property whenever it feels like. The fourth extends this to protect against unreasonable search and seizure in general.
Some people don’t like these amendments, or any of the others, as we have clearly seen.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:23 pmAs long as you have your fingers crossed behind your back, invoke 9-11 three times, and promise that you were only doing it to spy on terrorists, you can pretty much do as you please.
Oh, if you are a Republican.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:30 pmOther things that are red:
Debt
Communism
Blood
Alarms
People really, really shouldn’t go around identifying themselves by a political party’s color. It just opens them up to too many attacks. :-)
January 31st, 2006 at 4:32 pmIf anyone here is getting worked up thinking this might be a great perjury case, it isn’t.
Gonzalez says “it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.”
I’m actually a lawyer, so here is my opinion on this statement as the basis for a perjury charge.
Problem one: FISA provides exceptions, which the AUMF arguably falls under. I think it does, although one could disagree. The truth or falsity of that statement does not depend on whether that argument is correct, but on whether Gonzales thought it to be true when he said it. I have no doubt that he did.
Problem two: even if the NSA program was in violation of FISA, FISA arguably can not restrict the President’s Article II powers as commander in Chief. Even if the statute was violated, the president has, under this argument, an iron clad affirmative defense: the program is within his power as commander in chief. Thus the NSA program does not contravene criminal law, and Gonzalez’ statement is true.
Another way to look at it is that this is Gonzalez’ opinion about whether the program violated the law…..not a statement of fact personally known by him, like the president wore a blue tie yesterday. Opinions and conclusions, unlike statements of fact, can rarely support an action for perjury.
Mark my words, this statement will not lead to anyone’s downfall.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:38 pmIf I don’t feel like doing paperwork, like filling out a fucking warrant request, that’s okay. Only liberal government employees are lazy.
The Constitution? We can’t go by that - it’s how Clinton got acquitted by the Senate. Unacceptable!
January 31st, 2006 at 4:41 pmGimme a T = T
Gimme a R = R
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a A = A
Gimme a S = S
Gimme a O = O
Gimme a N = N
Gimme a O = O
Gimme a U = U
Gimme a S = S
Gimme a C = C
Gimme a R = R
Gimme a I = I
Gimme a M = M
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a S = S
Gimme a D = D
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a S = S
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a R = R
Gimme a V = V
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a I = I
Gimme a M = M
Gimme a P = P
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a A = A
Gimme a C = C
Gimme a H = H
Gimme a M = M
Gimme a E = E
Gimme a N = N
Gimme a T = T
Gimme a ! = !
AMERICA WAKE UP
Gather up your kindling of disdain and pettition
Your Congress to do their jobs. Deliver said messages
To their doorsteps so as they may light the fire
Necessary to smoke the BushCo out of OUR WHITE HOUSE!
Only once, has there been a fire in Our White House,
Lead by WE THE PEOPLE during the Madison Reign.
It is time again to light a fire so that
We can Smudge Out the bad spirits of
Corrupt, Dishonest, Deseased Democracy!
AMERICA WAKE UP
January 31st, 2006 at 4:50 pmGonzales followed up by lying yet more to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a follow up letter written in response to questions from an April 5, 2005 Patriot Act oversight hearing:DOJ letter lying on behalf of Gonzales
January 31st, 2006 at 4:52 pmAMERICA WAKE UP
Know your history!
Learn it,
Live it,
Breathe it.
OUR FOREBEARERS
BILL OF RIGHTS
ULTIMATELY
TO BE FOR NOT?
AMERICA WAKE UP
January 31st, 2006 at 5:01 pmBush is the Second Greatest president of Modern Times. One must aknowledge that Ronald Reagan was the best.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:25 pmChimpy is the WORST president in American history.
Reagan isn’t much better. Iran-Contra.
You neocon Republicans are all fascist assholes.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:36 pmSomeone on here keeps insisting that wartime powers give the president the authority to surveille warrentlessly. However, I believe I saw something somewhere which said that power only gives him (or her!) the power to do that for 15 days after the start of hostilities. We’re waaaaay beyond those 15 days at this point….
January 31st, 2006 at 5:44 pm#136 Comment by TallBetty
You mean this???
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
January 31st, 2006 at 6:47 pmAMERICA WAKE UP
Congress’ authorization was to use force to get the WMD.
Congress’ authorization to wage war WAS on TERRORISM
AMERICA WAKE UP
Try as I might,
I still haven’t found
The country named TERRORISM.
I’ve searched the maps,
I’ve searched the history books.
And no where is there a country
By the name TERRORISM.
AMERICA WAKE UP
Eucation is Freedom is Slavery
Break those Chains that Bind.
AMERICA WAKE UP
WAR POWERS CLAUSE
January 31st, 2006 at 7:03 pmp.s.
He lied to get us into this war.
He lied about the WMD, link to Osama.
His reasonings changed like the weather.
He now has been shown to have lied about
THE WARRENTLESS DOMESTIC SPY RING (NSA)
There are other lies and crimes against the world,
But the biggest one is against his country.
AMERICA WAKE UP
January 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pmHere’s one that noone can argue with - W is the greatest president to take office in the 21’st century. However, that ranking will change in about 362 days.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:08 pmPoor I-Right-I still thinks commies are the enemy. This is obviously someone oblivious to world events, the news, the march of time, etc. The Berlin Wall fall down go boom. You could look it up.
Please check with your pals Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Karl Rove. The new enemy is: Gay Marriage and the Homosexual Agenda. That will destroy everything we hold dear, which makes you wonder why The Village and San Francisco weren’t bombed, rather than Iraq.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:44 pm“The bottom line is, the President has the authority to gather warrantless electronic surveillance of enemy communications in wartime. How could anyone disagree with that proposition?”
No one can. We think Bush is spying on American citizens who are NOT communicating with the enemy. The FBI agrees.
That’s what we are upset about. Understand now? Nobody on our side has said we shouldn’t monitor calls to al Queda. We don’t want our tax $ spent monitoring the Vegans for Peace. Oh, and we don’t trust Bush, so we’d like an independant investigation.
“Calling for a public investigation into such matters while we are at war is like dmenading that we email our secrets to the enemy. You act like nothing would make you happier.”
February 1st, 2006 at 9:25 amI just went back and read my post (#94). What did you read in there that indicated I would be happy if we e-mailed secrets tot he enemy? I disagree with you on a policy position. Please don’t accuse me of treason because of that. Scoundrel.
Dave, instead of just listening to these al-Qaida members supposedly making all these calls, we need to GO ARREST THEM. I’ve been hollering this at Bush cultists for a while now and it’s not getting through to them.
Let’s just spy on them forever! Detaining them costs too much money!
What else burns me is that we got several legal, good intercepts on al-Qaida calls straight through the winter, spring, and summer of 2001, which Bush’s security team failed to act upon in any way.
The righties also did not like Clinton’s legal, constitutional Echelon program. Yet when Bush says “jump”, you can guess what their answer is.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:59 amDave, instead of just listening to these al-Qaida members supposedly making all these calls, we need to GO ARREST THEM. I’ve been hollering this at Bush cultists for a while now and it’s not getting through to them.
Comment by Stormtrooper of the Enlightenment
What makes you think they are not? Why, because you didn’t read it in the paper? Use your head for somthing other than a beer coaster.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:01 am“Dave, instead of just listening to these al-Qaida members supposedly making all these calls, we need to GO ARREST THEM. I’ve been hollering this at Bush cultists for a while now and it’s not getting through to them.
Comment by Stormtrooper of the Enlightenment
What makes you think they are not? Dave, instead of just listening to these al-Qaida members supposedly making all these calls, we need to GO ARREST THEM. I’ve been hollering this at Bush cultists for a while now and it’s not getting through to them.
Comment by Stormtrooper of the Enlightenment
What makes you think they are not? Why, because you didn’t read it in the paper? Use your head for somthing other than a beer coaster.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 1, 2006 @ 11:01 am
The fact that we have now caught the #2 guy 16 times and every time it has been headlined in the paper leads me to believe that they would let us know if they had caught hundreds of al Queda members using this method.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:31 amExactly, Dave. If the people have been apprehended, we would know about them now that they’re in custody rather than out there just being spied upon as they hatch their plots. I still don’t understand the point of that.
Again, we got several very good, legal intercepts on al-Qaida activity before September 11. Obviously, that was not acted upon. Just because Bush’s security team is gathering all this data does not mean they will do anything (useful) with it.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmIMPEACHMENT IS THE WORD !!!!
February 1st, 2006 at 6:47 pmIMPEACH IMPEACH the LIER LIER LIER
leads me to believe that they would let us know if they had caught hundreds of al Queda members using this method.
Comment by Dave
You don’t tell your secrets just to please a few “journalists”. You don’t tell the enemy that you heard what he said.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm[…] Why is he the only witness? What a joke. How can anyone take the hearing seriously with that liar as the only witness? And didn’t he lie under oath at his confirmation hearing ON THIS VERY ISSUE? So why do I care what he says? He’ll just lie again. Of course, now that Clinton is out of office, we don’t call it lying. We call it “misleading the committee.” No, it’s lying. […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:21 pm“You don’t tell your secrets just to please a few “journalistsâ€. You don’t tell the enemy that you heard what he said.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 2, 2006 @ 12:25 pm”
I’m pretty sure that when they trumpet the fact that they have caught the # 2 guy, as they have done on many occasions, they aren’t doing it to please the journalists. I’m pretty sure they are bragging that they caught the # 2 guy. Again.
So, just to be clear,
“leads me to believe that they would let us know if they had caught hundreds of al Queda members using this method.”
means that is what they would do if they CAUGHT hundreds of al Queda members. Not if they LISTENED TO hundreds of al Queda members.
I think when we CAPTURE hundreds of al Queda members the remaining members of al Queda might know about it whether we publish it or not.
That’s twice you have completely missed my point, and have in fact accused me of saying something I didn’t say.
You should be having this debate with yourself, since you insist on arguing with what you think I mean, as opposed to what I said.