Comments on: Three Questions Gonzales Must Answer http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:03:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Preteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-4889248 Preteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:52:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-4889248 <strong>Preteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Preteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Preteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-4871096 Preteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:19:59 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-4871096 <strong>Preteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Preteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Nude Mariah Carey Nude Paris Hilton Nude http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-4824168 Nude Mariah Carey Nude Paris Hilton Nude Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:26:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-4824168 <strong>Nude Mariah Carey Nude Paris Hilton Nude</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Nude Mariah Carey Nude Paris Hilton Nude

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-4726516 Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:57:22 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-4726516 <strong>Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Nude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-4461628 Nude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:52:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-4461628 <strong>Nude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Nude Pam Anderson Nude Preteen Nudists

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Vegas Showcase http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-441686 Vegas Showcase Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:21:54 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-441686 Specter has already set the tone for how this entire episode will go: there will be no feet being held to any fire, metaphorical, or otherwise because said "fire" may possibly be terrorist in nature, and therefore part of an ongoing investigation. Second, the President's wartime powers extend to the U.S. Attorney General, meaning he can say, do, and/or act any way he deems necessary to protect himself in time of war (a.k.a. I can cover my a$$ any way I see fit). Third, I didn't mislead Congress earlier. My hypothetical merely had an element to it that may or may not have been true, but the details of this are part of an ongoing investigation, and...well, you guys, c'mon, you know the routine: step, step, slide, step, step, schloop, you just stepped in elephant poop. Next question. Specter has already set the tone for how this entire episode will go: there will be no feet being held to any fire, metaphorical, or otherwise because said “fire” may possibly be terrorist in nature, and therefore part of an ongoing investigation. Second, the President’s wartime powers extend to the U.S. Attorney General, meaning he can say, do, and/or act any way he deems necessary to protect himself in time of war (a.k.a. I can cover my a$$ any way I see fit). Third, I didn’t mislead Congress earlier. My hypothetical merely had an element to it that may or may not have been true, but the details of this are part of an ongoing investigation, and…well, you guys, c’mon, you know the routine: step, step, slide, step, step, schloop, you just stepped in elephant poop. Next question.

]]> By: I-RIGHT-I http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-440669 I-RIGHT-I Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:48:08 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-440669 1. Why did you mislead the Judiciary Committee about Bush’s warrantless surveillance during your confirmation hearing last year? <b>Duh, because the information is above your security clearance and it was none of you damn business. Next question...</b> 2. If you are so confident that this program is legal, why don’t you let the FISA court review it and make an independent legal judgement? <b>Duh, because certain members of that court are known ratbasardcommiemofos and would leak the information to our enemies. In addition Senator Fucwit since we know the program is legal there is no need to pass it through a partisan committee made up of aforementioned ratbastards to tell us what we already know.</b> 3. Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists? <b>I can guarantee you Senator Blabbermouth that there was no spying on political opponents or journalists that in the past have shown themselves not to be sympathetic with the enemies of our country. By the way Senator you really should go with the red velvet curtains in the apartment you are setting up for your homosexual aid. Regardless of what he says it doesn't clash with the brown leather sofa. </b> 1. Why did you mislead the Judiciary Committee about Bush’s warrantless surveillance during your confirmation hearing last year?

Duh, because the information is above your security clearance and it was none of you damn business. Next question…

2. If you are so confident that this program is legal, why don’t you let the FISA court review it and make an independent legal judgement?

Duh, because certain members of that court are known ratbasardcommiemofos and would leak the information to our enemies. In addition Senator Fucwit since we know the program is legal there is no need to pass it through a partisan committee made up of aforementioned ratbastards to tell us what we already know.

3. Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists?

I can guarantee you Senator Blabbermouth that there was no spying on political opponents or journalists that in the past have shown themselves not to be sympathetic with the enemies of our country. By the way Senator you really should go with the red velvet curtains in the apartment you are setting up for your homosexual aid. Regardless of what he says it doesn’t clash with the brown leather sofa.

]]> By: Think Progress » Gonzales: ‘I Cannot Give You Absolute Assurance’ That We Are Not Spying on Innocent Americans http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-440211 Think Progress » Gonzales: ‘I Cannot Give You Absolute Assurance’ That We Are Not Spying on Innocent Americans Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:01:26 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-440211 [...] This morning, ThinkProgress listed three questions that Alberto Gonzales needed to answer during today’s hearings. Question No. 3 read, “Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists?” [...] [...] This morning, ThinkProgress listed three questions that Alberto Gonzales needed to answer during today’s hearings. Question No. 3 read, “Can you guarantee this program has never — either intentionally or unintentionally — captured communications of political opponents or journalists?” [...]

]]> By: Marie http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439510 Marie Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:48:49 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439510 <strong>First thing to go wrong!</strong> Gonzales is not going to have to testify under oath, per Specter!! First thing to go wrong!
Gonzales is not going to have to testify under oath, per Specter!!

]]> By: Marie http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439509 Marie Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:47:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439509 I watched First Amendment lawyer, Glen Greenwald on C-Span today. Legally, Bush broke the law with Gonzales' approval, no doubt. But politically, with the Republicans in charge, the outcome is in question. Specter is a reasonable man, but in the end he is a party loyalist. I watched First Amendment lawyer, Glen Greenwald on C-Span today. Legally, Bush broke the law with Gonzales’ approval, no doubt. But politically, with the Republicans in charge, the outcome is in question.
Specter is a reasonable man, but in the end he is a party loyalist.

]]> By: Smedley http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439464 Smedley Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:53:56 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439464 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm <strong>READ THIS YOU THIEFS</strong> http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm

READ THIS YOU THIEFS

]]> By: Jay Randal http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439460 Jay Randal Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:39:45 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439460 We will see if any senator has the guts to even ask questions like thinkprogress postulates on here? If the hearings for Alito are any indication of the one for Gonzales, then it looks bleak? We will see if any senator has the guts to even ask questions like thinkprogress postulates on here? If the hearings for Alito are any indication of the one for Gonzales, then it looks bleak?

]]> By: Max-1 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439459 Max-1 Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:31:52 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439459 <em><strong>AMERICA WAKE UP</strong></em> The elephant trumpets, listen closely. Scenario: Osama bin Landen's calling In the mountains he's hiding away, with his agents there they stay. Osama's calling you know who, Osama, Osama. Osama who? What no one of importance gets, and No one asks, is how does the NSA know who's on the line? I mean, let's just say that Osama is calling agent X, here in the USA. Do you actually think that the NSA finds Osama's number in directory assistance? NO. Somehow they would have you believe that they've obtained his phone number. From where?? That doesn't matter and here's why... The NSA would have to listen in on virtually every phone call from across seas so as to validate their claim that they know the specific call and number. You see, who's to say that Osama doesn't call from a newly acquired phone? Who's to say that each contact he makes is from a new phone. I mean, lets just say that he finds a phone, or borrows a phone, or acquires a new phone, according to the administrations argument, how do they know the new phone number, specifically without broadly scanning a vast majority of calls. O.K. so I rambled on a bit. But please consider the idea. And for agents here in the USA a cell phone is easy to trade, buy, steal, or acquire. And the Administration would have you to believe that they still know who is calling whom and from what phone to what phone. AMERICA WAKE UP

The elephant trumpets, listen closely.

Scenario: Osama bin Landen’s calling
In the mountains he’s hiding away,
with his agents there they stay.
Osama’s calling you know who,
Osama, Osama.
Osama who?

What no one of importance gets, and No one asks, is how does the NSA know who’s on the line?

I mean, let’s just say that Osama is calling agent X, here in the USA. Do you actually think that the NSA finds Osama’s number in directory assistance? NO. Somehow they would have you believe that they’ve obtained his phone number. From where?? That doesn’t matter and here’s why…
The NSA would have to listen in on virtually every phone call from across seas so as to validate their claim that they know the specific call and number. You see, who’s to say that Osama doesn’t call from a newly acquired phone? Who’s to say that each contact he makes is from a new phone. I mean, lets just say that he finds a phone, or borrows a phone, or acquires a new phone, according to the administrations argument, how do they know the new phone number, specifically without broadly scanning a vast majority of calls.

O.K. so I rambled on a bit. But please consider the idea. And for agents here in the USA a cell phone is easy to trade, buy, steal, or acquire. And the Administration would have you to believe that they still know who is calling whom and from what phone to what phone.

]]> By: the fly-man http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439457 the fly-man Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:17:46 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439457 C Span, sorry. C Span, sorry.

]]> By: the fly-man http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439455 the fly-man Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:17:17 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439455 Heads up. Glenn Greenwald will be on SPAN this am 07:45-08:15 EST. Heads up. Glenn Greenwald will be on SPAN this am 07:45-08:15 EST.

]]> By: the fly-man http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439452 the fly-man Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:06:28 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439452 The problem with Question 3 above is Christiane Amanpour. She might have called Brashir asssad for her interview with him. Highly likely any conversation was followed. My question would be about the NY Times, and their possesion of classified material and thier subsequent release of it. Great point Gus #27. The problem with Question 3 above is Christiane Amanpour. She might have called Brashir asssad for her interview with him. Highly likely any conversation was followed.
My question would be about the NY Times, and their possesion of classified material and thier subsequent release of it. Great point Gus #27.

]]> By: RDD http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439446 RDD Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:55:08 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439446 Bush: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0127-20.htm" rel="nofollow">"L'etat, c'est moi"</a>— "I am the state." Bush: “L’etat, c’est moi”— “I am the state.”

]]> By: Gus, the Loving OBGYN http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439445 Gus, the Loving OBGYN Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:55:01 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439445 purvis, You know, at the end of the day the thing that most angers me is the fact they have been telling us the war in Iraq is what has been preventing attacks on our soil. Now I'm inclined to believe it's the spying. At the same time we don't have a barometer of how well the "program" works. It's more deception and dishonesty and quite frankly I'm shocked more people/members of congress haven't thrown these guys out. Just lock them up. purvis,
You know, at the end of the day the thing that most angers me is the fact they have been telling us the war in Iraq is what has been preventing attacks on our soil. Now I’m inclined to believe it’s the spying.
At the same time we don’t have a barometer of how well the “program” works. It’s more deception and dishonesty and quite frankly I’m shocked more people/members of congress haven’t thrown these guys out. Just lock them up.

]]> By: purvis ames http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439438 purvis ames Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:36:01 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439438 Hayden: "The only justification we have is to detect and prevent attacks against the United States." Just substitute "the President" for "the United States" to understand the real thrust of their police state spying operation. Hayden: “The only justification we have is to detect and prevent attacks against the United States.” Just substitute “the President” for “the United States” to understand the real thrust of their police state spying operation.

]]> By: Gus, the Loving OBGYN http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-439436 Gus, the Loving OBGYN Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:34:11 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/05/three-questions-gonzales-must-answer/#comment-439436 You forgot one: <b>What is the arrest per illegal wiretap ratio.</b> Where's the proof it even works? You forgot one: What is the arrest per illegal wiretap ratio. Where’s the proof it even works?

]]>