Specter: “That Just Defies Logic And Plain English”
Specter: “That Just Defies Logic And Plain English”
Anyone who thinks that criticism of Bush’s warrantless surveillance program is a partisan issue should check out this exchange at the end of the hearing between Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Alberto Gonzales:
SPECTER: I don’t think you can use principle of avoiding a tough constitutional conflict by disagreeing with the plain words of the statute. Attorney General Gonzales, when members of Congress heard about your contention that the resolution authorizing the use of force amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act there was general shock.
GONZALES: We’ve never asserted that FISA has been amended. We’ve always asserted that our interpretation of FISA, which contemplates another statute and we have that here in the authorization to use force, those complement each other. this is not a situation where FISA has been overwritten or FISA has been amended. That’s never been our position.
SPECTER: That just defies logic and plain English.
Karl Rove wants to make warrantless domestic surveillance a partisan issue. But this isn’t about partisanship. It’s about respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
There’s the good stuff. That’s where Gonzo said to Specter “If you were smart enough”…Hee!
February 6th, 2006 at 6:59 pmOverall, the Dems did a better job than the Republicans although the Repubs sent a mixed message. The Dems looked like their constituants for a change: Concerned about terror and concerned about civil liberties. I want to see more. And Specter said more is a comin’.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:01 pmAG is a skilled lawyer (read: able to lie quickly while ducking and bobbing questions). He is more able in that regard than most of the Senators who are far removed from the courtroom and the studying of torts and statutes. That being said, he is a slimy, lying, bastard who carries the train of Bush’s royal robe.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:08 pmHmmm, I don’t mean to say that all attorneys are like Gonzo. Obviously, he has risen within the Bush administration so that makes him uniquely qualified.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:10 pmThere were only a couple of Republicans who were backing Gonzales. Sessions was one. But, for the most part Gonzales took a beating from both sides today. I watched the whole thing.
It will be interesting to see how the “liberal” media puts a positive right wing spin on the hearings.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:12 pmI seem to be making it worse. I hope the Democrats employ lawyers in their staffs who can suggest appropriate lines of questioning. I hope they listen to them. For example, Glenn Greenwald the first amendment lawyer on C-Span today would have been a good one to have in consultation.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:13 pmNo, it is about the President’s constitutional authority to conduct enemy surveillance during wartime. C’mon, Judd, how about calling for an up-or-down vote on this issue?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:13 pmIf you think Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, et al constitute a bipartisan approach, then I’m sure TP was devastated about Sam Alito’s “bi-partisan” vote. Judd, you must have spent prune time in the hot tub (or the bar) at the retreat – yor brain appears a little wet.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:14 pm#7, I think you meant to say “unconstitutional authority”
February 6th, 2006 at 7:16 pmBlue State Red,
Did you even see the hearings? If you did, you would want to hold that vote some other time in the future. You guys did NOT do good today. It was freaking 8 against 2 all day.
If an up or down vote was held right now, you would lose.
Not to mention that they don’t hold votes on hearings nimrod.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:16 pmI hope in all of this, that the media and American public can keep their eyes on the prize here: this is about “warrantless” wiretapping. It seems that the Bush administration keeps bringing up statements like, “If someone in America is talking to Al-Qieda, we want to know about it”, as if what is on the line here is the ability to wiretap at all. Not true. This is about whether or not there is oversight, or a check on the executive to make sure that the wiretaps are valid. FISA was created to stop an abuse of power by the executive. It was created to keep an other Watergate from occuring by ensuring that our government wiretapped on US citizen only when a clear reason relating to national safety exists. IT SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR POLITICAL REASONS, and that is why we need to respect the oversight of FISA.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:16 pmmighty aphrodite,
Did you even see the hearings? If you did, you would want to hold that vote some other time in the future. You guys did NOT do good today. It was freaking 8 against 2 all day.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:17 pmFirst of all:
Everytime someone refers to “Gonzo”, I think of a strange blue Muppett………..
On a more serious note, if Spector pushes too hard, this could be deemed an investigation for “Intelligence”, because of “Nat’l Security Issues.” There it would die, a quiet swift death.
Times are kinda scary right now, I think.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:20 pmNot to scare anyone but all of this stuff is getting close to War. A real War this time not just one concocted by the Imperial President and his slimy crew like Gonzalez. This is decision time coming up folks. Its gonna get down to who in the military has the Balls to begin defying the orders of their Commanders to fire upon American Citizens. Anyone get my meaning here?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:21 pmOh and by the way Gonzalez Hayden and the rest of you slimy corck of shits I could care less if you intercept my scrolls. I hate your fucking guts..all of you Bush bastards.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:23 pmThat being said, I don’t see how authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan specifically allows Bush to ignore FISA. As a matter of fact, that’s what many congressmen are saying, too.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#5 – Spudge_Boy,
February 6th, 2006 at 7:23 pmHate to pull your chain, but, by any chance, do you work for CSPAN? I’m retired and on SS and have lots of time to waste. Spend a good portion on the net, watching TV and making sawdust.
#12 – hang on to that two second grandstand pander everyone did for you today. It doesn’t matter. The issue will go to the Supreme Court and as usual, they will come through for Bush. AND ain’t nothing you can do about it!!
February 6th, 2006 at 7:24 pmGrover Norquist is one of the most influential conservative Republicans in Washington. His weekly “Wednesday Meeting” at his L Street office is a must for conservative strategists, and he has been called the “managing director of the hard-core right” by the liberal Nation magazine. Perhaps the country’s leading anti-tax enthusiast, he is, like Diamond, a hawk in the war on terror.
Despite coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they agree on one other major issue: that the Bush administration’s program of domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency without obtaining court warrants has less to do with the war on terror than with threats to the nation’s civil liberties.
“My view on the terrorists is that we should find all of them and kill them,” said Norquist. “But we should also protect our civil liberties, which the terrorists are trying to destroy.”
(like bush and gonzo)
“For 40 years we always assumed the left would take care of our civil liberties,” he said. “If there were problems, the Democrats were the ones who would push back
So the Republican Party splits..
February 6th, 2006 at 7:27 pmFor 30 years I never thought it would get this bad. Ever again. It was all too visible when the US started shooting students.
Prior to that, the US shot at miners who worked for better conditions.
Yes, there are many examples.
Nowadays the US shoots at journalists. In a place we should never have gone. Iraq.
But wait. We’re in Iraq for one reason and one reason only: Oil. But they’ll never tell the truth about their little lie to invade either.
And here we have Gonzo trying to defend a President who wants desparately to be a Dictator. Why? Because it “would be so much easier”.
This sucks!
February 6th, 2006 at 7:28 pm”I’m going to come out strong after my swearing in,” Bush said, ”with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.” The victories he expects in November, he said, will give us ”two years, at least, until the next midterm. We have to move quickly, because after that I’ll be quacking like a duck.” -GWB
Looks like you DIDNT make it George.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:31 pmYOU are already Quackin like a Duck
JCDW,
February 6th, 2006 at 7:32 pmIf you are 30 years old – worry. If you’re 2005 years old, I’ll worry. In between – worry anyway.
#18 – Wanna bet. When over a million people storm the WH and congress, you’ll see what we can do.
This is getting to a point that we will have to take our country back by force. I’m willing to defend the constitution, done it already, so I don’t mind defending it against DOMESTIC people as well.
I’ll put my military experience to take most of the coward republicans out without batting an eye to protect my country.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:33 pmRB,
February 6th, 2006 at 7:36 pmShould I start sharpening the tines on my pitch fork? It looks like one of those in American Gothic.
If an up or down vote was held right now, you would lose.
Fine. Let’s have the vote. You guys mustered 25 votes for the Alito “flubibuster.” You wouldn’t even get that many to shut down the NSA program. Repeat after me: Floor vote, floor vote, floor vote, yeah . . . !
February 6th, 2006 at 7:37 pmBSR – how about we actually leave it up to the American people and not these Corporate ball lickers?
Let’s hold a nation wide pole and make it like an election and let the people decide. Let’s get the polotics out of this and give the people the right to decide.
You would not want to do that though because all of the polls show that about 68% of the American people do not agree with Warrantless wiretapping.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#23 – please do. Nothing would improve the GOP’s electoral chances than a bunch of nutjobs storming the White House. But don’t cry if they shoot to kill.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:41 pmOh boy, look who’s back.
Boy, the trolls are out in numbers today. A lot of damage control to do after Alberto Gonzales made their illegal program look so bad.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:43 pm#23 – please do. Nothing would improve the GOP’s electoral chances than a bunch of nutjobs storming the White House. But don’t cry if they shoot to kill.
Comment by Tetra King — February 6, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
But you forget the troops now KNOW that Bush lied them into War. It would be foolish to think the troops, and their Families would protect those that had their sons and daughters killed or injured by such an inept and misleading Cabal of Chicken Hawks
In an interview that aired on PBS on Friday, Feb. 3, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff claimed that the speech Powell made before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, laying out a case for war with Iraq, included falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware. He said, “My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.”
February 6th, 2006 at 7:47 pmIt’s amazing how the troll come out when they think that they have a leg. However, when they absolutely have no leg to stand on it’s a ghost town here.
These people are some of the most amazing DOD personnel I have ever seen.
At least they could make it less obvious.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:48 pmI participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.â€
February 6th, 2006 at 7:49 pmCol (ret) Lawrence Wilkerson
you would think removebush…yet they come back for more.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pmHopefully they will read the Wilkerson statement and realize they too, have been lied to by Bushco
Hey Judd, why is it that I am still having to put in 4 character codes? I asked this earlier, and you said it was for spam, but other people don’t have to do this. Mainly, the trolls and others. What criteria do you place on people to be placed on your spam control, since not everyone is obviously not on it?
February 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pmNotice that loyal soldier Colin did not comment himself. He would be a viable candidate for President if he had not failed to let W taint his record.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:52 pmThat the apologists/trolls would continue to willingly surrender their constitutional rights while simultaneously spewing out senseless and irrelevant excuses for this administrations illegal behavior is beyond compreshension. I have never seen such cowardly and servile attitudes as that of BSR,MA, and the ultilmate traitorous bed-wetter, Tetra King.
That these so-called “americans” could so willingly and gleefully surrender their rights out of fear is as tragic as it is contrary to everything that this country stands for. I pity them.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:57 pmThe Senate Judicial Committee Hearing on the NSA Spygate Scandal today was a FARCE, because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was NOT sworn in to testify! That means everything he spewed could be LIES, or baloney, or concocted crap! Taking an oath before testimony is part of the legal process! If the hearing had been an actually court of law, the entire proceedings would be thrown out as invalid! Alberto smiled the whole time because none of his words can be used against him! The members of the committee, especially the Republican ones, have disgraced themselves!
The warrant-less snooping/wiretapping is about breaking the FISA laws, by Bush and his administration, which demands his resignation or impeachment!
February 6th, 2006 at 7:58 pmIt is a partisan issue between people who respect the Constitution and those who do not, between those who believe in following US law and those who do not, between those who value privacy and those who do not, between those who want to use the best government resources to fight terrorism and those who was to use the best government resources possibly for reasons outside of fighting terrorism.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:01 pmOMFG
OMFG
OMFG
I’ve been argueing in the wrong thread.
You see, I’ve been following this since Dec 13th, 2005, when the story broke. And trust me when I say that I’ve been watching this very close. That it wasn’t until today that I saw the huge gap in the Administrations argument. It wasn’t until today, when I read AG Gonzales’s UN SWORN testimony published in time, that I finally connected the dots. And yes, they spell trouble.
The Administration’s talking points follow the same pattern. Now why should this surprise anybody, right? After all, we know the BushCo lie and deceive, right? Well remember, we learned when we were young that if we want to be believed in our lie, we tell only enough to justify our case, we tell only what the other person(s) want to hear(know), and we learn to stick to our story. and sticking to the story, the Administration and their talkies do very well. It always follows the same or similar pattern. Points #1 & #2 ARE NEVER plead together.
The Administrations story, a synopsis:
Now, although we can all argue each point and their relevancy up and down, in fact there is one glaring juxtaposition that they aren’t allowing us to see. That they have a conundrum they are hiding beneath our noses. No one has picked this up, and when I say I saw no one, I mean no one. I have not read in web newsies or seen video interviews, or gleamed from blogs.
Let me plead my case:
My case rests solely on the acceptance of the Administration’s arguments alone. I am not arguing facts or the understanding of laws. Nor do I make any attempt to try to discredit or disprove their facts. Just resting in the simple arguments of their defense that they give.
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 that 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 MooT.
IF those laws are to be considered moot by the negation/trump/authority of the president’s Executive Privilege, then why are his talkies obsessed with rationalizing and justifying the FISA laws as being RELEVANT and lawfully executed? Why do they argue that the NSA laws/court’s nature is old and slow? Why would those laws matter, in any level of RELEVANCE, if the president was granted authority to use all and any necessary force.?
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/courts are relevant to their argument in any shape or form, then that argument, in and of its self, presupposes that the assumed authority that they argue that was granted by Congress, holds some level of IRRELEVANCE. On some level the presidential Executive Wartime Privy Powers aren’t relevent and the FISA laws/courts are.
Can the Administration and Executive Branch hold both arguments of RELEVANT IRRELEVANCE?
AM I LOOKING AT THIS WRONG????
February 6th, 2006 at 8:31 pmFEED BACK, PLEASE!!!!
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn’t just read this did I
CNN
February 6, 2006
Oil industry disputes proposed budget trim
Plan would kill $50 million in federal R&D funding
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/06/budget.oil/index.html
These freaking bastards just posted American and European profit reocrds in the double digit billions of dollars and they are bitching about a measly $50 million. Greedy a$$holse.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:31 pmposted at slashdot:
Politics: Powell Aide Says Case for War a ‘Hoax’
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 06, @11:47AM
from the voices-getting-lost-in-the-mess dept.
Politics
PBS recently aired an interview with Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Ret), Chief of Staff at the Department of State from Aug 2002 – January 2005, addressing some of the skepticism surrounding the pre-war claims made by the Bush administration. Wilkerson claims in no uncertain terms that he “participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.” This is not the first time that Wilkerson has spoken out against the administration and intelligence community.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:35 pmdon’t forget Sen. DeWine. I was very impressed with him. the only ones that didn’t make much of an inpression with me were Sens Sessions and Graham. Sessions was the worst though….but what do you expect? he’s from alabama.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:41 pmDon’t feed the trolls unless I can watch.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:41 pmIt is about the President’s constitutional authority to conduct enemy surveillance during wartime. — Blue State Red
*******************
*Ahem* — if I may direct your attention to this article from the Washington Post which was featured on ThinkProgress recently…?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html
According to this, nearly all of the citizens and/or residents of America whose overseas calls have so far been monitored under this purported “terrorist surveillance” plan have been dismissed as potential suspects by intelligence officials. The number of people who have been identified as warranting further attention due to cues hinting at a potential association with terrorism is fewer than ten per year. However, while the Bush administration refuses to reveal just how many people have been subjected to this investigation, the number is estimated to number in the thousands. When you extrapolate this, it become clear that the Bush administration has indeed been eavesdropping on the overseas calls of American citizens without a warrant without there being any evidence to suggest that these people had ties to terrorism — i.e., they were to all appearances innocent.
Earlier today, Gonzales was caught with his britches down to some extent when he admitted being unable to offer absolute assurance that citizens who had no contacts to people suspected of terrorism would not come under surveillance. In fact, he offered no sort of assurance whatever apart from saying that there are safeguards in place and that policies are being followed (which is by no means the same thing). Just as well — even had he made such assurances, it’s fairly clear that this has already happened. So now you tell me…given that the overwhelming majority of people who have been subjected to this have been found to show no sign of ties to terrorism, how can this be legitimately considered “Constitutional authority to conduct enemy surveillance” when these people showed no signs of being enemies? Surely, if there was any prior evidence to suggest that these people had ties to terrorism, this would have come out under surveillance — so if there was no such activity, why were so many of these people under investigation?
Or perhaps it’s more useful to turn that question on its head…if a legitimate case can be made that the cases mentioned in this article were enemy surveillance, what is it about these people which makes them enemies of the Bush administration despite their lack of association with terrorism? Interesting question, that…
February 6th, 2006 at 8:43 pmComment by Spudge_Boy
I agree,
February 6th, 2006 at 8:47 pmWhy should we have to fund their profits???
max-1 – this is what stood out for me:
February 6th, 2006 at 8:51 pm“…We’ve always asserted that our interpretation of FISA…”
’nuff said……for them, that is…
If Senator Specter had demanded that Alberto Gonzales be sworn in to testify, then I would have respect for Arlen, but instead he allowed Alberto to spew baloney and lies >>>>> NOT under oath! It undermined the entire Judiciary Committee Hearing, because every lie that Alberto told could have benn used against him as a perjury charge!
February 6th, 2006 at 8:54 pmReason WHY Alberto smiled the whole time > he lied boldly and got away with it!
Okay, I think this is a record. Troll roll call:
I-RIGHT-I
mighty aphrodite
Blue State Red
Tetra King
Tracy
Lyle
Chase
Gary Ruppert
Brit_Spume
Wow! All in one day. Man, the 101st Fight Troll Keyboard Brigade ahd their work cut out for them today. Lots of damage control from Alberto Gonzales trip to Congress.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:00 pmNotice how the right wing always rejoices at the deaths of Americans. Rush is happy about peace activists getting kidnapped in Iraq. C-Span callers wish that the ACLU and Democrats were on the planes on 9/11. Ann Coulter wants to kill liberals to silence their views. Michael Savage wants treason trials with executions. Bill O’Reilly wants terorist attacks in San Francisco. Pat Robertson wants natural disasters in Pennsylvania.
A more morbid bunch of fuckers you will not find.
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 9:04 pmFrom my experience, the corruption connections within the Federal Government run throughout. I’ll withhold judgment on Spector until I see the outcome. What’s very troubling is they often measure public opinion and design their response to try to get their way, hoping still to manipulate everyone. This is either a show to keep us happy or it’s serious and meaningful to support our rights?
To me there are way too many fundamental and basic issues that need to be focused on. It’s important to maintain a strong focus with what’s important and not let anything get in the way!
February 6th, 2006 at 9:08 pmWhat defies logic and plain English is why the fuck Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Bush, and any other crackpot America haters cut from the cloth of the aforementioned lunatic freedom loathers, haven’t been indicted and run off like diseased dogs is beyond me. Repent. If they love the goddamned Bible so much why are they so afraid to swear on it? A clear message to all of God’s children that they are lying and afraid of the Hell I am sure awaits them. Might have to spare Arlen though, he took a few good punches at Gonzo today. Fuck ‘Em. God bless the United States of America. Repent!
February 6th, 2006 at 9:09 pmWho woulda guessed it, ANOTHER FAILURE ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S PART
MSNBC
February 6, 2006
Plenty of Warning?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11201491/site/newsweek/
Who woulda guessed that once again, the Bush Cabal has not listened to intellegence telling them that something big is coming.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:15 pmHmmmmmm
MSNBC
The Daily Nightly
February 6, 2006
ANOTHER DEPARTURE AT THE CIA
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/another_departu.html
February 6th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Comment by katy
February 6th, 2006 at 9:25 pmHow the Administration interprets law is only solid in it’s intrepretation. I sense a supreme court ruleing on their interpretention.
Spudge_Boy > Karl Rove had to lay out extra money today for all his paid trolls, like I-R-I, and all the others > lol.
They had to post more often today, so that cost Karl double or triple the day fee! Plus extra money because Alberto Gonzales was a bad liar today and hard to defend!
February 6th, 2006 at 9:25 pmSO how else we track terrorist conversations ?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:30 pmBy using wiretaps. There isn’t anybody here or anywhere else that thinks there is another way. The point is to get a fvcking warrant first.
That has to be some of the worst trolling I have seen in a long time. But, I will add you to the troll list anyway.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:34 pmYou track terrorists using the legal tools at hand. If they are insufficient you craft new laws that are then written and voted and signed.
Simple.
You don’t just say ‘What the fuck, I will do what I want to do because the old way is too hard and there is too much paper work’.
From King George to Boy George, the alpha and omega of US supremacy.
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 9:37 pmThe United States Attorney General’s office has been eliminated. It effectively has been swallowed whole by the voracious White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pmSo what does this mean, are the Republicans starting to come around, even if it to keep thier jobs in 2006?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pmOMG, this is funny. I didn’t notice he said this.
Via Crooks and Liars
He’s says President Washington and Lincoln authorized electronic surveilence “on a much broader scale” than George Bush’s program.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:56 pmThat’s what you get when you have to go to scottie for the talking points
February 6th, 2006 at 10:02 pmCalling all trolls. The moron AG brought up the point that Washington and Lincoln had authorized electronic surveillance. What planet is this scumbag from?
February 6th, 2006 at 10:15 pmComment by Spudge_Boy
OMFG
OMFG
OMFG
He makes it up as he goes along.
Specter should be kicking himself ’bout now as his aides should be showing him this review of AG Gonzales’s reitteration as to what other presidents have authorized electronic surveilence.
If any thing, hopefully someone on the committee will have the sense to point this misinformation out to them and have th AG sworn in for all subsequent days. Along with Hayden on the 9th.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:23 pmLincoln was a possibility, George Washington is a bit doubtful. Did he perhaps mean smoke signals or fire towers? This guy must have an IQ that trails W’s, like in the single digits.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:31 pmI’m referring to # 65.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:33 pmSomebody said:
“So, that’s what Ben Franklin was doing with that kite.”
February 6th, 2006 at 10:33 pmYo Hot!Tip!
February 6th, 2006 at 10:35 pmStay on topic or go somewhere else.
Spudge_Boy,
February 6th, 2006 at 10:36 pmBonsai!
A POPULAR CONSPIRACY VIDEO
May Be False But Very Intresting To Watch
http://video.google.com/videopla…&q=loose+change
February 6th, 2006 at 10:37 pmMarc, your URL is truncated.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:42 pm#76, I’ll say!
February 6th, 2006 at 10:44 pmI found it.
Careful, don’t go off on 9/11. Judd doesn’t like it.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:46 pmA POPULAR CONSPIRACY VIDEO
Good Chance That It May Be False But Intresting To Watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Hope The Link Is Correct
February 6th, 2006 at 10:47 pmNo, i’m not suggesting that this video is in anyways true. I’m sorry if some of you were offended by it. If matters concerning 9/11 are too emotional for you, please dont watch.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:50 pmOh, I am not offended and I think you would find many here knows somethings not right about 9/11. It is Judd, head blogger extraordinaire, who doesn’t like the 9/11 talk. He is trying to keep everything political here.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:53 pmno matter what the trolls say on here, when the top law enforcement officer in the country fails to make use of the opportunity to testify under oath, that tells those watching all they need to know about his regard for the law, and where he sees himself and the administration in relation to it.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:13 pmActually, the proceedings today made me a little angry. Gonzales was WAY too smug! His answers attempt to belittle Specter and any others who questioned his rationale. They show a hell of a lack of respect. If I was a Bushie, I would call him “dishonest, shameful, and reprehensible”. Specter was a Prosecutor/Attorney for God’s sakes and so was Graham.
Maybe the President can get away with this smugness; after all he was elected (sort of). Gonzales wasn’t. Specter and Graham were. This guy is not an Attorney General; he is still Bush’s advisor and personal attorney.
Disgraceful! Reprehensible (There I sound like a Bushie after all.)
February 6th, 2006 at 11:13 pmI particularly like when Gonzo said the Bush administration “tries to find ways to work with the FISA court,” as if the court was a foreign country.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:15 pmDid you hear Alberto Gonzales belittle Senator Durbin near the end of the Hearing > said he could not trust Durbin with Classified information > Alberto has a lot of nerve for a Fem Mexican-American guy with a lisp > lol.
The main reason Gonzales acted smug was because he got to testify without being sworn in under oath! He knew he could lie and fabricate answers to his heart content!He probably remembered another time in his life, in law school, where he fooled the professor and got an A+, so the hearing was just a game to him! Sen. Specter blew it, by not having him testify under oath, and we the voters will remember this farce hearing and punish Republicans!
February 6th, 2006 at 11:39 pmInteresting how all the trolls have disappeared since post number 50 eh?
February 7th, 2006 at 12:24 amLisa,
February 7th, 2006 at 12:35 amHoney is making more noise than the cat! I’m off.
I fundamentally agree that he should have been sworn in and it makes a sham of things for him to not do so. Still, the way he weaved all over the map (Washington ordered electronic eavesdropping?!) made him look really bad, and I wonder if the silver lining to not being sworn in is that he had the latitude to say such ridiculous things. If he were sworn in, I expect we’d have seen many more remarks like, “I can’t comment on that without revealing operational details.” Instead, he just made a fool of himself.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:39 amLisa
February 7th, 2006 at 1:14 amThe trolls are all just on their lunch break in the RNC cafeteria.
Post 89 alan > yes Gonzales acted weird, but very defiant!
February 7th, 2006 at 2:14 amHe may have said more gibberish not under oath, but at the same time whatever he said cannot be used against him in a court of law or by the Senate! He can claim immunity since all his testimony was not sworn to under oath!
Congressional elections this November, which candidate either a challenger or incumbent
look at the camera
and say Stop this program now.
It may not be likeable but the President went right to the American electorate with the issue and, I haven’t seen any politician say stop it now
I’ll bet very few will. They can play both sides now, beat up the administration and have the program still going.
February 7th, 2006 at 6:00 amThe Democrats fought over whether or not the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, would be sworn in, because they wanted to make it out like he was lying, and so they wanted to put him under oath, so that if he lied under oath and committed perjury, they could impeach him. The critics of the president keep saying that he needs judicial oversight before he can exercise his constitutional power as commander-in-chief, when in fact every federal court that has considered this issue, going back decades, has affirmed the president’s view. Every one! Are the Democrats intentionally trying to weaken this country, or are they so blinded by their hatred for Bush they don’t know what they”re doing?
February 7th, 2006 at 7:06 amThe El Gen gonzopetfasictmonkey
Lied,distorted,stonewalled,evaded each question put to him unless it was Session or another soft dickhead thuglite softballing and giving him mental massages!
I’m sending thank you emails to those who worked hard for us The American people and I’m asking them to continue to holding his feet to the fire for the sake of the Consitution ,Civil Rights,Bill Of Rights and July 4 1776
Yo bushjerkfacefascitpig, bring it on right to my doorstep ,you coward! you pansy azz coward!
February 7th, 2006 at 7:41 am“You’re doing a HECK of a job trollees!”
February 7th, 2006 at 7:43 amGoing all the way back to #63, can someone post a link to AG’s complete statement about Washington and Lincoln having authorized electronic surveillance? I need the exact quote, date, and context for satirical purposes!
February 7th, 2006 at 7:47 amAntagonist, would the house judiciary commitee have tolerated any of the people it brought before it’s staff during WJC’s impeachment proceedings NOT to be under oath? Keep going with your argument and guess where you wind up? With a nasty precedent for the next hearings whom ever is in controll. Why did the Administration try to amend FISA in July of 02 if they knew they had the authority? Need to read a little more if you can.Here try this ;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html
February 7th, 2006 at 7:50 amI love reading all of the conspiracy theorists on here, and it’s funny as hell that all of the readers and commenters on this ‘non-partisan” website never think that there might be a conservative in the room. Iran is getting a nuke, Hamas now rules the Palestinians, 1/3 of the world is up in arms and burning down buildings over a cartoon, OBL has promised on video tape that preparations are under way for the next attack on American soil, and most of you are CONSUMED with the idea that the President is breaking the law. Rather than spend your time focused on your hatred of the ONLY man in America that is fighting for your safety, you might focus a little on congress and what it’s motivations are. I wonder; if congress did hold a vote and decided that the foreign terrorist surveillance program was legal, how would you sustain your rage then? And, all of you free thinkers in here, why do you need congress to let you know what is legal and illegal? I am frankly not sure that they would know (I mean, Ted Kennedy killed a woman and that is apparently no stumbling block to being in congress).
February 7th, 2006 at 7:55 amSORRY IF THIS WAS ALREADY MENTIONED (GOTTA GET TO WORK, SO DIDN’T WORK MY WAY DOWN THE POSTS), BUT HUFFINGTONPOST.COM HAS A GOOD ARTICLE ON KKKARL ROVE THREATENING TO BLACKLIST ANY SENATOR WHO DOESN’T SUPPORT BUSH ON DOMESTIC SPYING.
IF TRUE, I GOTTA ADMIT SOME GRUDGING RESPECT FOR SPECTOR, GRAHAM AND HAGEL, AND SOME DISGUST WITH BUSH-BUTT-KISSING MCCAIN.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:07 am#15 – the national guard already fired on American citizens – Kent State – four Americans died by gunfire from the National Guard. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Bush&Co ordered the military to wage war on Americans right here in the USA. It’s some scary times we live in. I’ve never seen an administration more corrupt then the current one.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:18 amyes #99 On HuffPo there is the complete article laying out how rove is calling each republican senator into his office .Several Senators have been blacklisted by rove for their stands against bush.
If they rubber stamp bush in this NSA thing then they get a free pass on monies for 2006 and photo ops with the El Prez.
If not they get run out of office on a rail.. nothing like freedom in amerika bush style……..
February 7th, 2006 at 8:21 am#98 laura bush killed a man will she was drunk and high and wanna talke about Paul WellStone? I’m still convienced that rove and bush had something to do with his death….
February 7th, 2006 at 8:23 am#98 – appreciate the list of Bush failures you gave us. Perhaps that might indicate why so many are pissed off by the NSA stuff. We’ve gone from being a world power and model of liberty to a disaster in foreign policy in 5 short years and all Bush can think to do is demolish our Constitutional rights in the pursuit of a program which has demonstrated no effeciency and will solve none of the problems you listed. I’m not anti-conservative or anti-Republican. I’m anti-incompetent. Why would you support an administration which is not only ineffective but taking actions which are (very) potentially illegal in pursuit of its ineffective policies? Just wondering.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:41 amStolen from Dkos ..damn I’m honest ..bush care to join me…
BIDEN: Thank you very much.
General, how has this revelation damaged the program?
I’m almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn’t think we were intercepting their phone calls.
I mean, I’m a little confused. How did it damage this?
GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I’m just the lawyer.
And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true — you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.
But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.
(LAUGHTER)
How stupid of the ElGen how weak is this …. Great logic umm is this why We Americans are being spied on cause we might be talking and giving pointers to bin laden …hey bush your the one giving him pointers ,we want your buddy ,your the one who allow him to go free not us…
February 7th, 2006 at 8:52 amjust a dumb question: why can’t we simply rescind/amend the 2001 resolution authorizing any/all force? anyone talking about that yet?
At the very least, we should be demanding results. Which has boiled down to at most a handful of anecdotes.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:53 am#98
February 7th, 2006 at 8:56 amGood post!
I used to doubt Rush Limbaugh when he would say that the Democrats are invested in defeat. Now the way they are trying to pass off a foreign intelligence program as domestic spying, and the way they’re playing games with our national security–I can see his point.
#102
February 7th, 2006 at 9:02 amLaura Bush was a teenager, and it was a car ACCIDENT. Quite different than leaving a woman for dead and not telling anyone. How in the world do you guys come up with these bizarre conspiracies, and then expect them to trump all logic when you state them?
#106 – Yet, the administration has admitted that it is -even if accidently – monitering domestic messages (that’s what the whole debate is about. No one has a problem spying on Al Qeada members or non-citizens!). So either Rush is lying or the administration is lying. Wow, that’ll blow your mind! And speaking of playing games with national security, see post #103. So either you aren’t really looking at the measurable and factual incompetence of this administration or you just believe in Bush. Pretty sad either way. Or your paid to fill these boards with contentious arguments to derail the on-line community.If so, how do you get a job like that? And how do you sleep at night?
February 7th, 2006 at 9:05 amWhy does Arlen Specter hate Murka?
February 7th, 2006 at 9:17 am#108
You said:
Or your paid to fill these boards with contentious arguments to derail the on-line community.If so, how do you get a job like that? And how do you sleep at night?
Are you for real? Again more conspiracies from the left. After the Alito hearings/trial, and now the Gonzales hearings/trial, America is getting a first hand look at the Democrat buffoons who pretend to speak for the American people. It’s painfully obvious that they are more interested in extending constitutional rights to terrorists than they are in protecting innocent Americans. People are smart–they get it, and there’s no way in hell anyone in their right mind is going to trust them with national security. Get over yourself Eural and stop relying on the Democrats to tell you what to think.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:19 amHey Antagonist – Where’s Osama?
If our nations security is such a priority for your president, then why has he not spent 1 minute trying to catch Osama? “I really don’t think about him much, nor do I care”.
“Osama is our #1 priority, we will not rest until we have him dead or alive.” Not really hearing anything about this the last 4 years, have you? The only thing we hear is that he’s still a threat, when a tape convienently shows up when your president is facing troubling issues.
So who really cares about the security of our country?
If your that affraid, perhaps you should consider moving to a country like Russia or China, where the government has complete control and the individual person has no say.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:27 amWow #110 – not a conspiracy just a snarky question. Your reply is just more spurious and inane insults not really a discussion of the issues or their impacts. I may disagree with you but the idea is to share conflicting opinions to advance our democracy. Your idea is to spout off and anger people so you can feel big. Nuff said. Don’t bother to reply since I’m safely going to ignore your rantings from here on out. Grow up and think for yourself.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:37 amDid anyone catch Gonzales smirking while he avoided the logical conclusion, despite repeated attempts by Sen. Leahy to get him to fess up?
To me, that was the story. If the auth. to use force implies anything goes, then is anything…anything? Can they open mail, or require building material manufacturers to install bugs in every piece sheetrock. The Gypsum Gypsies are listening…
February 7th, 2006 at 9:54 am#112
February 7th, 2006 at 10:01 amI have seen left wing positions refuted here time and time again, and the point is never taken. You guys never stand corrected, you only return to the argument with a never ending supply of conspiracies, circular reasoning, twisted logic and bogus poll results. Then you smuggly assume you have trumped the trolls, and then engage in an orgy of self-congatulations for being more intelligent and such free thinkers. So what’s the point of discussing the issues? You’re not going to change me, and I’m not going to change you. I’d rather just get to the heart of the matter and challenge your liberal mindset–you big baby.
BSR, if I read you correctly you want to have a vote for impeachment. Afetr all isn’t that what an up or down vote on the florr would entail? I say go for it. But they must follow procedures and put out all the information, so that means hearings, with witnesses under oath etc… Good call BSR, write your congressman and senators and get them moving on it. I already have. Got responses from two senators but not from my representative.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:02 amthat’s great, Arlen… but unless you take some tangible, binding action after these hearings, they’re just a formality…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/02/put-your-hand-where-your-mouth-is.html
February 7th, 2006 at 10:03 amTie a string to the bottom of 2 cups, stretch them out taught and talk. Now George Washington comes along and ties one end of a string to a rock and the other end to a cup. He then hides in the bushes, throws his rock so that his string overlaps the talkers outstretched string, puts the cup to his ear and? Wiretap. Way ahead of his time.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:07 am#100 Cats and all. Just an added note to that post. During the Katrina mess CNN showed armed service people removing by force a poor skinny woman in shorts from her home, cuffing her and storming her house and bringing out an old rifle. They were forcing her to leave her home by arresting her and taking her rifle. She was not using her rifle or resisting except to say no, I want to stay in my house. There has been many cases of marshal law with this bunch in our administration, this is the only one I have personaly seen, so can’t comment on the ones I have not seen. I remember Kent state and watched it on B.& W. tv.
This wiretapping mess I watched all day yesterday. Bush Co. don’t want to change the laws to fix their lies, they don’t want any laws, they want free rein to spy, arrest, detain and torture whom ever, where ever, when ever and Rove, Cheney and all will mussle and threten senators to that end. We are being run over by facests. Radical right winged nut cases have control, for now….Blessings
February 7th, 2006 at 10:09 amAntagonist – our newbie lil troll for this thread…Although, I’ve seen the name before.
Notice that they try so hard to re-direct the thread. Notice how they ALWAYS seem to use the word HATE, usually describing how Democrats feel or act. Notice the last little rovian play, they always want to make democrats as the ones who will weaken america, and they say it as if it is taken as gospel by everyone.
You could do a bidding on getting the ISP addresses of the troll crew here. You’d make bank Judd. We would like to see how many of them are coming from the same place. We have our suspicions. For the most part, they may be organized, but many of our lil trolls are too plain stupid to be bankrolled by anyone. Well, I take that back. They aren’t as stupid as dumbya, but hell, down’s syndrome folk have more brains than him.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:10 amHave the paid Right Wing posters here turned on Spector yet?
February 7th, 2006 at 10:17 am[...] (via ThinkProgress) [link] [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 10:18 amThe apologists/trolls have been bought off, they are selling thier constitutional rights for a couple bucks.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:23 am#114 Antagonist:
I have seen left wing positions refuted here time and time again, and the point is never taken. You guys never stand corrected, you only return to the argument with a never ending supply of conspiracies, circular reasoning, twisted logic and bogus poll results. Then you smuggly assume you have trumped the trolls, and then engage in an orgy of self-congatulations for being more intelligent and such free thinkers. So what’s the point of discussing the issues? You’re not going to change me, and I’m not going to change you. I’d rather just get to the heart of the matter and challenge your liberal mindset–you big baby.
Comment by Antagonist — February 7, 2006 @ 10:01 am
I’d like nothing more than to discuss the issues. There are several I’d like to address. First off let me be clear. My questions and concerns have nothing to do with this administrations political affiliation and everything to do with its lack of competence.
Any war fought, should be fought intelligently. It is not effective to be all brawn and no brain. That is the way I see the “strategery” displayed in Iraq. It’s just not smart. Our brave men and women are well trained in the art of military combat. They aren’t currently engaged in military combat. They are target practice for insurgents and angry Iraqis. How can you win against IED’s? How do you defeat surface to air missles (currently being used to bring down our planes)? It is idiocy to not see the writing on the wall and adjust our “strategery”. Murtha came up with a plan to REDEPLOY our troops out of harms way and allow Iraqis to handle their own security. There is a big difference between withdrawal and redeployment. Redeployment is a smart idea, but of course this administration is against it. We continue to “stay the course” even though it continuously puts our troops in harms way to do so. That’s just plain old dumb.
I agree with what Dubya said when he was campaigning for the 2000 election. Our troops should not be used for nation building. That is not their job. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they are currently being used for. What a collosal flip flop. Dubya says it is imperative that we spread democracy in the middle east. How is that working for us so far? Hamas has been elected to office in Palestine (how could they not see that coming). The Iraqi elections haven’t stopped the civil war in that country, so what is the point? We spread democracy and these people elect leaders that are dangerous. What have we gained? We act as though we are surprised by the violence, but Dubya told the terrorists to “bring it on” remember. What kind of language is that if we really want a peaceful resolution?
On the domestic front, things aren’t much better. This administration has committed blunder after blunder. Nothing that they touch has turned out right. Some blunders have been malicious and intentional. Others are the product of incompetence. It saddens me that loyalty to Dubya is more valued than experience or training when filling vacant positions. It’s ok to reward a few cronies, but they shouldn’t be given high level jobs that require knowledge that they lack. We all suffer when that happens.
I could go on and on Antagonist, but I’ll stop here. Can you admit that my points are valid? Do you have answers to any of my questions. I am willing to have a spirited debate without calling each other names or using partisan rhetoric. I hope you are willing to do the same. I await your response.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:37 amWhen a winger comes in here and tells us what liberals believe, he’s blowing smoke out his ass. It’s the old straw man trick. But this is a really stupid place to do it. It only invokes contempt for their lack of integrity.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:40 am#124
February 7th, 2006 at 10:43 amThe only reason why the Trolls continue, is because they are paid.
Time for the Trolls to get a new strategy, go back to Karl and see what else he’s come up with.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:44 amThose 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 10:57 am#119
February 7th, 2006 at 11:05 amI assure you kindness–no one is intentionally attempting to redirect the thread. Rather, we are so polarized in our political and ideological positions that something has to give. Both sides are guilty of communication breakdown–resulting in name-calling etc. The gap between left and right is growing daily, and there seems to be no way to bridge it. Every subject that is posted here only serves to demonstrate how divided we are. Every discussion serves only to demonstrate how we’re unable to bridge the gaps. I find this disturbing. By the way, I’m not on anyone’s payroll to be here. I put up with the abuse for free.
#128 – That has got to be one of the most sensible and open comments I believe I have seen from you.
Congradulations!
February 7th, 2006 at 11:08 amcool. I’ll go with that antagonist.
Hey Smedley…. Please don’t cut & paste that on every thread today. You’ve already done it a couple of times.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:11 amSmedley,
I have read some other things about that, it seems plausable.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:21 amJohn #11 — Thank you for highlighting the most important aspect of this. The Republican usurpers use this technique all the time: use fear, appeal to the basest instincts, misstate the issue. This one comes out, “If somebody in this country is talking to a terrorist, we want to know about it.” Sounds so reasonable. How many Americans are “talking to terrorists”? 3? They act like Congress isn’t even part of the government. (So does Congress.)
February 7th, 2006 at 11:23 am#98
Because it’s the legislature? legislate – to make law. If you’re a fascist, just come out and say it.
Ted Kennedy killed no one. You’ve been listening to Imus too long.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:25 am#110
What? It’s about preserving the constitutional rights of citizens, which is more important than protecting innocent Americans. Protecting people from crime and misadventure is impossible. Anyone who says he can protect you from random violence is a liar who is trying to take advantage of you. Besides, Bush couldn’t protect an elephant from a mouse. Ever ask yourself why he never talks about protecting civil rights?
Go stick your head back in your hole.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:34 amTed did make an error in not trying to get help right away.
On the other hand, Laura B just flat out ran over her ex.
And to think that just 6 short years ago we all had to put up with who was getting blowjobs from who and lotsa republicans thought that was impeachable. Here we are 6 years later, $10 trillion deficit going to the already fabulously wealthy with their tax cuts, a lying sack of shit ex drunk coke addict for president who likes to invade 2nd world soverign countries cause Uncle Darth tells him to and no republican’s think lying about any of this merits the same impeachment as consentual sex did.
And these are the folks that are supposed to bring us VALUES and MORALS? No. They lied about that too.
Bushies, pull that hook outta your throats. The attached line & sinker is messing with your thought process.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:37 amWhy do the Bushlicans seem to prevail?
February 7th, 2006 at 11:38 amWhy do the good people lose?
Perhaps answers lie in those wire-tapping files:
Extortion or blackmail- you choose.
#123
February 7th, 2006 at 11:53 amNo, I can’t admit your points are valid.
First of all, who are you to determine that the war is not being fought intelligently? Your argument stems from the Democrats talking points, whose only goal is to defeat George Bush poitically.
Next, I agree that fighting the kind of war we’re engaged in is difficult. We have an enemy that doesn’t wear a uniform, hides in mosques, and hides among the civilian population. We live in a world that won’t tolerate civilian casualties, a country that won’t tolerate troop casualties, and we want immediate results. In spite of that, we are having great success, but for some reason it never gets reported that way. Murtha’s plan was a Democrat stunt to make it sound as if an exit strategy had never been considered by Bush–when there has been one all along. They’re only trying to position themselves to take credit for something in the war they object to–We brought the troops home! We’re not building a nation either. We liberated a people and are standing by them until they are strong enough to stand by themselves. It’s not for you or me to say when the Iraqi people are at that point. You have to trust our leaders to make that determination. I do and you don’t.
Hamas is disturbing. Democracy does work, but not without a moral compass. Still it isn’t up to us to decide whether a people can handle a democracy or not. As for Iraq, if you remove a brutal dictator, what should we leave in it’s place? Should we leave the country to sort things out on their own? Take the chance that another dictator will assume power? Or do we give the people a chance to select their own leaders? I know you believe that Bush is incompetant, and is making all these blunders, but I don’t see it that way. I see the Democratic party and the media attempting to scandalize everything Bush does. Take Katrina for example. State and local authorities completely bungled their reponsiblities, and yet Bush and FEMA get the blame. The federal government played the same role in Katrina that they play in every other hurricane, and there is never a problem. The Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media, pounced on a huge opportunity to stick it to Bush in the midst of an unprecedented natural disaster. When you see enough of these tactics, it’s hard to believe that you guys can’t see it. It’s seems like you think all the accusations must be true, because you want them to be true.
[...] 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 12:10 pmHow comforted are “we the people” to be from Arlen Specter’s “stern” words for the criminal Bushite junta in regards to their illegal domestic spying program, when he says:
But Specter indicated his “hope that there will be oversight somewhere along the line.”
-American Progress Report-
…sounds to me like capitulation, and handwringing…
But it certainly doesn’t put one in the frame of mind that Congress will do its due diligence…
Kill it (politically) before it grows…
February 7th, 2006 at 12:11 pmwow…it’s so obvious…antagonist is clearly, simply delusional…
another limpball casualty…
it won’t matter where the facts come from, that kind will only deny…
but here, try this – complete with links:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/terrorists-slip-away/
“President Bush continues to talk tough on terrorism, but more than four years after the 9/11 attacks, what does he have to show for all of his talk?
– Global terrorist attacks have tripled on President Bush’s watch;
– The Bush administration has received failing and mediocre grades on fighting terrorists by the 9/11 Commission;
– By invading Iraq without a plan to stabilize the country, President Bush created a new haven and terrorist training ground for Al Qaeda; and
– The Bush administration let top Al Qaeda leaders slip away in the early days of the war in Afghanistan.
The Bush failures in the fight against terrorism keep piling up, and Americans are less safe because of them.”
February 7th, 2006 at 12:12 pm“First of all, who are you to determine that the war is not being fought intelligently? Your argument stems from the Democrats talking points, whose only goal is to defeat George Bush poitically.”
Antagonist – Have you served in the military? Probably not! Let me tell you as a veteran, this was IS NOT being fought intelligently. The generals told Bushco that they would need AT LEAST 400,000 troops to be successful in this invasion. But guess what, Bush felt he knew better than his Generals.
“Next, I agree that fighting the kind of war”
WE ARE NOT AT WAR!!!!! Show me the declaration of WAR. We are battling a band of gangsters. So when we were/are fighting the “war on drugs” does that mean that we are fighting a real war? Of course not!
“We have an enemy that doesn’t wear a uniform, hides in mosques, and hides among the civilian population. We live in a world that won’t tolerate civilian casualties, a country that won’t tolerate troop casualties, and we want immediate results.”
This is not true! We understand that it is going to take time and there will be causualties, but it MUST BE ORGANIZED. What would you think or do if your hired for a job and your expected to do that job without the proper tools? You have a job that your told you need to write a report, provide a presentation, and send emails, but your new company does not provide the software or the computer. How reasonable would you think that your leader is being and how well would you think he is leading the team?
“In spite of that, we are having great success, but for some reason it never gets reported that way.”
If you call a failure a great success, then OK.
“Murtha’s plan was a Democrat stunt to make it sound as if an exit strategy had never been considered by Bush–when there has been one all along.”
There has NEVER been an exit strategy. Tell me what in his GREAT plan he presented to the American people outlines when we will pull out? There is nothing there that has ANY SUBSTANCE. Only words. Murtha’s plan involved providing support and at the same time forcing the country to stand up for themselves.
“We’re not building a nation either. We liberated a people and are standing by them until they are strong enough to stand by themselves.”
Really! Is that why over 70% of the Iraqis want us to leave. Is that why over 80% of them feel that it’s OK to bomb or blow up our troops?
“You have to trust our leaders to make that determination. I do and you don’t.”
Damn right I don’t. They are the most Incompetant group of people this country has ever put into office. They couldnt win a fight with their own shadow. They are so out of touch, and arrogant, that they can’t and don’t accept ideas or comments that is different than theirs.
“I know you believe that Bush is incompetant, and is making all these blunders, but I don’t see it that way.”
Obviously, you have never served in the military or you would have a different opinion. Bush is not performing his job in any logica sense of the word with the military, and is doing nothing but getting people killed.
“I see the Democratic party and the media attempting to scandalize everything Bush does. Take Katrina for example. State and local authorities completely bungled their reponsiblities, and yet Bush and FEMA get the blame.”
Of course other people are to blame, but they did not have the resourses or the ability that the government has to undertake such a large operation. I do feel that they should have done more, but for a president to stay on vacation and say fvck you I’m busy is insane.
“The federal government played the same role in Katrina that they play in every other hurricane, and there is never a problem.”
That is NOT TRUE!. Look at how quickly they responded in Florida. They were there a day before when hurricanes hit there. So NO IT IS NOT THE SAME.
“The Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media, pounced on a huge opportunity to stick it to Bush in the midst of an unprecedented natural disaster. When you see enough of these tactics, it’s hard to believe that you guys can’t see it. It’s seems like you think all the accusations must be true, because you want them to be true.”
You have got to be kidding me! The media is covering your presidents ass and is not presenting information in the true fashion. If they did, then I can gaurantee that this country would DEMAND that he was impeached. Let’s look at your president.
1) The outed a COVERT CIA agent for political gain. And this was not raise as an issue that this agent and all other agents that dealt with her are now no longer to be effective.
2) When a former NSA employee blows the whistle on an ILLEGAL program, then there is all kinds of fuss made about the leak.
Don’t you see the issue? One is OK as long as it’s for political gain, but the other is a crime. Yeah your president is a real winner.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:20 pmFirst of all, who are you to determine that the war is not being fought intelligently?
Comment by Antagonist #138
Antichrist,
My God why do you treasonous, inbred Bushite sombiches not understand how this criminal Bushite cabal is squandering HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to liberate a Shiite majority that will eventually establish a theocratic Islamic state, closely allied with Iran…
…when here at home people are suffering, the Bushites are gorging themselves on the profits from defense and oil industry profits, and hundreds of thousands are DYING…
But YOU don’t give a rat’s a*s about that because it’s not happening to your sorry a*s and your incestuous inbred KKKlan…
I pray that your wickedness, your idolatry worshipping to your gods Bushiva and L’il Dick et al. will be justly rewarded…
You (and your moronic, evil, racist, right wing ilk) are an abomination upon this Earth, and do not deserve to remain among mankind…
February 7th, 2006 at 12:21 pm“The average man in the street is more like me,” said Intelligence Committee member Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., in a Senate hallway. “‘If it’s for the security of America, please tap my phone.’”
Tell him what you think:
http://lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email
Any letters sent will have more impact if they are polite, non-accusatory, and well written (e.g., thought through rather than off the cuff, spell checked, etc.). Otherwise they may be dismissed as far-left rant. Just my opinion.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#137 Elvis,
February 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pmThe topics get posted on this site. They are always slanted to the left. You guys believe them to be true, and see them as “truths being brought to light.” I for one, and I’m sure many of the other “trolls” here, don’t believe the stories to be accurate. Any discussion between left and right breaks down quickly because it really comes down to this: You buy these stories and we don’t. That’s why I said we are polarized. The way these “stories” are framed creates an environment for us to be polarized before any disscusion even begins. By the way–nice conspiracy theory.
#143
February 7th, 2006 at 12:25 pmI’m sorry, but I don’t speak dumbass–could you repeat that in English?
The Republican usurpers use this technique all the time: use fear, appeal to the basest instincts, misstate the issue. This one comes out, “If somebody in this country is talking to a terrorist, we want to know about it.†Sounds so reasonable.
Comment by Massachusetts Liberal #132
Hey Massachsetts,
Wonder what those NSA wiretappers have discovered when they tap Bushiva’s “conversations” with Prince Bandar and King whats-his-name over in Saudi?
…patriotic American inquiring minds should want to know, wouldn’t you think?
February 7th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI’m sorry, but I don’t speak dumbass–could you repeat that in English?
Comment by Antagonist #146
Antichrist,
Nah…
That was written in sh*thead, and it appears you comprende just fiiine….
February 7th, 2006 at 12:30 pm#145 – So your oppinion is that we are doing GREAT? We have a booming occonomy, despite the fact that we have the largest deficit in our nations 224 year history.
You think were doing great, when the president says “We’ll do what ever it takes to rebuild NO”, yet there is no money in the proposed budget for this.
You think we are doing great, when we are cutting benefits to the less fortunate and giving million dollar tax breaks to countries that are making Billion dollar profits in a single quarter.
You think we are doing great, when there is no border protection and has not been since 9/11.
Boy do you have a narrow view of what is great!
February 7th, 2006 at 12:31 pmAntagonist, your post defies logic and plain English. Baa, baa….you do understand Sheep, right? Baaa baaa baaa baaa
February 7th, 2006 at 12:31 pm“I know you believe that Bush is incompetant, and is making all these blunders, but I don’t see it that way.â€
Comment by Antichrist #138
Obviously, you have never served in the military or you would have a different opinion. Bush is not performing his job in any logica sense of the word with the military, and is doing nothing but getting people killed.
Comment by RemoveBush #142
Hot da*n RemoveBush and Antichrist,
Are we talking about a desserter or what?
Bushiva couldn’t lead a da*n Saint to heaven!
He’s a moron leading imbeciles…
February 7th, 2006 at 12:35 pmAntagonist is PAID by Karl Rove and the GOP to post crap and slander against those who oppose King Bush on thinkprogress threads! I-Right-I another paid troll failed in here, so they sent in Antagonist > ignore his divisive baloney and spewing of hatred! He promotes the Bush Regime!
February 7th, 2006 at 12:41 pm#138 Antagonist:
No, I can’t admit your points are valid.
First of all, who are you to determine that the war is not being fought intelligently? Your argument stems from the Democrats talking points, whose only goal is to defeat George Bush poitically.
I thought we were going to debate without partisan rhetoric Antagonist. My comment about the lack of intelligent strategy for the war in Iraq isn’t a democratic talking point. It’s common sense. What could be construed as actual warfare has been over for years. After it ended, Dubya made his appearance on that ship under the “mission Accomplished” banner. Things have changed since then, but the strategy hasn’t. That isn’t intelligent and I don’t need anyone else to tell me that. This administration refuses to make any type of changes for fear of being seen as soft. If that isn’t incompetence, I don’t know what is. Our troops deserve better.
Next, I agree that fighting the kind of war we’re engaged in is difficult. We have an enemy that doesn’t wear a uniform, hides in mosques, and hides among the civilian population. We live in a world that won’t tolerate civilian casualties, a country that won’t tolerate troop casualties, and we want immediate results.
You recognize the difficulties, yet refuse to admit that changes are warranted. I don’t get it. We knew what kind of enemy we were facing before we ever went into Iraq. Why didn’t we plan accordingly? Could it be because this administration wasn’t listening to our most experienced military minds? Could it be because those that have never been to war can’t understand the intricacies of it? Either way, we haven’t been smart in our approach. There is no way around that. As far as the immediate results go, I think that the administration is partly at fault for that. After all, Cheney/Rumsfeld said that the war would be over in a matter of weeks, not months. Maybe that led to the expectation that we wouldn’t still be bogged down in Iraq at this point.
In spite of that, we are having great success, but for some reason it never gets reported that way.
List the successes for me. I don’t mean the elections. We already know of those. What other successes are we missing? If you are speaking of building schools and hospitals, then that takes us back to nation building which you say our troops aren’t involved in.
Murtha’s plan was a Democrat stunt to make it sound as if an exit strategy had never been considered by Bush–when there has been one all along. They’re only trying to position themselves to take credit for something in the war they object to–We brought the troops home!
A stunt? A clear plan to remove our troops out of harm’s way while still being in position to provide backup support to the Iraqi Army is a stunt? Are you being serious? What exactly is the Bush exit strategy? You sound no different from him when you tell me there is one, but don’t explain what it is. Whether you like Murtha’s plan or not, the point remains that there has to be a better way.
We’re not building a nation either. We liberated a people and are standing by them until they are strong enough to stand by themselves.
We are nation building Antagonist. Our troops are being used to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Should you need links, I can provide them for you. As for liberating the Iraqi people, that’s a switch. When we went to war, we were being told that we needed to attack Iraq in order to stop an attack on the U.S. Now you’re telling me it was for the liberation of Iraqis. Okay, so when do we liberate the people of Darfur? What is stopping us from liberating the Korean people?
It’s not for you or me to say when the Iraqi people are at that point. You have to trust our leaders to make that determination. I do and you don’t.
I sure don’t. Leaders earn trust and this administration hasn’t earned one ounce. I remember Dubya saying that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for this war and taxpayers wouldn’t bear the expense. Years later he says that the Iraqi oil revenue belongs to Iraqis and we are being asked to fork over more money for this fiasco. Sorry, but that doesn’t inspire trust.
Hamas is disturbing. Democracy does work, but not without a moral compass. Still it isn’t up to us to decide whether a people can handle a democracy or not.
If it’s not up to us to decide, then why are we over there shoving democracy down their throats. Why don’t we stay out of it and handle our own affairs? You are arguing in circles.
Comment by Antagonist — February 7, 2006 @ 11:53 am
February 7th, 2006 at 12:42 pmAntagonist,
Then you would agree that George Bush’s ballyhoo about being a “uniter” were just lies? He has been the greatest divider of all time.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:48 pmAntagonist writes:
Hamas is disturbing. Democracy does work, but not without a moral compass.
I see the Democratic party and the media attempting to scandalize everything Bush does. Take Katrina for example. State and local authorities completely bungled their reponsiblities, and yet Bush and FEMA get the blame.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11103934/
February 7th, 2006 at 12:51 pmAntagonist,
We always do research beyond what Think Progress posts. That is what makes us different than what you are trying to make us out to believe. Unlike the trolls that come here, we read the story and any supporting links before giving an opinion. Most of the time, the trolls have not read the article and are not interested in reading the story.
The trolls are more interested in starting name calling and attacks. They want to derail the conversation at every cost. Yesterday, the trolls were commenting on the Gonzales hearings when they hadn’t even seen them. I personally had them on from start to finish.
So, don’t come here trying to tell us what we do and what we believe when you have no idea.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#154
February 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pmYou can’t pin it on Bush. The division between left and right has been growing before Bush, and will continue to do so after him. I’m sure his hopes of uniting everyone were well intentioned, but no president can deliver on that promise–Democrat or Republican.
Nice excuse. There wasn’t this kind of divide before Bush. In fact on September 18, 2001 there was an almost unanimous bi-partisan 99-1 vote to pass the USA PATRIOT Act. The “we don’t care what democrats have to say” started right after that moment.
Bush has divided this country. It is his fault and the fact that you can’t see that shows that you weren’t old enough to know what it was like previous to Bush’s time in office.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:13 pmI’m going off the trail here folks, sorry. But I wanna say something antagonist brought up reguarding the whole Hamas thing.
I know Hamas has stood for some things we don’t like. They have also done some things we should like. They DO spend money to build and man Medical Clinics and Schools in impoverished areas. Those are good things, we should all agree with that.
They also don’t recognize the state of Israel and have taken up arms to back up their views. I think we can all agree that we don’t like that.
But put yourself in a Palestinian shoes for a moment. Arafat’s party, Fatah, was corrupt from top to bottom. Half the aid they “distributed” never got anywhere but someones Swiss account. They stood in the way of progress unless they could own a piece of it. Palestinians widely believe thaqt Fatah officials have been on the take from the Israeli’s for some time. With that in mind, if you have an election that pit’s someone who you KNOW is corrupt vs. someone who you have seen do some good things but talks crazy sometimes, Who would you have voted for? You would have voted for Hamas too.
It’s my hope that in dealing with the Israeli’s they have to to work out Electricity, Water, Gas, Sewage systems for thier own people, that Hamas will have to moderate.
Now they still do crazy talk, I’m not going to defend that. But, when I look around here in the US, I see unimajinable crazy talk that no republicans have stood up and said “ENOUGH BULLSHIT!”. They just keep letting Darth, dumbya and alberto jabber away like they make lots of sense.
Just my 2 cents.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#156
February 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pmI’ve been here long enough to see your name-calling and your personal attacks. I have yet to see you criticize anything thinkprogress posts. In fact you seem to be in lockstep with everything they say. Are you on the payroll? You also wrongly assume that we don’t do any research. I’m more interested in the truth, than I am in being right. I admit that I support Bush and his administration–but not blindly. If he or any of his staff have truly broken the law, then they need to be held accountable. The same goes for any politician. However, I know you do not support Bush or his administration–which is fine, but I seriously doubt that you have enough intellectual honesty, and objectivity to admit when he does do a good job. In fact I think you’ve been so negative for so long, you can’t think of even one good thing to say about him.
Antagonist, let me repeat what I meant to be a direct question to you:
You said, “Hamas is disturbing. Democracy does work, but not without a moral compass.”
My question to you is, Whose morals?
February 7th, 2006 at 1:31 pm#161,
Geez dude, you can’t even come up with original adjectives, you are using Progressive adjectives to describe one of us, then you are using the payroll thing ever since you were called out on it. You are going to be reprimanded by your supervisor for that.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:35 pmDear Republicans,
You made a bad choice by hiring Anagonist, he is stupid, too easy to see that. He needs to be replaced.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmAntagonist is using the defense mechanism known as “projection”, accusing others of your own characteristics and behaviors.
Well at least he’s on the defensive now, completely off his mission.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pmPresident Carter is absolutely correct.
On my second time calling in and speaking with Air America host Randi Rhodes, I had a chance to discuss a critical flaw in the Gonzales arguments defending the NSA program. Through all the various legal jousting, ducking and dodging – there is one issue on which Gonzales is completely, flatly wrong. It’s an issue that sits like a lynchpin in their arguments, and once pulled causes the NSA program to collapse on itself like a house of cards.
That lynchpin is called Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
On Randi’s show – I yanked on that lynchpin like lawnmower chain. All you need is two steps – two facts – and Gonzales goes down like a sack of potatoes.
…
Step One:
Under Hamdi the Supremes established that judicial review would be neccesary before the executive branch could override 18 USC 4001 and declare a U.S. Citizen as an enemy combatant.
Folks, this is simple – since you still need judicial review under Hamdi and the post 9-11 Authorization to Use Military Force, you still need judicial review for domestic signal intelligence and FISA is still applicable.
FISA is the Law, Stupid.
…
Step Two:
Article I Section 8 Paragraph 14 of the Constitution, which grants to the Congress the power…
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
It may be true that foreign matters of state are the exclusive province of the executive, but this clause makes it clear that the Rules and Regulations regarding the armed forces – which would include FISA since the NSA are a part of the DoD – are under the province of Congress. For that matter so are the War Powers. Congress declares War, not the President. Congress establishes the rules of engagement for the armed forces, not the President. Congress has the option, during War, to suspend Habeas Corpus, not the President. Congress makes the laws and the President abides by them.
Urm…not this President.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/7/115755/1163
Vyan – truth 2 power
February 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pmThe trolls can keep trying, but no-one, not even Karl is an experienced mental health professional who knows all the psychological trickery. Even if they hire one, he/she will be a hack, as any really good mental health professional would refuse to participate in their evil plans.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pmMy 2 cents:
February 7th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWhile I agree that IRI and Gary Rupert post mostly unintelligible blather, that Mighty Aphrodite and Tetra-King express only vile hatred; I believe that some “trolls” such as Antagonist and Giacommo post their honest opinions, even though we generally disagree with them. I also believe that with the latter, we can have meaningful albeit heated discussions.
That said, I’d like to point out that Antagonist’s comment: “I’ve been here long enough to see your name-calling and your personal attacks. I have yet to see you criticize anything thinkprogress posts. In fact you seem to be in lockstep with everything they say.” is far from correct. I have not agreed with everything ThinkProgress posts, and I have seen this to be the case with other “regulars” here.
Hey Antagonist, here is something good I have to say about Bush.
He only has 3 more years in office. Unless he gets impeached for his crimes against America and Humanity before then.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:49 pmThen you don’t know me very well. I don’t post comments in threads I don’t agree with.
Name one thing he has done right.
Actually, I find him quite funny. He gives me lots of good material for jokes. That’s positive.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#161
February 7th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThat is a good question–one I fear is loaded, but a good question. I’ll make a feeble attempt to answer… our democracy worked as long as it has, because it was founded on Godly principles. Many of our founding fathers as well as our citizens practiced the morality taught by the Bible. It is based on our ability to control and govern ourselves. Obviously, many today reject this notion, which brings up the good part of your question–what do you base democracy on when a society does not believe or accept Judeao-Christian values? Whose morals? Democracy may work for Palestine under Hamas morals and values, but what kind of neighbor does that make them to the rest of the world/
Sorry… more questions than answers.
No it was, quite the opposite.
No they didn’t.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:00 pmI have to agree with Lily’s 167.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#145 Antagonist:
The topics get posted on this site. They are always slanted to the left. You guys believe them to be true, and see them as “truths being brought to light.†I for one, and I’m sure many of the other “trolls†here, don’t believe the stories to be accurate.
Facts are facts. I have never seen a topic posted on TP that isn’t supported by links, video, or direct quotes. How can quotes be lies? How can video lie? If you choose to believe some other truthiness instead, then that’s your choice to remain ignorant. Things are much simpler than you seem to believe. Either someone made a certain statement or they didn’t. Either something happened or it didn’t. If you continue to “believe” only that information that is favorable to this administration, then you will remain in the dark.
Any discussion between left and right breaks down quickly because it really comes down to this: You buy these stories and we don’t. That’s why I said we are polarized. The way these “stories†are framed creates an environment for us to be polarized before any disscusion even begins. By the way–nice conspiracy theory.
Comment by Antagonist — February 7, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
I respectfully disagree. The reason for polarization is simple. Manipulation of the republican base. In order to maintain a lock on conservative evangelicals, this administration (Rove) began to use religion and moral issues as a wedge. They demonized dems as anti God, Pro gay and pro abortion. The next step was to control the information that the base receives. Newsletters are sent through churches and they are told to only trust the conservative media. The mainstream media is characterized as liberal even though the news outlets are OWNED by conservative corporations. You end up with a group of folks only listening to one side of the argument and ignorant of the facts. Hence they can’t debate the actual issues. They simply attack the messenger. Every single issue is presented as a partisan one when most issues aren’t. The only way to prevent themselves from being held accountable is to smear those that ask the questions versus actually answering the question. It’s their formula. It’s not working quite as well these days though. People are waking up. They are beginning to realize that most issues aren’t republican or democratic issues, they are american issues. I think it’s high time that you catch up. Investigate a little. That is all it would take. Pretend this is a democratic administration and ask a few pointed questions.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pmAntagonist,
February 7th, 2006 at 2:14 pmWhile I am a Christian, I do not try to measure others by strictly Judeo-Christian values. I believe the sentiment expressed by most religions, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (though not in these exact words)should be the at the heart of any moral compass. It seems universal in fundamentalist religions that the belief is “We are right, if you do not agree, then you are wrong.” My question wasn’t loaded. Clearly not all people have the same values, and it would be dangerous for any moral compass to be based on fundamentalism, be it Christian, Judeo, or Islamic.
Aslo, as a point of interest; (I don’t mean you, Antagonist) I’ve heard many Christians state that the Muslim God is not the same as our God. To those people, I suggest you read the Book of Genesis. Abraham is the Father of the Judeo, Christain, AND Islamic religions.
They never swore Gonzales in because they knew he would be lying and they didn’t want to show him committing perjury on national television.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:37 pmThey never swore the BIG OIL CEOs in because they want to pretend they are doing something when they don’t.
They never swore the BIG TOBACCO CEOs and others in until the 1990s.
Tell them to swear everyon in. They swore me in. Why do AG and the others get to testify (lie) with impunity?
Why do they get to lie? Good question, Uncle. Why do they get to lie with impunity?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:00 pmWhat is the punishment for lying to Congress? When was it that a lie was last punished? Does anybody in Congress care that they are being lied to?
I do think the American public is getting really tired of hearing lies. But they don’t stop. Isn’t that an interesting little dynamic? What do is it that makes Bushco so confident they can continue to lie without repercussion?
Could it possibly have something to do with the Administration’s power grab? Congress will go Dem in Nov. I think they are positioning themselves to fight off the Impeachment that will ensue by claiming that Exec Power trumps everybody else… can’t really Impeach, sorry. The guys with the guns win.
Sorry about posting such a long one but I feel this is very important .pcash
Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
On the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program
As Prepared for Delivery From the Senate Floor
February 7, 2006
Mr. President, last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union address, where he spoke of America’s leadership in the world, and called on all of us to “lead this world toward freedom.†Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom, and how it can transform nations, and empower people around the world.
But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law.
The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment — to be free from unjustified government intrusion.
The President was blunt. He said that he had authorized the NSA’s domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and even some Democrats.
The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.
How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.
Congress has lost its way if we don’t hold this President accountable for his actions.
The President suggests that anyone who criticizes his illegal wiretapping program doesn’t understand the threat we face. But we do. Every single one of us is committed to stopping the terrorists who threaten us and our families.
Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority, and we all agree that we need to wiretap them to do it. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to wiretap terrorists. But we have yet to see any reason why we have to trample the laws of the United States to do it. The President’s decision that he can break the law says far more about his attitude toward the rule of law than it does about the laws themselves.
This goes way beyond party, and way beyond politics. What the President has done here is to break faith with the American people. In the State of the Union, he also said that “we must always be clear in our principles†to get support from friends and allies that we need to fight terrorism. So let’s be clear about a basic American principle: When someone breaks the law, when someone misleads the public in an attempt to justify his actions, he needs to be held accountable. The President of the United States has broken the law. The President of the United States is trying to mislead the American people. And he needs to be held accountable.
Unfortunately, the President refuses to provide any details about this domestic spying program. Not even the full Intelligence committees know the details, and they were specifically set up to review classified information and oversee the intelligence activities of our government. Instead, the President says – “Trust me.â€
This is not the first time we’ve heard that. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Administration went on an offensive to get the American public, the Congress, and the international community to believe its theory that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and even that he had ties to Al Qaeda. The President painted a dire – and inaccurate – picture of Saddam Hussein’s capability and intent, and we invaded Iraq on that basis. To make matters worse, the Administration misled the country about what it would take to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq after the conflict. We were led to believe that this was going to be a short endeavor, and that our troops would be home soon.
We all recall the President’s “Mission Accomplished†banner on the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. In fact, the mission was not even close to being complete. More than 2100 total deaths have occurred after the President declared an end to major combat operations in May of 2003, and over 16,600 American troops have been wounded in Iraq. The President misled the American people and grossly miscalculated the true challenge of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.
In December, we found out that the President has authorized wiretaps of Americans without the court orders required by law. He says he is only wiretapping people with links to terrorists, but how do we know? We don’t. The President is unwilling to let a neutral judge make sure that is the case. He will not submit this program to an independent branch of government to make sure he’s not violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.
So I don’t want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted. It hasn’t. And that is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps.
It is up to Congress to hold the President to account. We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzales was a witness. We expect there will be other hearings. That is a start, but it will take more than just hearings to get the job done.
We know that in part because the President’s Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead the Congress.
At the hearing yesterday, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn’t know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as “hypothetical.†He then testified that “it’s not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.â€
Well, Mr. President, wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes. The Attorney General knew that, and he knew about the NSA program when he sought the Senate’s approval for his nomination to be Attorney General. He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country. But he had. The Attorney General had some explaining to do, and he didn’t do it yesterday. Instead he parsed words, arguing that what he said was truthful because he didn’t believe that the President’s actions violated the law.
But he knew what I was asking, and he knew he was misleading the Committee in his response. If he had been straightforward, he would have told the committee that in his opinion, the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps. My question wasn’t about whether such illegal wiretapping was going on – like almost everyone in Congress, I didn’t know about the program then. It was a question about how the nominee to be Attorney General viewed the law. This nominee wanted to be confirmed, and so he let a misleading statement about one of the central issues of his confirmation – his view of executive power – stay on the record until the New York Times revealed the program.
The rest of the Attorney General’s performance at yesterday’s hearing certainly did not give me any comfort, either. He continued to push the Administration’s weak legal arguments, continued to insinuate that anyone who questions this program doesn’t want to fight terrorism, and refused to answer basic questions about what powers this Administration is claiming. We still need a lot of answers from this Administration.
But let’s put aside the Attorney General for now. The burden is not just on him to come clean — the President has some explaining to do. The President’s defense of his actions is deeply cynical, deeply misleading, and deeply troubling.
To find out that the President of the United States has violated the basic rights of the American people is chilling. And then to see him publicly embrace his actions – and to see so many Members of Congress cheer him on – is appalling.
The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so. But the President is not a king. And the Congress is not a king’s court. Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law. Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.
That is one of the reasons that the framers put us here – to ensure balance between the branches of government, not to act as a professional cheering section.
We need answers. Because no one, not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body, has been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism. And I think that’s because they can’t explain it.
Instead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.
In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.
Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” The President’s pre-1776 mentality is hurting America. It is fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can’t just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.
Let’s examine for a moment some of the President’s attempts to defend his actions. His arguments have changed over time, of course. They have to – none of them hold up under even casual scrutiny, so he can’t rely on one single explanation. As each argument crumbles beneath him, he moves on to a new one, until that, too, is debunked, and on and on he goes.
In the State of the Union, the President referred to Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch can no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. The Attorney General yesterday was unable to give me one example of a President who, since 1978 when FISA was passed, has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA.
So that argument is baseless, and it’s deeply troubling that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public. That hardly honors the founders’ idea that the President should address the Congress on the state of our union.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to create a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. They have used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time they assert that FISA is an “old law†or “out of date†and they can’t comply with it. Clearly they can and do comply with it – except when they don’t. Then they just arbitrarily decide to go around these judges, and around the law.
The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could easily remove if it wanted.
FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.
In the State of the Union, the President also argued that federal courts had approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. But that turned out to be misleading as well. When I asked the Attorney General about this, he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.
The President knows that FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. Why else would he have assured the public, over and over again, that he was getting warrants before engaging in domestic surveillance?
Here’s what the President said on April 20, 2004: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.â€
And again, on July 14, 2004: “The government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.â€
The President was understandably eager in these speeches to make it clear that under his administration, law enforcement was using the FISA Court to obtain warrants before wiretapping. That is understandable, since wiretapping Americans on American soil without a warrant is against the law.
And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.â€
Now that the public knows about the domestic spying program, he has had to change course. He has looked around for arguments to cloak his actions. And all of them are completely threadbare.
The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not think this resolution gave the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.
This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.
In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.
The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.†A recent letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.†The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.†And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.†Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.
The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.
The President has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.
Finally, the president has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program. Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.â€
In addition, we now know that some of these members expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. Just last week, one of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.
None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do. It is a strategy that really hinges on the credibility of the office of the Presidency itself. If you just insist that you didn’t break the law, you haven’t broken the law. It reminds me of what Richard Nixon said after he had left office: “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.†But that is not how our constitutional democracy works. Making those kinds of arguments is damaging the credibility of the Presidency.
And what’s particularly disturbing is how many members of Congress have responded. They stood up and cheered. They stood up and cheered.
Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.â€
The President’s actions are indefensible. Freedom is an enduring principle. It is not something to celebrate in one breath, and ignore the next. Freedom is at the heart of who we are as a nation, and as a people. We cannot be a beacon of freedom for the world unless we protect our own freedoms here at home.
The President was right about one thing. In his address, he said “We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.â€
Yes, Mr. President. We do love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. We will fight to defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. And we will fight to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans against intrusive government power.
As the President said, we must always be clear in our principles. So let us be clear: We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President – and anyone who violates those freedoms – accountable for their actions. In a nation built on freedom, the President is not a king, and no one is above the law.
I yield the floor.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:28 pmAntagonist and other reichwing trolls,
February 7th, 2006 at 8:23 pmAlmost immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941, the Franklin Roosevelt administration had intensive language training centers set up to increase the number of Americans, not of Japanese descent, competent in the Japanese language. More time has elapsed since 9/11 (in 2001) than that between Pearl Harbor and the conclusion of World War II, yet the various US intelligence agenices still remain sorely lacking in interpreters/translators of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and other languages common in Muslim countries. I challenge you explain how a war can be conducted “intelligently” when much of the gathered “intelligence” remains untranslated for weeks and months, just like the call intercepted from one of the 9/11 hijackers that even referred to the “glorious” event “tomorrow” but didn’t get rendered into English until after the terrorists struck.
So much for the Busheviks’ ability to protect Americans. It’s all an empty pose.
Antagonist #147,
There is a theory that if you buy a lottery ticket, you have a 1:150 million chance in winning the jackpot. But as soon as you buy a ticket, that theory changes to a probability.
The same applies to what you call “conspiracy teories.” Your rigt, they are theories. Up untl there is evidence to support the point. Then it no long is a theory. It’s a probability.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8354.htm
But you won’t find any of that in the American press.
“States are not moral agents.” – Chomsky
February 7th, 2006 at 11:03 pm