Feingold Exposes Bush’s False Claim That Previous Administrations Did The Same Thing
Feingold Exposes Bush’s False Claim That Previous Administrations Did The Same Thing
In his State of the Union address, President Bush claimed, “Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.”
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) pressed Gonzales to determine whether there is any evidence to justify this claim:
FEINGOLD: Let me first ask, do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed?
GONZALES: Um, none come to mind, Senator. But maybe — I would be happy to look to see whether or not that’s the case.
FEINGOLD: I can take it as a no unless you submit something?
GONZALES: I can’t give you an answer.
FEINGOLD: Ok.
This is why we need congressional oversight so much — it forces the administration to face up to reality.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
bush is such a liar a big liar and The America People are his enabler
February 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThis is why we need congressional oversight so much — it forces the administration to face up to reality.”
It would help if the congresscritters knew a little about the Constitution. Congress can not pass a law that limits or negates powers vested in the Executive. If FISA limits or abridges Executive power then it is an unconstitutional law and thus rendered meaningless in this discussion. Isn’t that right Judd?
February 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pmBush says whatever he wants and knows there will always be his sheep to regurgitate what he says. Who could possibly trust this man?
Again, this proves he just says any old thing that sounds good. People, when someone lies to me, I really have to wonder from that point on if they are telling me the truth. Is this not the practice of republicans?
February 6th, 2006 at 4:40 pmI-RIGHT-I – FISA is not unconstitutional, stop trolling.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:41 pmWhy don’t they just ask AG AG (Is this deliberate so that Bush knows who does what?) point blank “Are you prepared to actually answer any questions or are you just planning on wasting our time?”
I’d love to hear him refuse to answer that one.
Of course this will be portrayed by the media as “The Attorney General Alberto Gonzales answered all of the questions about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the Senate asked of him.”
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:41 pmThe administration isn’t arguing that FISA is unconstitutional.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:41 pmFirst of all IRI – there is NOTHING in FISA that steps on the presidents executive powers. It does just the opposite, it protects the CONSTITUTION specifically the 4th Amendment.
Perhaps you should try and reading the constitution once and you might really understand what it says.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pmFISA has never limited this ghoul. He just doesn’t want to go about things in a legal manner. FISA isn’t giving out information to terrorists. FISA will give an order AFTER the warrant. Bush doesn’t NEED to do this he WANTS to do this. He disregards the constitution, therefore, making him unpatriotic. Even if he is commander is everything, he is not above the law.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pm[...] The Bush administration is bombarding the airwaves with justifications that several other presidents in history participated in or allowed wire-tapping on US citizens. What they repeatedly fail to mention is that the issue at hand is the regulations put in place by FISA, which was enacted in 1978. What difference does it make whether Abraham Lincoln wire-tapped someone in the 1800’s? Have any presidents since 1978 done it? To this point Democrats have failed miserably to bring up that point. Finally, someone steps up to the plate. And Gonzales has no answer. FEINGOLD: Let me first ask, do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed? [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 4:44 pmYou are absolutely correct. I would add one caveat however. FISA stands as authoritative during peacetime; the NSA, FBI, etc. must seek out a warrant to intercept electronic communications from FISA. During wartime, per the AUMF, the executive has plenary power over the instruments of war and any programs incidental to its execution.
Such is the case here. Thus, FISA is not necessary.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:44 pmIRI That one has been explained to you before…
The “Executive” does not have unlimited powers. The “Executive” cannot breach the Constitution no matter what the “Executive” thinks his rights are.
Now feel free to go piss up a rope unless you’re worried that people won’t be able to distinguish you from a urine soaked rope.
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:47 pmUnderwhelming. The democrats are completely uninspiring. If they think that everything is ok then say so and quit pandering to the extreme left. If they think there is a real problem here then corner these assholes and force them to disprove themselves or acknowledge that they are not acting in good faith with all relevant parts of the government.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pm[...] The Bush administration is bombarding the airwaves with justifications that several other presidents in history participated in or allowed wire-tapping on US citizens. What they repeatedly fail to mention is that the issue at hand is their violations of regulations put in place by FISA, which was enacted in 1978. What difference does it make whether Abraham Lincoln wire-tapped someone in the 1800’s? Have any presidents since 1978 done it? To this point Democrats have failed miserably to bring up that point. Finally, someone steps up to the plate. And Gonzales has no answer. FEINGOLD: Let me first ask, do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed? [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pmChase,
Who are we at war with?
When were Quakers anywhere part of a war effort?
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pmChase, show me in the constitution that gives the president the power to step all over the constitution and the 4th Amendment?
You won’t be able to because it does not exist. The FISA law was created to provide more protection against the constitution, specifically the 4th amendment, so it does the opposite of what you are stating. IT PROTECTS THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
Show me where in the constitution?
February 6th, 2006 at 4:49 pmSLAP!
February 6th, 2006 at 4:49 pmAre you even watching the hearings, or are you commenting on what YOU think is correct. Because as it stands now, you guys aren’t doing to well.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pmBush boldfaced lied in the SOTU address and no one in the media picked up on it. So the public believes this is an unfair charge against Bush, and not until today was there a forced admission that Bush’s words were not the truth.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pmZwack: We are at war with Islamofascism. Quakers are not the focus of the survaillence. You know that, I know that.
Remove: I think I’ve explained to you before that Article II Section vests enhanced power to the President during wartime. They are not walking all over the 4th Amendment, they are trying to prevent terrorist from attacking us again in the US.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:53 pmChase – Show me in the constitution that supports your claim. Don’t just tell me, show me. Point out where it says the president has complete and inherent power to throw out the constitution as he feels fit?
Show me!! Stop with the telling me, show me.
Show me where in the constitution it says what you claim.
Show me what you are saying is the truth. Otherwise, drop your claim.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:56 pmSpudge: I am watching and I am commenting on “what I think is correct” – just like everyone else here.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pmHere’s a thought: if all the calls being made from a foreign country to the US (and vice versa) that means that Pres. Bush has been spying on all of our service men/women who called their families. Isn’t it ironic to think that those who are “serving” are being illegally surveillanced? Is our own military a high risk group?
February 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pmWhy does Feingold hate America? America stands for freedom to defend the country by any means necessary. Especially if you’re a good Christian like our heroic president.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#10 every response from Chase is almost the exact same…yes you are correct I agree with you, now let me tell you why you are wrong.
Also nothing can supercede the constitution. The president does not have the powers you speak of, they know it as Gonzales explained when he said the administration knew they could not get these powers. They also know it because Nixon tried and failed, and If I am not mistaken Vietnam was a war. Of course we all know 9/11 changed everything. Which is why they anticipated 9/11 and started the warrentless wire tapping early.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pmRemoveBush: from Article II, Sec 2:
from Hamdi (2004):
Help any? (I doubt it)
February 6th, 2006 at 5:00 pmChase,
Gonzales can’t even answer a softball question without implying wrong doing.
Sessions just stated that the Bush administration was only targeting Al Qaida as Congress authorized and Gonzales came back with “Al Qaida, their agents and other terrorist organizations.”
Other terrorist organizations was NOT authorized by Congress.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:00 pm#17 They are watching the Fox version that is translated for them. They are about 10 minutes behind. And yeah, they look really bad, even to a sheep.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:01 pmChase,
So you consider a wiretap to be force?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:02 pmChase – I have already shot this down on you long ago, or at least somone like you.
Hamdi case does not apply here. This case was about whether they could detain an American citizen without due process on a battle ground. Are you telling me that America is a battle ground? There is no concievable simularity between the two.
Please note that the article says that he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF, not king. He is still required to get approval for certain things and to do certain things. i.e. He cannot declare war and he cannot fund money for the war.
He needs to have OVERSIGHT!
NEXT!
February 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#24 They crap on the Constitution daily. They do the same thing with the bible. One day the polls are in their favor, the next day, they don’t go by polls. Flip/Flop
February 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#27: Sorry, I’m watching the CSPAN version. You might be watching the al Jazeera version, though.
Spudge: “other organizations” is assumed to include the various orgs that are associated with al Qaeda. If we have to just survail those orgs that call themselves al Qaeda, you are seriously hamstrung as they change thier names from week to week. The name-game is well documented.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:04 pmcut to the chase, let those opponents of the Bush Administration introduce legislation to stop the ‘illegal’ program, demand an end to it. Put your face and your vote to the declaration. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken too much cover in this.
you’re either for the action or not, don’t sit on the fence tell your constituents how you would vote.
don’t anyone hold their breath waiting for that to happen, from either side.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:05 pmBush boldfaced lied in the SOTU address and no one in the media picked up on it.
Why start now? It would only show what a horrible job they have done the last five years.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:07 pmRemoveBush: You are reading Hamdi wrong. Hamdi, at its core, concerns the violation of Hamdi’s rights by imprisionment. The SCOTUS decided that the AUMF gave sufficent authority to detain. I would think that the authority to survail is much less of a concern that detainment, wouldn’t you.
Let me clarify for the fun of it: what I’m saying only applys to wiretaps of international communciations. I’m not yet convinced about the legality of domestic-domestic comm.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pmGeorge W. Bus will not leave office compliantly. Why should he? None of the others laws of the land seem to apply. In the name of national defense he can take the reigns of the office until he deems the threat ended.
The Republican Party would be slavishly compliant with this.
The Republicans went from the party that claimed the government was the problem to now claiming that anything the president and the government does is not only right, but must not be questioned.
Turn about much?
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pmChase,
Then why does Bush and friend never mention anybody but Al Qaida.
Yeah, they started talking about Hamas after they won a democratic election.
But, now it is back to Al Qaida this and Al Qaida that.
Now, if you were watching the C-SPAN version, you would know that Sessions specifically mention other terrorist organization by name and said “BUT WE ARE NOT TARGETING THEM ARE WE.”
Get your facts straight.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pmit is an unconstitutional law
If Bush and Gonzales and Cheney and Rove believed so, then any one of the warrants that were denied or modified by the FISA court could have been used to take it to the Supremes.
But that’s too difficult for the most powerful man in the world.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:10 pmRichB: Right on! But if you remember after the Murtha kerfuffle when his proposal was put to a vote, he had a sock shoved in his mouth.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:10 pmChase, Sweetie.
Clearly you care about your country, but you’re under the partisan brain delusion that we’re under a ’state of war’, when in fact this is an explicit and congressional act that has not occurred.
There is a congressional and formal declaration of war that can be implemented, but that’s different from an authorization of force, and more limited in its response.
I forgive you for your hatred, anger and negativity. I’m sure you just want to protect the country. But it would help your arguments more if you actually knew more about the constitution and what a declaration of war constitutes pumpkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal_declarations_of_war
February 6th, 2006 at 5:12 pmThe President shall be , and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
What part of that do you not understand, besides “commander in chief of the Army and Navy?”
And where in the AUMF does it state that the Constitution is waivable? Why did they not try to get the laws changed? Why did they know that they couldn’t? These are from Spector’s questions, and we know what a bastion of liberal thinking he is.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pmChase, this issue is because they ARE SPYING on AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA. Not overseas or to and from.
What about “Data Mining” do you not understand? OK, let me try and help you.
What they do is tap into the Truck, a point in the system where all data enters or exits, and extract or copy that data and then at a later time or at that time analyze the information.
There is no targeting of an individual or organization. This is AGAINST THE LAW. What do you not understand?
GEEZE. So now your a laywer? I am not, but I can clearly see what that Hamdi case claims. It CLEARLY claims that it is about detaining an American Citizen. There is nothing that eludes to it including wire tapping.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pmrichb,
You don’t need legislation to ’stop’ illegal acts pumpkin – they’re illegal because they already violate legislation. It’s OK pumpkin, it can be hard to process reason and facts when partisan anger and hatred overtake someone. I forgive you pumpkin.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pm#38, you’re correct on that, but if you want to earn the respect of the electorate on an issue, stick to it and don’t take a finger in the wind approach. Your point is well taken, and I’d bet the decision maker for many in opposition to this policy.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pmSpudge: They mention al Qaeda, because, well al Qaeda crashed 4 planes on 9.11.01 and continues to issue statements about seeking our distruction. The rest of what you said makes no sense at all.
GSD: What do you mean he wont leave office “compliantly”? Please elaborate.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:14 pm#42, condescend all you choose, it brings nothing to the debate.
can you name one politician who said stop the program right NOW?, it’s been ongoing since late ‘01. It doesn’t take years to grow a spine, you either have on or don’t.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:16 pmrichb,
there is no need to pass legislation to stop an illegal program, as you curiously suggest. If the program is illegal, by definition, there is a law against it. What you might consider asking is, why don’t the enforcers of our nation’s laws “demand an end to it.” The answer is that they don’t like to prosecute their own.
Read the FISA law closely. It could not be clearer that the President is required to seek authorization for wiretapping domestic communication of any kind. Remember, the only reason Bush didn’t seek expanded powers under FISA from the legislature is that he and his advisors knew it wouldn never be granted in a million years, even with Republicans in charge of every major and minor facet of the nation’s leadership. Gonzalez said this publicly.
To quote e.e. cummings, “there is some sh*t i will not eat.”
Come to my blog and see a more fleshed-out version of this comment.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:16 pmgonzales is another glove puppet, his responses are surely no surprise
February 6th, 2006 at 5:16 pmRichB: Right on! But if you remember after the Murtha kerfuffle when his proposal was put to a vote, he had a sock shoved in his mouth.
Comment by Chase — February 6, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
#38 Are you referring here to when the House voted on Congressman Duncan Hunter’s resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq? Because they weren’t voting on anything that Congressman Murtha proposed.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:16 pmRemoveBush: We have diametrially opposed positions. I support data mining in all its iterations for the protection of our national security. If that can prevent a future attack, I’m all for it.
And “rightpunch”, sweetie, the Hamdi confirms that AUMF grants sufficient authority to do what’s “necessary.” If Congress didn’t want to grant that, they should have blocked it. Right?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmChase,
Please define “Islamofascism” and explain to me why we are at war with it. Then please tell me when the US Congress declared war on “Islamofascism”.
Second if Quakers are not the target in this surveillance do you want to explain why they have been explicitly targetted by this surveillance?
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmBut if you remember after the Murtha kerfuffle when his proposal was put to a vote, he had a sock shoved in his mouth.
Which obviously your partisan brain prevents you from remembering: they were not the same proposals, and it is highly intellectually dishonest to say they were. But, not surprising.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmChase,
You don’t need to quote from that “stupid piece of paper”. Just trust and believe. Gaze in open-eyed slack-jawed awe of our glorious leader. He can do no wrong. He will keep us safer if we just give up our freedoms. I mean there is a terrorist organization after us. The Old British(2x), Nazis, Imperial Japanese, USSR with nukes…they were all just small potatoes compared to these terrorists. I can understand why Americans didn’t give up their freedoms back then but how can we not now….I mean terrorists for god sake. They have us, the great and powerful United States of America on its knees.
Ow, sarcasm hurts.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pm“#42, condescend all you choose, it brings nothing to the debate.
can you name one politician who said stop the program right NOW?, it’s been ongoing since late ‘01. It doesn’t take years to grow a spine, you either have on or don’t.
Comment by richb”
Sweetie, most politicians didn’t know it existed and many have called for its halt. And I don’t condescend, I offer you brotherhood and forgiveness for your hateful and mean spirited attacks on others. Clearly you have good intentions pumpkin, and I appreciate and value those. You’re probably just not used to open and honest dialog with someone who actually cares that you care, but disagrees with the silly things you write. It’s OK pumpkin, I forgive you for your anger and hatred of me. Clearly this is an emotional and irrational issue for you.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmnow Wayne, be realistic. Con. Hunter put to words what Murtha was blovicating about in the public press.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#38
Chase, Murtha never called for total and immediate troop withdrawal. The resolution demanding complete and immediate withdrawal came from the Republicans and was intended to make Murtha’s actual position look foolish. It only worked on people like you whose minds were already made up.
Actually, the Right wingers were at cross purposes, since the White House has since ENDORSED the troop REDUCTIONS Murtha was suggesting.
Get it straight. Nobody, not even that darned ultra-hippie Murtha, who got five deferments during Vietnam because war was not a priority for him (no wait, that was Dickie boy Cheney) has ever called for the immediate and complete withdrawal of the bull from the china shop. Another straw man. Shoot him all you want.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pmIs there a bigger mimbo than Cornyn?
“If I had a majic raygun and shot at airplanes full of soccer balls would you lick my testicles?” -Cornyn
February 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm“And “rightpunchâ€, sweetie, the Hamdi confirms that AUMF grants sufficient authority to do what’s “necessary.†If Congress didn’t want to grant that, they should have blocked it. Right?
Comment by Chase — February 6, 2006 @ 5:18 pm”
Oh pumpkin, what’s necessary isn’t an unlimited right to break the law. A reasonable person would read this as what’s necessary and what’s legal. And what’s legal according to you is relative to a state of war – which isn’t declared.
It’s OK pumpkin, the reasoning centers don’t function when people are partisan like yourself, so I forgive you that you can’t reason through this simple bit of logic. Clearly you’re doing the best you can with your partisan brain today pumpkin.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#54 No he most certainly did not, Chase, and if you were even the least bit honest, you would admit that.
Congressman Murtha, after many conversations with military leaders, proposed redeploying our troops to the horizon, not withdrawing them completely. And he didn’t call for it to be done immediately, like Republican Congressman Hunter did, he said to do it as soon as it was practicable.
Are all your facts this suspect?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm“GSD: What do you mean he wont leave office “compliantlyâ€? Please elaborate.”
I mean that I put nothing past the leadership. Should they determine that they want to stay in power longer than is constitutionally provided they will do whatever it takes to remain in power. Bush has a boner for martial law. He wants to use martial law for bird flu outbreaks.
There would also not be a peep from the Republicans and the right wing. There is nothing Bush can do that will cause the true believers to question him in the least.
They will follow blindly like lemmings off of a cliff to the march of the Rove manufactured pied piper.
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#55 WRONG
February 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pmOK Chase, your willing to give up your rights. I’m not. I don’t want to allow the government into my home to slap my wife around when ever they feel like it.
Once you say “I have nothing to hide”, or “I want them to protect me so I don’t see a problem” then you have done just that; Given up your rights.
Let me put it in a way that you might understand:
1) Bush knew many months before 9/11 that there were terrorists in out country.
2) Bush knew about Able Danger and yet did nothing.
3) Bush forced the FBI to stop investigating Bin Ladens family.
4) Bush ignored the August PDB.
5) Bush ignored several notices from experts regarding Katrina.
6) Bush ignored his generals when they said that they would need at leas 400,000 troops to be successful in this invasion of Iraq.
You trust a man with this kind of track record to have NO oversight? You are truely insane if you do.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:24 pm#55 sorry number changed to #54 WRONG
February 6th, 2006 at 5:24 pmChase’s “facts” come from Fox News.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:24 pm“now Wayne, be realistic. Con. Hunter put to words what Murtha was blovicating about in the public press.
Comment by Chase — February 6, 2006 @ 5:19 pm”
Oh sweetie, you shouldn’t try to use words that you clearly don’t understand the meaning of. See Murtha said no such thing, so your inability to process basic facts and information is just confirmation of your partisan brain – and not your command of history pumpkin.
I forgive you though. Clearly you’re so tied to ‘being right’ that you’re willing to lie to your own brain to achieve a victory. Poor thing, I feel pity for you that you would be so desperate and dishonest to yourself and others.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:25 pmrichb & chase,
I am surprised at your incredibly simplistic view of this situation. First and foremost, chase’s argument that we are at “war” so the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has unlimited powers is false. We are not at war. The administration chose to not pursue the declaration of war for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is that they then would not have been able to force the Iraq invasion. Second, the president acts as Commander in Chief of the military, not the people. There is no wiggle room or grey area, which is why the Constitution is worded the way it is. If bush wants to spy on the military, he potentially has the legal authority to do so. If you boys want to play with the law, you better do some serious studying first.
Now, richb’s argument that we need to have congress pass a law that merely serves to reinforce that something that is already illegal under current law and statute is, in fact, illegal is the most juvenile remark I have seen yet.
My question for you two boys is, why do you hate the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties that it guarantees?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:27 pmWayne,
Chase is like most sufferers of partisan brain – he clearly believes so strongly in his partisan ideals that he lets his brain fool him into his ‘drug’ rewards.
He needs your compassion and pity, not your ridicule – the poor little addict is clearly in need of a fix today.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Feingold asked a trick question and he knows it.
Presdients Lincoln, Wilson and FDR, among others, used the same inherent authority – supplemented by whatever additional powers may have been granted by congressional legislation – to intercept enemy electroninc communications. The AG cited these in his testimony. They are not negated by the later passage of FISA, because, as we all know, Congress has no power to limit powers delegated to the Executive branch under Article II.
Anyone care to cite even one legal authority holding that the President’s inherent constitutional powers as commander in chief can be limited by Congress?
BTW, the FISA court, in In Re Sealed Case, assumed that the Constitution gives the President inherent power to conduct domestic surveillance during wartime, in addition to whatever enemy surveillance he may order. FISA itself contains an exception for surveillance authorized by later congressional enactments. That’s where the AUMF, the fact that none of the congressional leaders whom the administration briefed ever called for the termination of the program, and the absence of any evidence of abuse, all combine to give the President strong legal justification for the program. Even Teddy Kennedy’s favorite law professor, Cass Sunstein, agrees.
Like I said, keep it up, my fever swamp friends. Every word you utter on this topic is music to GOP ears.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:29 pmChase: unless you’re a lawyer, you need to stop trying to interpret statutes and case law that you clearly don’t understand — it could be construed as practicing law without a license, which is actionable in every state.
And if you are a lawyer, you need to stop trying to interpret statutes and case law that you clearly don’t understand — it indicates that you’re incompetent, which is usually sufficient to get you disbarred in any state in which you’ve been admitted.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:33 pmBSR – you are INSANE.
So your saying that the president can order his linchmen to enter my house and slap my wife around because he is Commander In Cheif?
Get real.
There is no difference of him busting into my house as there is with him listening or reading my email.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:33 pm…same goes for you, BSR…
February 6th, 2006 at 5:34 pmBSR,
Two questions.
Did the presidents that you stated in #67 have a Declaration of War from Congress?
Does this president have a Declaration of War from Congress?
Yes and nos will do.
Thank you
February 6th, 2006 at 5:34 pmFEINGOLD: Let me first ask, do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed?
GONZALES: Um, none come to mind, Senator.
So… you mean this isn’t Bill “I Got Some and It Was Good” Clinton’s fault? GOSH. Color me shocked.
ReichWingNut Trolls may never wake up. They seem to be too frightened of things they don’t understand or see. Hopefully the rest of the world will awake and drive King George to the judge and jailhouse… where Bush the Dumber belongs.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:34 pmThose who defend AG and Bush and all the Reps who think Bush should have supreme command over the Constitution should think that there might be a day when they don’t have control of government and a (gasp) Democratic person might be president and have this abuse of power as a precedent.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:34 pmBSR,
Since you seem to have slept through your 7th grade civics class, or perhaps you have not reached it yet, I will forgive you for not understanding that the president has the position of “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces.
However, the president’s relationship to the people is that which is outlined in the Constitution, which is a role of leadership through servitude. This is why the people do not salute the president, unlike what the German and Italian people were forced to do with Hitler and Mussolini.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pmHEY also BSR – Since you seem to know what this “Sealed Case” is. Does it specifically apply to this case? You probably don’t know and just because it may be similar in a statement does not meant that the case is the same.
I could point out many differences that blows this case up. For one, it might be that this case references a citizen that they knew was acting in a way that was suspicious. Therefore, this person was targeted.
This is largely different then just tossing this huge net out and HOPING to catch some information.
Understand the difference?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pmSee, you are a right wing hack, nothing more. If you knew anything, you would know that House Resolution 571 was written by Republican Representative Duncan Hunter from California.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:37 pm… so… reading between the lines… George W. Bush believes his has… what?…. unlimited power as President?
Doesn’t that make him King? Or Dictator? Or Tyrant?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:37 pmSomeone needs to ask Gonzo how he feels being one of the single most powerful men in the country while an unelected official.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:38 pmHe actually looked Durbin straight in the face and said “how do I know you won’t reveal my secret?”. What a piece of SH*T.
Here is House resolution info from the Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.00571:
H.RES.571
February 6th, 2006 at 5:38 pmTitle: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.572
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Failed by recorded vote: 3 – 403, 6 Present (Roll no. 608).
Chase has no facts, not even screwy Fox ones.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:40 pmBSR,
Refering back to #71 and your non-answer to it.
Yes for question 1
No for question 2
The no means that Prez Bush does not get to play with his AUMF no matter how much he wants to. \
Don’t hate America BSR.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:43 pmIf the Attorney General believes that the Administration has acted within the law, based on his word as the senior law inforcement official in the country, why can’t we have his word under oath? If he is the epitome of credibility, why does he feel it necessary to prevent his comments from becoming testimony?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:46 pmfly-man – He offered, but Spector declined to have him sworn in.
I think that it was agreed with the WH that he would not be swarn in and the panel would dismiss it so that Gonzalez would be off the hook. He could say that I offered but the committee said I did not have to.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:49 pm“We’re shocked”
-Specter
February 6th, 2006 at 5:50 pmRiddle me Please, SOMEONE.
Prove me wrong
Why is the FISA court even RELEVENT when it comes to warrentless wire taps, er… terrorist sevailence programs, if they, the talkies like AG Gonzales, hold up the president’s authority to make such a move with no defference toward FISA as GRANTED by Congress’s express authority as the ultimate reasoning to his decisions???
The two reasons ARE NOT in allignment with each other and suggest that they cancel and not support each claim.
AM I SEEING IT WRONG???
February 6th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#66 RightPunch,
I know, I’ve seen the posts that talk about the partisan brain. I’ve seen it in action. But what concerns me is that either he really does believe the crap he’s writing here (in which case he does need our compassion and pity) or he’s paid to come here and act like a fool (in which case he deserves our scorn and ridicule.)
Now, if he’s not being paid and he really does believe that stuff, then I would like to help him learn the truth (which he won’t get from the right-wing media). But if he won’t accept that his belief system is flawed, then I don’t know what we can do to help him.
But thanks for your insights. And if you have the patience to keep this up, then more power to you. I wasted a Saturday afternoon coming into the office to post and got into it with wwallace. He was definitely one of the worst when it came to non-responsive answers.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:52 pmDoesn’t that make him King? Or Dictator? Or Tyrant?
Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR — February 6, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Baby steps . . . He wants YOUR title, so watch you back Jesus.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:56 pmMy money is on Feingold for President. Once he officially declares his candidacy for ‘08, I will actively be supporting his campaign.
Thank goodness for one Democrat with a spine.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:57 pmDid the presidents that you stated in #67 have a Declaration of War from Congress?
Does this president have a Declaration of War from Congress?
The declaration of war issue is a red herring. If someone else declares war on the U.S., as al Qaeda has exprerssly done by word and deed, there is no need for the formality of a congressional declaration of war. A law authorizing the President to use all necessary force, including military action, is sufficient to constitute a “declaratioon of war,” and supplements whatever inherent powers the Presdient has as commander in chief.
At a minimum, those powers include not only the use of military force to protect Americans from further attacks, but also the the use of such lesser types of force as may be fundamental incidents of war (See the Hamdi case). Since the AUMF clearly authorizes the President to bomb and kill al Qaeda and its leaders, it also permits electroinic surveillance of their communications with people already inside the U.S.
The greater always includes the lesser, unless the lesser is specifically excluded. In this case it is not.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:02 pmbullshit bsr. That isn’t how the law or our constitution in practice works.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:03 pm#50 – “Second if Quakers are not the target in this surveillance do you want to explain why they have been explicitly targetted by this surveillance?” – Zwacked
****Islamofacists want to turn the Western world into their latest caliphate – and they’ve proved they’ll die trying to achieve such a goal. (But for a thunbnail sketch to concisely illustrate the barbarian nature of the Islamofacist…..just look how they welcome alternative views points when it comes to cartoon characters.)
Re: the Quakers. First let me applaud a liberal for taking a decidedly non-liberal position – defending a religion and it’s adherents. (OK, they’ve defended Muslims since 9/11….and they’ve applauded churches that hold gay “committment” ceremonies….and they even liked the liberation(marxist) theology of ersatz Catholics.)
The American FRIENDS Service Committee is one of the most vocal proponents of open borders – Google my favourite Quaker, Christian Ramirez, AFSC San Diego.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:04 pmMy money is on Feingold for President. Once he officially declares his candidacy for ‘08, I will actively be supporting his campaign.
Oh, yes, PUL-E-E-EZE let Feingold be the Dems’ candidate for President in 2008. That would be a sure sign that God loves Republcians best.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:07 pmIRI and Chase get paid to post here, that removes any and all credibility. Don’t lie, you guys get paid, thats the motivation you have to continue fighting an unwinable battle here on TP.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:07 pmBSR,
You are 100% wrong on the declaration of war issue. Our laws and procedures are such that we are either in a declared war state or not, there is no grey area in-between.
And, one last time, the president has the responsibility of “Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, not the American People. This is not a nuanced differentiation and the seperation of the two is clear and vast.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pmMighty and BSR also get paid to post here. Don’t make me call you out, I will.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pmMy money is on Feingold for President.
I agree. He says what needs to be said.
Civil societies usually deal with their tyrants. Can we in the US deal with our tyrant? George Bush and his entire gang of henchmen need to be given the boot!
February 6th, 2006 at 6:09 pmThat isn’t how the law or our constitution in practice works.
As a matter of fact, that is exactly how our Constitution works in practice, as evidenced by Article II, the Hamdi decision, the In re Sealed Case decision, and the Youngstown decision, among other legal authorities (including the AUMF and FISA itself). And the authorities that support your assertion are . . . ?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:12 pmMighty Aphrodite…
You have not defined “IslamoFascists” nor stated when there was a declaration of war on “Islamofascists”…
Thank you for your complete non-sequiters…
Secondly, your point about Quakers…
Since when was it illegal in the US to advocate for any position (You might want to go and read the First amendment… It’s slightly relevant)… On a side note why is it that I seem to know more about the US constitution than many of the right wingers and I never had the benefit of Civics classes.
None of what you have said is even remotely relevant…
Until you can actually answer simple, straightforward questions I can’t see the need to respond to your attempts at sidelining.
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:14 pmSOMEONE PLEASE, I BEGGING HERE, HELP ME UNDERSTAND!!!
Let me rephrase my case:
If the president and his talkies support the notion that Congress and the Constitution give him Executive Privilege to use any and all necessary force, just in the manner that they have claimed and used, then the presupposes that any other laws guiding the president and the NSA in regards to what they are doing, those laws are no longer RELEVANT.
IF those laws that regularly guide such decisions without the presupposed granted authority by Congress and the Constitution are trumped by this authority, then all arguments in regard to their lawfulness and Constitutionality become MUTE.
IF those laws are to be considered mute by the negation/trump/authority of the presidents Executive Privilege, then why are his talkies obsessed with rationalizing the FISA laws as being RELEVANT and lawfully executed?
For them to use both arguments as a defense, both arguments need to support the other. However, this is not the case. They undermine each other.
IF the FISA laws are relevant to their argument, then that in and of its self presupposes that the assumed authority that they argue holds some level of IRRELEVANCE.
Can the Administration and Executive Branch hold both arguments of RELEVANT IRRELEVANCE?
AM I LOOKING AT THIS WRONG????
February 6th, 2006 at 6:15 pmFEED BACK, PLEASE!!!!
The one thing that Bush apologists fail to remember, is these programs have not found any terrorists.
In fact, they have put an additional burden on the FBI tracking down all these so-called terrorists, making it so they’re actually impeded from doing their job.
By the way, who are all these thousands of Americans talking to Al Quaeda overseas?
Shouldn’t we be arresting them?
If i’m talking to somebody overseas, and my call is being listened in on, and i’m not talking to Al Quaeda or any terrorist, then my rights have been violated.
Either every call that is being tracked is specifically known to be tracked to a terrorist, or Americans are being data mined, which is illegal.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:15 pmmighty aphrodite,
February 6th, 2006 at 6:16 pmWhat is the difference between the Islamic uproar about the offending caricatures and the RightWing uproar about Tom Toles’ political cartoon?
And, one last time, the president has the responsibility of “Commander in Chief†of the Armed Forces, not the American People.
Yes, and as commander in chief the President has the sole power to engage in warfighting activities, using all the resources of the government. As demonstrated by the historic examples of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and Truman, among others, this includes electronic surveillance on enemy communications, wherever and whenever they occur. That’s how we determine when and where the enemy plans to strike, so that we can devise countermeasures to defeat the enemy.
You do want to defeat the enemy, don’t you?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pmBSR (B?? Shot Residue?)
The Constitution does not say that the President has “war powers” when there has been no declaration of war.
The Constitution does say that the declaration of war has to come from Congress.
If you think that this is wrong, just remember that the constitution was written by people who are smarter than you. They understand that “Little Jimmy” could say “I declare war on the US” and it would be a meaningless comment. Congress has to declare war otherwise the President could say “but Little Jimmy declared war on us” and the entire constituion would be meaningless.
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:19 pmBLUE STATE RED GETS PAID TO POST HERE, WHY ELSE WOULD HE CONTINUE TO FIGHT AN UNWINNABLE BATTLE HERE AT TP. THERE IS NO OTHER FORM OF REINFORCEMENT OTHER THAN THE MONEY. SOME PASSION FOR THE CAUSE, THESE MORONS WON’T DO ANYTHING IF THEY WEREN’T GETTING PAID. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY AS A PAID POSTER.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:19 pmKennedy and Durbin have both ducked questions as to whether they want an up-or-down vote on the NSA program. C’mon, TP, I’m sure they will listen to you if you jump on this bandwagon. Let’s have an up-or-down vote, on the record, for all Americans to see.
Your silence is deafening.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:20 pm“You do want to defeat the enemy, don’t you?”
As you seem to be remarkably unsure who “the enemy” is I’ll wait until I know that before I decide whether I want to defeat them and what it is worth to me to do so.
If the enemy is “Little Jimmy” and his pea shooter then I don’t care about defeating him.
Or is the enemy the reds, sorry, I mean “Islamofascists” under the bed?
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:21 pmIf Feingold is our next president, we’re saved. At last, a man who upholds his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Bush took the oath twice–2 counts of perjury, on the most fundamental responsibility of his office. Impeach him.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:21 pmBSR,
As you continue to display your monumental ignorance when it comes to the Constitution and especially in regard to Article II of said document, I can only conclude that your ignorance is by choice.
So, let me pose a question to you: Since, as Commander in Chief, the president can only legally spy on the enemy (and I’m purposely keeping this simple for you), which American’s are our enemy?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:22 pmBLUE STATE RED GETS PAID TO POST HERE . . .
Thanks, I’ll take that as a compliment of the high quality of my posts. Sadly, all I get out of this is the pleasure of watching the fever swamp dogs chase their own tails.
Keep it up . . . it’s quite entertaining!
February 6th, 2006 at 6:24 pm105,
You get paid to post comments here, and we all know it. You don’t even have a true cause, cuz you get paid. That removes any shred of credibility. Get a real second job.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:24 pmBSR,
Still waiting for an answer….
February 6th, 2006 at 6:25 pmBSR,
That is pretty sad, how long does watching one chase his/her tail remain entertaining. For me it was about 5 min, when I was 14. I can’t imagine what else you get out of continuing to fight an unwinnable battle. You said it yourself, we chase our tails. Can you teach one who chases their own tail to stop? Stop banging your head against a wall, you are not going to get anywhere here.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:27 pmBSR,
I still think you get paid.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:28 pmSince, as Commander in Chief, the president can only legally spy on the enemy (and I’m purposely keeping this simple for you), which American’s are our enemy?
That’s easy. Any Americans who engage in regular communications with al Qaeda are presumptively under suspicion. Any Americans who engage in planning terrorist attacks with al Qaeda are subject to arrest and prosecution. That’s how we stopped the Brooklyn Bridge bomb plot – al Qaeda was calling a truck driver in Columbus, Ohio who later admitted he was an al Qaeda operative. He is now cooling his heels in a federal prison because of the NSA program.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:30 pmRIght on BSR, you had to attend back to your paid position. You had to ignore me.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:30 pmWhats the matter BSR, you can’t answer to #112?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:31 pmDear Ken Mehlman,
Your posters on Think Progress are not effective, consider a more effective way to spend your money.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:33 pmHELLO???
SOMEONE ANSWER #99
PLEASE.
RATIONALE
February 6th, 2006 at 6:33 pmDid anyone else catch the irony of the mention of Coretta Scott King’s funeral? Since her husband was the target of one of the most viscious wiretap campaigns in US history?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pmThe paid nuts are unable to answer to any reasoning about their own behavior. They only have manuals to rebutt the political talk.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pmWhen the paid trolls are taking a long time to answer a question related to politics, they are referring to thier list of referrences which their employers provided to them. If it’s taking a really long time, they are calling their supervisors.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:36 pmBSR,
Could you please explain that phrase that you use a lot, “fever swamp”? I see I-RIGHT-I use it all the time, and it makes just as little sense when he uses it.
And do you have any insults for us based on reality?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:37 pmIf FISA limits or abridges Executive power then it is an unconstitutional law and thus rendered meaningless in this discussion. Isn’t that right Judd?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 6, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
It didnt limit bush from Tapping a suspect. He had 72 hours to go naked (warrantless.) before filing the application for the Warrant
February 6th, 2006 at 6:38 pmHow does that WEAKEN his Powers?
Still waiting for TP (or anyone else, for that matter) to call for an up-or-down vote. C’mon. it’s not that hard to decide, is it?
Take your pick. These fever swamp dogs are either yellow or dumb!
February 6th, 2006 at 6:40 pmfever swamp
Thats fundamentalist reconstructionist Falwellian speak.
Falwell’s Liberty University operates in Lynchburg, and Robertson has …
February 6th, 2006 at 6:41 pmBush wandered into the fever swamp of religious bigotry when he opened his South …
fever swamp = just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:42 pmBSR – So when Japan attacked Pearl Harbo, our president at the time could just go and attack Japan? This is insane! Listen to what you are saying.
Congress had to declare WAR, and it was.
Now just because a group attacks us and the president is given authorization to chase them down, DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS WARTIME POWERS.
Your argument is the weakest shithouse laywer arguements that I have ever heard.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:44 pmthey think they are being attacked by someone..
and they are, but its the neo-cons and the NCR.
They used em for votes.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:44 pmEverytime I see one of these trolls use “fever swamp” I think “What a fvcking moron. I live nowhere near a swamp. Besides, how does a swamp catch a fever in the first place. WHat a lame talking point attack.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#
fever swamp = just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.
Comment by Blue State Red — February 6, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
That makes about as much sense as limbaugh.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pmParanoid people, scared little men
That’s how we stopped the Brooklyn Bridge bomb plot – al Qaeda was calling a truck driver in Columbus, Ohio who later admitted he was an al Qaeda operative. He is now cooling his heels in a federal prison because of the NSA program.
That’s pure bullshit. NSA had nothing to do with the Brooklyn Bridge case, and besides, they were trying to knock down the bridge with blow torches. BLOW TORCHES! That you have to trot that lame horse out in defense is telling.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:47 pmLetter from National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
Office of the General Secretary
Rev. Bob Edgar
To; Mark D. Tooley
Institute on Religion and Democracy
Dear Mark,
Rev. Falwell and His Friends are certain that the problems of America can be solved
by more of the radical right agenda that they have long espoused. It is sometimes hard to fathom just how radical and mean spirited the hard right fundamentalists really are and how long they have been at it.
The January/February 2004 issue of “Zions Herald†published a special report
on the activities (dont have it sorry -AJ =( of the Washington think tank the Institute of Religion
and Democracy (IRD). It Documented that the United Methodist Church (UMC), other mainline protestant denominations, as well as the National Council of Churches of Christ have been the targets of an orchestrated attack by determined right wing ideologues since 1981. At the Heart of many of the Attacks is a “Reconstructionist†recipe for America. (blah blah blah skip)
According to Christian Century, in the Reconstructionists’ brave new America;
minimum-wage laws and Social Security for younger workers would be eliminated; most old-age
security would be covered by personal retirement plans or by care from adult children; and the federal government would play no part in regulating businesses, public education or welfare….all
inheritance and gift taxes would be abolished, while income taxes would be no more than 10 percent of gross income (an then only until goverment was shrunk further) Gleaning for the poor on private farms after harvesting would be encouraged..
I cannot Reconcile this Vision with my reading of the Bible. Jesus introduced his first by quoting the Prophet Isiah :(quote Here Luke 4-18)
BLAH BLAH BLAH
In the United States, For more than three decades, the leaders of the fundamentalist faith community and the political right have worked in tandem to build intellectual, organizational and political structures
rooted in easy certainty and dedicated to placing “Certain†politicians in the seat of power in the United States. With the 2004 Election, the ‘almost veto proof’ capture of the Senate, and with the prospect of a court system that will embrace fundamentalist principles, their victory seems near enough to grasp..Except…
a) NCC reject Hubris of easy Certainty (shortened -AJ)
B)†true Believers†piled up pyramids of skulls, organized the death camp and inflicted anguish on untold Millions (shortened –AJ)
BLAH BLAH
Blah blah……Because we reject the Fundamentalist confidence that disasters, whether Natural or cause dby Humans, are to be welocmed as an “end-time signs†pointing the select few toward the paradise beyond armageddon
It is Now Clear We Grossly Underestimated the the impact of the “gospel of easy certaintyâ€
BLAH BLAH
**(FIRST NAME) we need your help, and that of other progressive and compassionate thinkers, to strengthen the infrastructure of compassion and justice, to once again preach and build toward the beloved community. What can you give to preserve freedom, compassion, and sustainability?
BLAH BLAH SEND MONEY BLAH BLAH
February 6th, 2006 at 6:47 pmPeace and Justice
Rev. Bob Edgar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well Looks like they aint jest real Happy With the Neo-RADicons, and looking for progressive help now that they done screwed the ol poochie with ‘Hubris and Easy-Certainty’ of th Radi-Cons
It is funny that such a small groupt of terroroists can scare the shit out of half the country, while the other half of the country thinks “What the fvck is wrong with these scardie cats.” Then we remember, these people grew up with their dads having a bomb shelter in their backyard.
Fraidie cats and wusses, that is all they are. That is also why they don’t join the military. They are pussies.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:48 pmI understand now. The expression “Fever swamp”, which apparently gives you and I-R-I a warm fuzzy feeling to use, is meaningless. Just as I thought. Thanks for clearing that up.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:49 pmThere is a right wing fever swamp and a left wing fever swamp. Pat Robertson encourages part of the right wing fever swamp. TP and Kos encourage parts of the left wing fever swamp. I find the left wing fever swamp more entertaining by far. Robertson is always being forced to apologize for the nutty things he says. You guys never apologize for anything. You just keep marching over one cliff after another.
Think about it: with all the mistakes the congressional GOP has made in recent years, how do you suppose they have continued to increase their power, except with the help of all you paranoid fever swamp lefties?
Thank God for TP, Howard Dean, and moveon.org!
February 6th, 2006 at 6:49 pmIt Documented that the United Methodist Church (UMC), other mainline protestant denominations, as well as the National Council of Churches of Christ have been the targets of an orchestrated attack by determined right wing ideologues since 1981.
Lookie their RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUES
whaddya say about that?
February 6th, 2006 at 6:50 pmYou are correct David and once again, BSR doesn’t know what the fvck they are talking about.
The Brooklyn Bridge “terrorist” plot was discovered and thwarted by the locl police. It had nothing to do with the NSA, CIA or FBI.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:50 pmThink about it: with all the mistakes the congressional GOP has made in recent years, how do you suppose they have continued to increase their power, except with the help of all you paranoid fever swamp lefties?
Thank God for TP, Howard Dean, and moveon.org!
Comment by Blue State Red — February 6, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
If you read what I posted, you know its the RIGHT wing that has Triumvirated the groups for their agenda.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:52 pmIt was the right and not the Left as you seem to think.
By being part of the K Stree Project, stealing elections and lying.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:52 pm#91 The American FRIENDS Service Committee is one of the most vocal proponents of open borders – Google my favourite Quaker, Christian Ramirez, AFSC San Diego.
Comment by mighty hypocrite
Even a person like yourself who robotically repeats the reichwing talking points must know in her heart (if you have one) that the Quakers weren’t targeted for their support of open borders, since your idol King George hasn’t exactly opposed them either.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:52 pmThe fact that 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch, despite the fact that there were ample advance warnings about Al Qaeda plots, still doesn’t seem to have sunk into the heads of mighty hypocrite, blue state red, Gary R and other trolls. I mean how more clear can the meaning of the paper title “Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US” be? Did you expect a specific time and date, too? In fact, the government wiretappers even could have picked up a specific date from a call intercepted on Sept. 10 about the “day of glory” “tomorrow” if they had had an ample number of Arabic translators/interpreters. That call wasn’t translated until after the terrorists struck, yet King George and his cronies have learned nothing from that experience. That’s to say, the government intelligence agencies are still woefully lacking in interpreters of Middle Eastern/ Afghani languages. Get it? The likely terrorists don’t converse in English but in Arabic, Farsi, Pashwa, etc. Wiretapping people speaking in English is very unlikely to yield any true danger to the US as a whole but only patriotic Americans opposed to the policies of the current administration. Also, if the Busheviks were really so interested in preventing another terrorist attack, they might have acted on at least some of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, headed by a Republican. As you may have read, the Commission, including its GOP chair, have given the Bush administration mostly Fs and Ds.
They TRIANGULATED you, and used the Churches as fodder. WTFU
February 6th, 2006 at 6:53 pmBy being part of the K Stree Project, stealing elections and lying.
Like I said, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:53 pm“****Islamofacists want to turn the Western world into their latest caliphate – and they’ve proved they’ll die trying to achieve such a goal. (But for a thunbnail sketch to concisely illustrate the barbarian nature of the Islamofacist…..just look how they welcome alternative views points when it comes to cartoon characters.) mighty aphrodite”
Sweetie, how is that any different from you (the Christofascist) who want to turn everyone into the christo-caliphate? As for barbarian natures – do you mean the hateful war mongering that come from Pat Robertson, and Limbaugh that call for the murder of politicians they disagree with?
There’s plenty of madness to go around pumpkin, but in truly partisan fashion you offer only hate, ignorance, and partisan bias – instead of love, forgiveness, understanding and reality. The reality is that religions in general are bad, and religious people like yourself exhibit the same partisan brain and hate laden rhetoric as those you supposedly disagree with. I don’t see language of forgiveness, understanding and realization that these poor souls are just as brainwash, damaged and hurt as you are. Poor thing, you have more in common with these ‘islamofascists’ than you can ever admit. I pity you and all of the partisan religious folks. Poor lost children – one and all.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:53 pmFever Swamp. You fools and your Euphemisms.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:55 pmSOMEONE PLEASE
POST #99
PLEASE VERIFY ITS SOLVENCY
ITS THE ADMINISTRATIONS CASE IN A NUT SHELL.
AM I CORRECT. AM I LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY???
February 6th, 2006 at 6:56 pmSo when Japan attacked Pearl Harbo, our president at the time could just go and attack Japan? This is insane! Listen to what you are saying.
Congress had to declare WAR, and it was.
Now just because a group attacks us and the president is given authorization to chase them down, DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS WARTIME POWERS.
Your argument is the weakest shithouse laywer arguements that I have ever heard.
First, you are exactly right that we could have attacked Japan without a formal declaration of war. Second this is recognized in the Hamdi case, which says that the AUMF provides the President with all the congressional warfighting authority of a declaration of war. The same decision states that the Constitution and the AUMF give the President the power to engage in the fundamental incidents of war.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pmBSR,
Do you know what this saying means?
It means that you can be paranoid and yuo can have people after you.
But, just because you live in a fantasy world doesn’t mean that reality is happening around you.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:01 pmJust what the Lie-o-cons do.
and I posted this long ago,
they lead you by your religion
the Straussian neo-cons are AMORAL
and find your religion useful as a tool.
I dont agree with that, as a matter of fact, but dont come in here with your opinions and your blame games for
February 6th, 2006 at 7:01 pmYou have only to Blame yourself for your ‘Swamp Fever’ and your duplicity
Max-1,
You are correct. That was the entire premiss that Alberto Gonzales based his whole testimony on.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:02 pmCan the Administration and Executive Branch hold both arguments of RELEVANT IRRELEVANCE?
AM I LOOKING AT THIS WRONG????
FEED BACK, PLEASE!!!!
Comment by Max-1 — February 6, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
Im not a lawyer, but it would seem to be akin to a moot court
February 6th, 2006 at 7:03 pmWhat about that up-or-down vote on the NSA program? TP seems to have backed off on that idea.
This is getting boring. I think I’ll take a nap.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:03 pmHey I think the tooley edgar letter actually opened a few eyes..about damn time
February 6th, 2006 at 7:04 pmThis is getting boring. I think I’ll take a nap.
Comment by Blue State Red — February 6, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Gurlie Man
February 6th, 2006 at 7:05 pmdont forget to put your tail between your legs BSR
February 6th, 2006 at 7:06 pmEat some pretzels instead please.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:07 pmHow do you have an up or down vote on a Hearing?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:08 pmIm Not a Lawyer Ryan? Anyone?
After how poorly Alberto Gonzales did today, I say “Bring it on!”
February 6th, 2006 at 7:08 pm“First, you are exactly right that we could have attacked Japan without a formal declaration of war.”
YOU ARE INSANE! Of course the president could have sent the military over for 60 days, but without CONGRESS Authorizing it further the troops would have to of been withdrawn.
“Second this is recognized in the Hamdi case, which says that the AUMF provides the President with all the congressional warfighting authority of a declaration of war. The same decision states that the Constitution and the AUMF give the President the power to engage in the fundamental incidents of war.”
BSR – I have already shot you down with Handi. GEEZE.
Once more for you feeble minded people. This was dealing with DETAINING an American in a battle zone. It is COMPLETELY irrelavant to wiretapping.
Run back to your DOD boss and tell them you need better arguing points because yours are as valid as Bush being LEGALLY put into office 2x’s. (1st time the Supreme Court put him in, not the people. Second time Diebold put him in with rigged machines).
February 6th, 2006 at 7:11 pmI mean its not a Confirmation for say a judge..An up or Down vote to impeach?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:12 pmHeck let the people VOTE up or down..
Why are the rest of you even paying attention to the likes of IRI, Mighty, BS R, Chase, et al?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:17 pmAs Wayne pointed out, for the most part they don’t even believe what they’re saying (kinda like AG AG). They just want to disrupt. And the ones who do believe it obviously haven’t been watching the hearings.
Max-1: I understand what you’re saying, that is, if Bushco thinks that they already have the authority, either via Article II or via AUMA, then the FISA court and the attendant rules would be moot. If Bushco thinks that, then a lot of rules, the Geneva Conventions being the first that comes to mind right now (but I’m tired), would be moot.
Bushco danced all around with the various reasons why they went about spying on us without warrents, but all of their excuses simply point up the fact that THEY KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL.
I’m heading home now, g’night!
February 6th, 2006 at 7:22 pmMax-1:
February 6th, 2006 at 7:31 pmTo respond to your attempt to understand the contraditions of the Bush Administration’s arguments, you are correctly perplexed. The Bush Administration is making (at least) two conflicting arguments: (1) First he argues that because he is President, Bush (supposedly) has Executive Privilege to do whatever he wants to fight a war including wiretapping; and the conflicting: (2) Congress gave the President power to wiretap when it passed the resolution giving him power to do whatever is necessary. Obviously, if Bush already has the constitutional power to do whatever he wants, then Congress cannot give or take anything away by resolution, statute or otherwise. So they are two contradictory arguments. My guess is that Bush makes them both because he figures that at least one of them will reasonate with the fascist Republicans that have stolen governance of this country from the incompetent Democrats who have run this country for so long.
#146 BSR,
February 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pmSince you have brought up Pearl Harbor, I will point out that after that attack, the US government and especially the Dept of the Navy, aware of the lack of Americans not of Japanese descent who were competent in the Japanese language, immediately undertook to establish intensive language training for young–(given the times) mostly white male–Americans.
Although the pressing need for translators/interpreters of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, etc. should have been made obvious by 9/11, the Bush administration has done nothing about training more people in these languages. Sorry, BST, Mighty Hypocrite, Gary R. and other reichwingers, but intercepting calls and e-mails that you can’t understand isn’t going to stop terrorists and protect Americans.
Y’all almost understand
Why argue the defense of something that is trumped.
If it(NSA) is to believed to be moot by Congress’s granting of Executive Wartime Privy Powers, then the Administration shouldn’t be arguing the NSA law’s RELEVENCY.
O.K.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:53 pmIf a police officer needs to catch a thief,
And has to speed to the sceen of the crime,
Why does he argue “speed limit” as being relevent
When by law he is granted the right to break “speed limits”
Make sense now???
Stop with all of those facts.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:56 pmMax-1 you have got to be kidding right? Of course there is some amount of leway given to law enforcement. But if a police officer hits and kills someone by his speeding, then watch just how this leway goes away.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:08 pm#100 – “The one thing that Bush apologists fail to remember, is these programs have not found any terrorists.”
-johnnydrama
****and you know this….how???? Trust me, they could care less who you’re talking to…unless his name is Kalid…from the super cell in Yemen ….then we might care….
#95 – For Truth – go ahead,….”call me out”…hahahaha!!but be warned – you wouldn’t like your odds.
#101 – “What is the difference between the Islamic uproar about the offending caricatures and the RightWing uproar about Tom Toles’ political cartoon?
February 6th, 2006 at 8:20 pmComment by Optimist — February 6, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
****For one thing, we didn’t burn his house down (nor would we!!) and we didn’t put a price on his head. Now a quick question for you??? Are you as stupid as you pretend to be here????….
Comment by RemoveBush
But isn’t that what Bush is doing to our Bill of Rights?
Crashing thru them??
All while arueing the justification for having speed limits,
But having authority to exceed them to catch a crook?
What does the justification of speed limits have to do with their need to “HOT PERSUIT” after the criminal?
February 6th, 2006 at 8:21 pmThis for all trolls–
That is it “Monkeys”
Now, can we get back on 9/11 gravity physics. Like was it Newtonian or Einstienian that caused the collapse ? Does light travel faster than gravity waves? Would mass times velocity explain the apparent outward exterior wall movement? What about Oscam’s razor?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:11 pmOpps, the link is http://www.ernestcline.com/dmd?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:15 pmSenator Feingold asked the best questions for Alberto Gonzales, but it amounts to nothing because the Attorney General was NOT under oath in his testimony!
If Gonzales had been under oath, so caught in a LIE, then he could have been charged with perjury to Congress, and removed from his position!
February 6th, 2006 at 10:13 pmI suspect that most of this missed the point. The NSC
February 6th, 2006 at 11:23 pmwiretap may or may not provide us with greater protection–certainly the available evidence makes me wonder.
Nevertheless, I think a limited, focused program (such as the AG promises this is–wish I could believe him) is prudent. I would bet a substantial majority of Senators–Democrat and Republican–would support amending FISA to make it work. That’s not what this President and his trusty band of brothers want. They seek
power, unfettered by congress or the courts and unconstrained by constitutional niceties. Whether it is
Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or George W. Bush (and I can’t believe
I lumped those three together) that is dangerous. It is particularly scary when this particular “war” has no end in sight. Reasonable folks can disagree as to the wisdom of the
program, but I think Bush’s motives are pretty clear.
Addition to #173, isn’t there also a website that lists the names and addresses of abortion providers and gleefully crosses out their names once they get killed?
February 7th, 2006 at 12:07 amThe funny thing about the truth, no matter how hard you try you can never change it. You can avoid it, lie about it, convolute it, or s**t on it, but in the end it’s still there right where you left it. It all comes down to how long is it going to take us to get there. The older I get the less time I have to waist. Since we will always end up in the same place, let’s just be honest up front.
Pretend you are neither Republican nor Democrat. See if you can be honest with yourself. Answer the following:
1) If the Bush said tomorrow – “The only way to keep you safe is to revoke the constitution and let me decide what you need†– would you say yes or no?
2) If Bush cannot keep America safe without breaking the law – do you let him?
3) Are you and your family personally more likely to be suffer a hardship at the hands of terrorists or the “rich get richer, f**k the rest of you†policies being passed in to law daily by Bush & his rubber stampers?
4) Knowing what we know today, if the decision was in your hands would you choose to go to war in Iraq?
5) If you answered yes to the previous question, did you mean you would declare war from a safe distance and send someone else to fight or did you mean you would actually go?
6) Would you send your children to fight as well?
7) Would you want to go into battle with George W. Bush standing next to you?
8) Do you trust the Bush administration with your life? Do you trust them with your family’s lives? How about with your rights? Because you vote republican or because you believe you are safest under their protection?
9) Are you willing to trade your civil liberties for a promise of safety from the bad guys? Have they convinced you that you have to?
I heard someone say tonight, the President did not swear to protect us. He swore to uphold and protect the constitution. It is the constitution that protects us. Making up the rules to suite his own needs and then declaring that it’s for our own good it hardly different than your mother’s “because I said so†answer when you were a child. The only real difference is your mother probably was looking out for your best interest.
Last question:
10) If Bush was in a situation where it was his life or yours, who do you think he would save. What if Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rove were also there and all but one could be saved? Where do you think you would rank then?
Were you able to be honest and argue the republican talking points at the same time? No one else can either.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:27 am[...] Feingold Exposes Bush’s False Claim That Previous Administrations Did The Same Thing In his State of the Union address, President Bush claimed, “Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.” [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 3:44 amSo let’s put this in a context that even a Republican might understand. If you agree with this administration or if you think that they should be able to do whatever they need to do to protect you from the big bad terrorists you are clearly not thinking straight.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:08 amLet’s put this in a context you might understand. Since Republican’s are such model citizens. A guy is married, has a large family, no money, and he is being evicted from his home because he can’t pay the mortgage. So his only choice to feed and protect his family is to go out and rob a bank or a convenience store. We can all agree while a terrible situation it is not ok to break the law in order to survive. Bush cannot break the law to protect you. He needs to follow the laws of this great nation and adhere to the constitution. He is not doing that.
What makes this particularly agregious is that he simply needed to go to congress and ask for what he wants and ccongress would most certainly agree. He chose not to do that and to break the law. No matter how great his cause he cannot break the law. Plain and simple enough for you yet?
Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.
Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based†bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar†by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse†by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.
The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.
Battle Plans
The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.
Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency.
This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:58 amThe only thing Bush accomplished with his illegal program was the avoidance of oversight. I don’t think a single Republican will bring that up, but it’s the elephant in the room. Why would he want to avoid oversight?
February 7th, 2006 at 11:14 amHmm? Could it be for the same reason Nixon wanted to avoid oversight? Could it be because he is doing REALLY BAD THINGS? No? How can anyone know for sure? That’s what the FISA oversight is for, that’s why it was established after Nixon did REALLY BAD THINGS. Why does Bush want no oversight?
Because he is what we have said he is… a REALLY BAD MAN.
I concur, Solitaire. This “program” was totally unnecessary. He already had the powers he needed to tap anyone at anytime. He just didn’t want ANYONE to know. Why indeed!
February 7th, 2006 at 11:53 am[...] There’s an awful lot out there about yesterday’s hearings. One needs only to pick up a newspaper or jump to any media site to see coverage. But the best things can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here at Think Progress who’s on this like white on rice. Those links are chock full o’ video goodness for those of you who don’t have the patience to watch the whole thing over at C-SPAN – or the stomach to listen to Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) kiss the administration’s backside. [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 12:13 pmHe just didn’t want ANYONE to know. Why indeed!
Comment by progressive and proud
Because you liberal fucktards can’t be trusted not to “leak” information that is useful to the enemy. That’s why. Dumbass.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:46 pmIf FISA limits or abridges Executive power then it is an unconstitutional law and thus rendered meaningless in this discussion. Isn’t that right Judd?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #2
The administration isn’t arguing that FISA is unconstitutional.
Comment by Judd #6
…like shootin’ fish in a barrel…
…hey Judd?
February 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pmIRI…
Have you considered that you might need anger management?
Let me put this in short words for you.
It is not a secret that the US has spies.
The “enemy” are not so stupid that they do not think the US will spy on them.
All that this secret program does is mean that there are no judges who can say “this is wrong”…
Got that?
FISA has judges saying “this is right” and is secret. Fisa is legal. What Bush is doing is not legal.
The only thing that what Bush is doing does is remove the check on abuse.
Z.
P.S. it’s not easy writing stuff in words of two syllables or less. I shouldn’t have to avoid phrases like “Judicial oversight” and “bullshit excuse”.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:58 pmP.S. it’s not easy writing stuff in words of two syllables or less. I shouldn’t have to avoid phrases like “Judicial oversight†and “bullshit excuseâ€.
Comment by Zwack
Use as many big words as you want buddy but it doesn’t make it any less stupid. I gave you the answer. It is unconstitutional for the congress or the courts to abridge or negate powers vested in the Presidency. Now all you got to do is prove that the President can not under the Constitution conduct wire tapping as he has done at a time such as this. Anything else is bullsht.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:42 pmI-Right-I–You got it, bud. Let’s see, who are the latest
February 7th, 2006 at 7:25 pmliberals to leak confidential information? Senator Richard Shelby, stalwart leftist from Alabama?–Scooter (obviously an alias) Libby, closet socialist from Neanderthal City?–
Karl Rove, turd blossom from Texas? Get a clue. And I love #185–why do those who disagree with you have to prove a negative? Bush claims the power to flout the 4th amendment in the face of statuatory and case law to the contrary. The reasoning behind Bush’s power grab is as lame now as it was when Nixon first tried it. It is, to use your term, bullsht.
“It is unconstitutional for the congress or the courts to abridge or negate powers vested in the Presidency. Now all you got to do is prove that the President can not under the Constitution conduct wire tapping as he has done at a time such as this. Anything else is bullsht.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 7, 2006 @ 2:42 pm “
Pumpkin, the president doesn’t have any war powers without the consent of congress, so congress has the right to limit the president. It’s OK sweetie, these discussions require the big-boy brain that isn’t available when one is filled with the rage and hate of partisanship. Take a deep breath next time and try to think before you post, maybe next time your comments will make more sense to the reasonably inclined.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:46 amIRI…
To pile on your woes…
The fourth amendment explicitly limits powers of search and requires a warrant. It is an amendment to the constitution and so without any laws explicitly allowing warrantless searches (including wiretapping) it is the ultimate source. Article II of the constitution does not give the President the right to break any laws, nor does it give him “ultimate powers”
The “War Powers” section merely states…
I don’t see anything there that says that he can do what he wants… Do you?
So, that leaves FISA which allows wiretapping under certain circumstances… But Bush didn’t use FISA so that is irrelevant.
So, given that the Fourth amendment explicitly prohibits searches without a warrant, and FISA lays down rules for issuing secret warrants. The President was deliberately evading the law. The fact that previous Presidents before FISA declared that it wasn’t illegal for them to do X doesn’t mean that FISA hasn’t changed that.
You might want to go and READ THE CONSTITUTION and then explain to us why the President can come into your house and make you give him head just because he is President and it is a “time of war”… Never mind that there has been no declaration of war.
Z.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:53 am