During today’s White House Press briefing, Tony Snow insisted that the administration has not intentionally sought to expand executive power:
QUESTION: Is this [Supreme Court decision] a setback in terms of the broader goal of this administration to expand executive authority?
SNOW: I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of the administration to expand executive authority. In a time of war, the president has tried to act in a way that meets the needs and obligations of a commander in chief against a dispersed and highly unique kind of enemy.
But we don’t have expand executive power sessions. So nobody thinks in terms of, How do we expand executive power?
Nobody except the Vice President of the United States. Here’s Cheney on 12/20/05:
I believe in a strong, robust executive authority. And I think the world we live in demands it…I think you’re right, probably the end of the next administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy, then a number of limitations that were imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. But I do think that to some extent now, we’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency.
From Day 1 of the Bush presidency, Cheney has lead a vigorous campaign to expand executive power, which he described to Bob Woodward. Today’s decision was, in fact, a setback in Cheney’s efforts.
But he is the *Decider* and gets to decide what laws apply to him. Thats not a power grab, its just another way to ignore constitution.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pmHey, Tony demanded a seat at the table during policy discussions when he came on board, not retroactively to six years ago when Cheney started this crap. How can he be held responsible?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pmTony Snow believes that ALL AMERICANS have the IQ of the average FOX NEWS viever!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:01 pmAND WITH THAT VIEVER INSTEAD OF VIEWER I MUST HAVE THAT FOX IQ!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pmDoes every republican have to wear a Red Tie? Is its in the republican handbook? Looks like Tonie Snowjob is in perfect school boy lockstep.
Aja#1) you just said it all in a few words! bush will always find a way to go around the real Rule Of Law or Laws.That’s how a dicator works!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:04 pmTony is rapidly approaching the “brillance” of Baghdad Bob. We should start comparing statements.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI eagerly await these snowflake press briefings - I make bets with myself on how far he will stick his foot in his mouth.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmHe just cannot get the FOX lying reflex out of his speech.
The argument Cheney makes, “we’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency” certainly pertains to expansion of Executive power, but is also a holdover from the larger bash Clinton Presidency trip.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pmLike usual > ask the question > BushCo responds with the patented LIE.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:16 pmAnd it will continue each and evey time until we rid ourselves of this administration.
Tony Snow has lied for the last time with this spew > he must resign and be prosecuted as a paid accomplice in Bush Regime criminality!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pmThey just state the EXACT OPPOSITE EVERY TIME.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThey just state the EXACT OPPOSITE of the TRUTH EVERY TIME.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pm“Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.”
http://www.boston.com/ news/ nation/ articles/ 2006/ 04/ 30/ bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
June 29th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI’m sorry I missed that.
Did the reporter call him on it?
Will there be a follow up press conference for the Democrat to dispute Snow’s lie?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pmSnow: ‘I Don’t Think…
I think he should have stopped right there. Why do they have to lie about things like this? Everyone knows they are…they have said it themselves. I guess it is just in their reflexes to lie and see what happens. Sad.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pmTony Snow is so amazingly full of shit…aren’t you supposed to make your lies at least somewhat believeable when you’re the Press Secretary?
It’s like he’s not even trying.
The Doctrine of the Unitary Executive has been an integral part of this administration since day one, and to even attempt to deny it is laughable.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:25 pmSo, where are those rebuttal Democratic press conferences?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:26 pmIf Mr. Snow wanted to make a truthful statement, he could have said, “I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of this administration to tell the truth.” Instead, he chose to lie.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:29 pmSomeone should have asked what the goal of the administration is……
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmFrom Cheney’s (and presumably Bush’s) point of view, they are not expanding but restoring the presidency to it’s rightful omnipotence, which was initially diminished in the aftermath of Watergate, 30+ years ago, beginning with the Ford administration, where Cheney and Rumsfeld had their attitudes set in stone.
The fact that Nixon was the one to intitally create ‘the imperial presidency’, escapes notice in the (crumbling) circles of power DC these days.
The pendulum is swinging. Fasten your seat belts.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI can just imagine what a White House meeting looks like. Rove and Cheney spoon-feed the decider bits and pieces of talking points while dullards like Snow shake their heads in approval. You can tell by the way Bush speaks in public that everything is explained to him like he’s a first-grader, because that’s the way he presents it to the public. Whenever he has to stray from the talking points he is a mess. You would think by now that a rational person would stop taking advice from Rove and Cheney–every single thing they had the decider decide has been a debacle. Did I mention Bush’s poll numbers and approval rating? Harriet Myers? Thanks for the advice, Karl! Social Security Reform? Thanks for the advice, Karl! Invade Iraq? Thanks for the advice, Dick!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:35 pmAs proudleftist pointed out, one would have to have an IQ equal to FOX ratings (share of audience) to actually swallow this crap whole, because Snowjob is back to DoubleSpeak (though in this case, as with anything Junior says, all you have to do is take the exact opposite, and you will know what the truth is).
This perfidy of an Administration has been doing nothing but grabbing more and more power for itself! Who does he think he is kidding, besides the 29% back-wash?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:38 pmtechnically, what snow’s saying is the conservative line: we’re not expanding it, we’re restoring it.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:39 pmhence cheney’s comment. are they being intellectually honest? no.
Comment by almostboiledfrog: The pendulum is swinging. Fasten your seat belts.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pmIndeed. The GOP train is leaving the tracks and won’t go down easy. The American people see what this administration is really about–and it ain’t about helping us. I’m sure they’ll leave once the Treasury has been fully looted. As smarmy and pathological as guys like DeLay are, he can read the writing on the wall–the future will not hold the GOP in a very pretty light come November. GOP sockpuppets can’t defend this White House and mess we are in.
I think that after eight years of Clinton not acting like a real commander in chief the executive powers of the president were forgotten.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pmAnd the award for best Clinton refrence with nothing to do with the thread goes to Tracy!!!
Tracy would you like to give a acceptance speach?
June 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pmtracy, they cant take it when a bad word is uttered about their beloved baffoon.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#25
June 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pmI think that after eight years of the drooling brain dead puppet president that Reagen was this country forgot what a real president was supposed to be. Glad we had a glimpse of it for a while with Bubba.
#26
It has alot to do with the thread. Your award is worthless.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pmHillary C
Actually I think Tracy had inadvertantly complimented Clinton. After all, unlike Dubya, Clinton didn’t need to assume more power.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pmthe award matches his words
June 29th, 2006 at 3:53 pm#28
You actually think that Clinton compares to Reagan? That’s funny.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pmclinton would not amount to more than a pimple on reagan’s ass
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmno tracy I think you are mistaken. That was a gratuitous comment designed to deflect debate, and supposedly to piss off all the evil liberals. Care to expand on why it has alot to do with the thread. I realize that anything over a single sentence is difficult for you to formulate, but please try.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmReply to #25:
Well done, Tracy. Your post is breathtaking in its stupidity, for two reasons:
1.) We weren’t talking about Clinton. Geez…let it go, already.
2.) The executive powers were never intended to reach this far, rendering both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government completely impotent. Do yourself a favor and google ‘checks and balances’.
The President was not intended to be a king…in fact, the rejection of the monarchy was pretty much the whole damned point of the Revolutionary War. Google ‘Federalist #69′ for a better explanation than I am capable of.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pmTracy: remind us again how a “real commander” acts. Does he send our soldiers to fight and die for his lies and hubris? Does he go on vacation then host a “flyover” when one of his largest cities suffers the worst natural disaster in history? Does he keep rasing the national debt rather than reel in his own pork-ridden spending? Does he spy on his own people? Does he leak to the press? Does a real commander act like an adult from time to time? Go back to the GOP web blogs–you and you’re ilk are in need of more help than making a few posts here can cure. Just remember that Osama bin Laden not Saddam Nussein killed US citizens on US soil.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pmhere they go again
June 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pmWow, the kool-aid is really kicked in on Tony. This isn’t a spin, its an obvious lie Tony. George has been coronated King since day one. I guess you’ve been off the planet for awhile.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#32
June 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pmNo I don’t and I am glad he wasn’t as bad as Reagan. But unfortunately we have the same people pulling the strings of this president as there were for Reagan. Basically Junior and Reagan are at the mentality level. Neither can make coherent sentences and need help to remember what is going on in the world. Unfortunately for Reagan it was a disease….unfortunately for us, for Bush its genetics and cocaine. Nevertheless, both are puppets and so glad to see you like the marienette show….but I don’t. I like to see capable people in the most important office this country has.
Snow should have just stopped at saying “I don’t think…”
June 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pm1st dumb then dumber
June 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pm“I don’t think it’s ever been a goal of the administration to be truthful to the American people.”
June 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pmHillary C ought to know about pimples on the ass. Jeebus- would you wingnutter stop invoking the ghost of Ronnie Raygun every post? Please?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pmRedleg: Snow keeps saying, “I don’t think…†because he doesn’t think–he reads Karl Rove’s talking points.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#
clinton would not amount to more than a pimple on reagan’s ass
Comment by Hillary C. — June 29, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
If Bush hadn’t come from a wealthy elite family, he would be working as a swing shift manager at a taco bell.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:03 pmTracy
Hillary
What did Reagan actually do? What was Reagan’s great victory?
Communism? Russia’s economy had been collapsing for years, and in the end it was the East German Prime Minister’s screw-up that downed the wall. It had less to do with Reagan and more to do with the fact that communism doesn’t work.
The Economy? Reaganomics anyone?
Terrorism? Iran Contra. Look it up.
Enviromentalism? Well, I suppose if you call hiring an Evangelical nutjob who seriously believed that we should hurry up and get that last tree chopped down so god can come to advise him on enviromental matters a success…
Reagan is the second most over-rated American president in American history. The rightwing tries to build him up in the face of luminaries like FDR because it is scared shitless of the Left bringing up Nixon (who gets on a lot of worst lists for his being forced to resign.) The fact is, Reagan was not a great president, he was a distinctly mediocre president.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:04 pmwow then you guys could carpool
June 29th, 2006 at 4:04 pmIf Bush hadn’t come from a wealthy elite family, he would be working as a swing shift manager at a taco bell.
Comment by Krazny — June 29, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
No…he would put it out of business.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:05 pmSaw a good Nazi documentary lastnight. Tell me this guy ain’t KKKARL:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa4/himmler_x1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/ ~whatfor/ himmler.htm&h=402&w=300&sz=17&hl=en&start=10&tbnid=-DAERr7XFrVXFM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=89&prev=/ images%3Fq%3DHeinrich%2BHimmler%2B%26svnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
June 29th, 2006 at 4:06 pmBruce — his name was James Watt and his real claim to fame was having Wayne Newton instead of the Beach Boys play the Mall in Washington because he wanted a more “wholesome act” during the 4th of July. You can just imagine how that went over–another example of an out of touch GOP. Must be time to exit this thread–when I start in on Wayne Newton it has run it’s course . . .
June 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pmi’ll alert the media that you are headed for another thread
June 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pmWow…
June 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pmAnd I though Mclellan was the worse bull-shitter I’d ever heard!
#46 Reagan’s big accomplishment was he made middle america feel good about shouting USA USA USA! Clinton made people actually think about the impact we have on the world and what it takes for real positive change.
The old saying goes, if you make people think, they will hate you. If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you.
For example:
I think that after eight years of Clinton not acting like a real commander in chief the executive powers of the president were forgotten.
Comment by Tracy
See? Clinton did in Bosnia what Bush claims to be doing in Iraq. And he did it within the restraints of this so-called “nadir of executive power” and with fierce Congressional oversight. That takes some smarts. It takes more than “I’m the decider.” More than “tear down this wall.”
It’s all about feel-good rhetoric for them, not real results.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:17 pmTony Snow is right about one thing is He doesn’t think.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pmJust when we all thought that the Press Secret-ary spot couldn’t get any worse, here comes the snow man.
Un-F’in-believable
RIP
SGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 Inf (Stryker)
KIA 03 Feb 05
Mosul, Iraq
Or As Tony Snow And The Repuppetcan’s would say
June 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#1462
You actually think that Clinton compares to Reagan? That’s funny.
Comment by Tracy
That is funny, isn’t it? Clinton was SO much better compared to Reagan.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:20 pm“So, where are those rebuttal Democratic press conferences?” –Never Did Anything For His Country
June 29th, 2006 at 4:21 pm#34
Since Clinton didn’t fully exercise his authority as commander in chief shows that the media, as quoted by TP,…
“Is this [Supreme Court decision] a setback in terms of the broader goal of this administration to expand executive authority?”
…seems to think it was Bush’s goal to EXPAND that authority of commander in chief. Then to step off the cliff, TP stupidly quotes Cheney…”I believe in a strong, robust executive authority.”…which doesn’t, in anyway, insinuate that he believes in EXPANDING the authority of the commander in chief. Pointing out the lack of due diligence on the part of the Clinton administration for so many years proves that the media is numb when it comes to what they think is expected of the commander in chief especially when it comes to fighting terrorism. Need I remind everyone, that Clinton had no problem sending cruise missles into Afghanistan in order to assassinate bin Laden, but thought the he had no authority to take him into custody when he was in Sudan, regardless of whether or not the Saudis would take him.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#34
refer to #58
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm“That is funny, isn’t it? Clinton was SO much better compared to Reagan.”
Clinton got his dick caught in his zipper working at midnight. His encyclopedic knowledge of the issues of his presidency outshone his advisors over and over.
Reagan went home every day at 5 PM, kept a clean desk and a cleaner brain, smooth as a goddamned cue ball.
Reagan did not attempt to destroy the Constitution and the New Deal. For this he was roundly hated by the people who are currently in charge, having stolen all their elections. Ronnie won fair and square, by landslide.
Absent liars like Tony Snow and the rest of the rightwing ‘anything for power’ traitors, absent the nationwide vote-fraud system installed by these pigs, they would be out on their ears and in the dock.
They investigated Clinton and found nothing. Give us ten minutes of justice on ANYONE in the Shitehouse, except the maids and butlers, and you might as well start building gallows they are SUCH warcriminals, traitors, corrupt warmongers, racists, classists, murderers, and thieves.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm“…seems to think it was Bush’s goal to EXPAND that authority of commander in chief.” ==Tracy
Bush: I am the Decider.
Cheney: GFY.
Rice: We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Powell: Here’s a bottle of anthrax just like the stuff we sent to Daschle.
Wolfowitz: WMD was just a propaganda tool.
Rove: Brewster Jennings is a CIA front company.
Snow: I am a liar, but look at my tie.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pmTracy,
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pmBush ONLY cares about his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. The other duties of president are meaningless to him. You appear to think that CIC is the most important aspect too, especially since you have felt so threatened and unsafe since 9-11. I sure hope you can one day stop from wetting your bed every night worrying about the bad Islamofascists that are out to take away your freedoms.
Snow’s inept: Cheney and Addington and the DoJ legal crew have made it their goal, in teh wake of Iran-Contra, to expand power.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pm#60 - Bravo, Paul in LA! *standing ovation*
June 29th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#53
“Clinton did in Bosnia what Bush claims to be doing in Iraq. And he did it within the restraints of this so-called “nadir of executive power†and with fierce Congressional oversight.”
“That takes some smarts.”
It sure does. especially when there was no UN Resolution authorizing Clinton to bomb the Serbians. With what UN Resolution did Clinton have the authority to bomb the them? NATO’s charter apparently trumphed the UN Security Council…but that isn’t really important. European stability was apparently more important that Middle East stability. Milosivic was less of threat to the Baltic’s stability that Saddam ever was to the Middle East.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:49 pmOh yeah cause those 500 shells of aging degraded mustard gas, was such an imminent threat to the middle east. And those aging tanks and helicopters he couldn’t get parts for were sure a threat too.
I think I love you tracy you have a great sense of humor. Very Colbert like. How do you maintain the I love Bush more then you act?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pmoh puleeeeezzzzzz?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:57 pm#62
After what I witnessed on 9/11 yes I felt threatened and unsafe. You must be one of those Europeans in which Bush RIGHTLY said “For Europe, September 11 Was a Moment. for us, it was a change of thinking”.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pmAhhh Haaaa! I was right! I predicted one of the things he would need to learn in that new job was how to lie with a straight face! I guess after all those other things, such as bodies are just numbers, he finally picked up on the art. Beautiful!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pmSay What????…
Oh, Tony. Give me a break….
June 29th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#39
“Neither can make coherent sentences and need help to remember what is going on in the world.”
Why is Reagan regarded as the “Great Communicator” by just about every presidential scholar? You are too funny!
June 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pmAfter what I witnessed on 9/11 yes I felt threatened and unsafe.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
Five times as many people that year were murdered by other Americans. Did you fear your fellow countrymen five time more than Osama?
This year, we’ll top that number of Americans who’ve killed other Americans by a couple thousand, while Osama has killed zero.
Your fears are irrational. Fight Big Tobacco. You have the greatest chance of dying from second hand smoke (one in 25) than you do of murder by another human being.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pmTracy,
June 29th, 2006 at 5:34 pmNo, I’m not a European. I’m a former Army combat arms officer. I served my time when we had greater threats than Saddam. 9-11 didn’t change my thinking enough to believe that attacking Iraq was the answer to 9-11. I’m not that stupid- are you?
…Furthermore, 9-11 didn’t change my thinking enough to believe we needed to give unlimited and unchecked power to that feckless turd Bush.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:38 pmI think that after eight years of Clinton not acting like a real commander in chief the executive powers of the president were forgotten.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Ahhh…best laugh of the day. You mean “acting” like a president by:
- Catching a 7.5 lb perch and declaring it the best moment of your presidency.
- Authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans under the guise of national security and then fighting tooth and nail anyone that even dares suggest any oversight of the program.
- Standing by and obviously sanctioning events after his VP shoots someone in the face and refuses to be interviewed by local police until the next day because of “national security” concerns.
- Spending a record number of days on vacation as compared to his predecessors.
- Declaring to the world that he does not care about the number one terrorist whose group was responsible for the worst attack on American soil.
- Taking a quick break from one of those vacation days and rushing back to the White House late in the night to sign legislation to assist one person — Terri Schiavo — yet refusing to do the same while a major hurricane bore down on the southern states, instead spending time eating birthday cake and strumming a guitar, ignoring reports of impending doom, and later declaring he didn’t anticipate the destruction that resulted.
- Making multiple signing statements indicating he does not have to follow the laws he otherwise signs.
- Convincing Americans that we can catch terrorists by scanning the calling habits of tens of millions of Americans although the the records being viewed have no names attached to them.
- Bitching about leaks and newspaper publications regarding tracking terrorists’ financial records and how national security is damaged, yet 5 years earlier signing an executive order that describes how we track the finances of terrorists, information that is available in a fact sheet on the White House web site for the world to see. Want the link?
Oh I could go on. But don’t have time right now. Yep…Bush has it on ol’ Clinton when it comes to acting presidential.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pmSNOW: I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of the administration to expand executive authority [beyond that of a total Dictator].
or
SNOW: I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of the administration to expand executive authority [because a War-Time Commander in Chief has always had unlimited power].
June 29th, 2006 at 6:29 pmCan anyone give me an example of how/when President Clinton attempted to curb or cede any executive power?
June 29th, 2006 at 6:30 pm#74
“That explains the ridiculous posts.”
Yeah, especially those posts by those who STILL don’t realize and/or care about what what happen on that terrible day, i.e. those assholes who insinuate that my fear about terrorism is unfounded.
“You actually believe Europe isn’t touched by terrorism?”
No and for you to even ask that question is stupid in and of itself.
“Tell that to all of the dead europeans in the WTC, and throughout europe.”
That would be kinda hard to do, but I could remind their leaders about those Europeans who died on 9/11, because they didn’t and still don’t seem to care much.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pmRRS wouldn’t you instead be looking for an example of Clinton expanding executive power? This thread is about Snow denying that the white house is trying to expand executive power, not curb power.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#75
“Good question.”
Apparently you aren’t sophisticated enough to know the answer that those scholars already know.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:43 pmCan anyone give me an example of how/when President Clinton attempted to curb or cede any executive power?
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Clinton made sure the FISA rules covered physical searches, as well as other types of searches.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#77
Which unit? Apparently almost everyone here are former military.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#76
You weren’t scared at all by those planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon?
“Five times as many people that year were murdered by other Americans. Did you fear your fellow countrymen five time more than Osama?”
19 hijackers killing over 3,000 people within a few hours is the same as thousands of others murdering one many two at a time each over a year’s time is comparable? Please tell me you are joking.
“Your fears are irrational.”
You saying that you don’t have those same fears is a lie.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:02 pmWith what UN Resolution did Clinton have the authority to bomb the them? NATO’s charter apparently trumphed the UN Security Council…but that isn’t really important. European stability was apparently more important that Middle East stability. Milosivic was less of threat to the Baltic’s stability that Saddam ever was to the Middle East.
Comment by Tracy
Sorry, I thought the issue was Clinton not acting “Presidential.” You said he didn’t act like a real Commander In Chief. Why are you backing off that assertion now?
As for your statement about stability, that is just ridiculous. Every military in the region of Bosnia went on high alert because of Milosevic’s actions. Not so with Saddam, unless you are referring to 1990 or 1980-88.
Also, before Clinton acted in his CIS capacity, al Qaeda was operating in Bosnia. He denied them a base of operations and training ground in Europe. Bush gave them a training ground in Iraq. Clinton stopped a civil war. Bush started one. Clinton succeeded in everything Bush failed. That is why Republicans hate him.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:07 pmThat would be kinda hard to do, but I could remind their leaders about those Europeans who died on 9/11, because they didn’t and still don’t seem to care much.
Comment by Tracy
That is really due to your perception more than their reality.
European stability was apparently more important that Middle East stability.
It sure is. We have lived with instability in the mideast for centuries, and even in recent decades. Instability in Europe has been historically much worse for us.
But my point is: Clinton stopped a war and restored stability and established democracy. Bush started a war in Iraq, created instability and I suppose you could call 3 elections a democracy if you ignore the assassinations, bombings, and sectarian violence exceeding many civil wars throughout the world. Next Bush is going to leave the Iraqis fighting each other and the new government, if it is to survive, will need to become very oppressive and violent itself. The troop levels in Bosnia were much higher and the troop losses much lower. There are many objective measures. Bosnia and Iraq will be case studies on how to do it and how to not do it.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:15 pmClinton stopped a civil war.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:19 pmComment by Kermit the Freedom Frog
Sorry, pal. Wrong. Clinton was, as any other president of US, a defender of big companies (IMF in the case of Yugoslavia) and a murderer. He was moderate, though. NOt like this lunatic you have right now.
#79
“Authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans under the guise of national security…”
Untill you present a court ruling or opinion stating otherwise that the NSA wiretapping program is illegal you comment is irrelevant.
“Standing by and obviously sanctioning events after his VP shoots someone in the face…”
It was an accident! Please! LOL!
“Spending a record number of days on vacation as compared to his predecessors.”
Didn’t affect his job in anyway.
“Declaring to the world that he does not care about the number one terrorist whose group was responsible for the worst attack on American soil.”
You took that literally? That explains alot.
“…yet refusing to do the same while a major hurricane bore down on the southern states”
I am sure the governor and the mayor of New Orleans were there riding out the storm.
“Making multiple signing statements indicating he does not have to follow the laws he otherwise signs.”
Like? If you are referring to the NSA program, try again.
“Convincing Americans that we can catch terrorists by scanning the calling habits of tens of millions of Americans although the the records being viewed have no names attached to them.”
Since you aren’t a counter terrorism expert you couldn’t possibly know what this program entails.
“Bitching about leaks and newspaper publications regarding tracking….”
Use your little brain and find out exactly what the NY Slime published about this program. The BS was not the fact that they talked about the program. Everyone knew, including the terrorists, that we were tracking the financial records, however when they reveal WHICH banking consortium was responsible for doing the tracking, THAT is a real problem and is tantamount to royally tipping off the terrorists. BTW your link isn’t that revealing so don’t bother.
“Yep…Bush has it on ol’ Clinton when it comes to acting presidential.”
He sure does.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pm#88 Is the civil war in Bosnia still going on then? No, the killing stopped, that to me is more important than which corporation he supported.
Tracy… tsk tsk check your facts man:
Bush’s signing statements have been detailed elsewhere. Use google.
Ever hear that saying the harder I work the luckier I get? You think it’s coincidence that Bush got VERY unlucky at the end of both of his long vacations?
And yes, we should take the President’s words literally. He didn’t add a “just kidding” after he said that did he? Otherwise, how is anyone to know which of bush’s statements are to be “taken literally” and which we should dismiss?
Everyone knew, including the terrorists, that we were tracking the financial records, however when they reveal WHICH banking consortium was responsible for doing the tracking, THAT is a real problem and is tantamount to royally tipping off the terrorists.
Everyone knew which agency, anyone who made an international money transfer knew, the SWIFT form is required. Did terrorists need to know, or could they assume bank transfers would be watched? No, this is political press bashing, nothing more. Don’t be so gullible.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pmTracy
June 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pmI started reading your nauseating nonsense but could only manage to get to the part where you ask where it says you can’t wiretap without a warrant. It’s called the Fourth Amendment, asshole, but what would a crazed wingnut know about the Constitution anyway?
#88
“Sorry, I thought the issue was Clinton not acting “Presidential.†You said he didn’t act like a real Commander In Chief.”
My point is that it was alright with the European countries like France and Germany to take care of Milosivic without UN approval, but not for Bush to take care of Saddam without that same approval.
“Every military in the region of Bosnia went on high alert because of Milosevic’s actions.”
And not one of those countries in which Milosivic was carrying out his genocide were members of NATO. Again Europeans were more worried about what is happening next door than across town, which is exactly why they are not the leaders of the world.
“He denied them a base of operations and training ground in Europe.”
Peanuts compared to the one Bush took out in Afghanistan.
“Clinton stopped a civil war.”
Only because we as STILL THERE!!! Give us a break!
“Bush gave them a training ground in Iraq.”
Do you actually think that there are terrorist training bases in Iraq? Those suicide bombers are doing “local” suicide missions in Iraq, not carrying out missions in other countries.
“Clinton succeeded in everything Bush failed.”
Clinton didn’t prevent 9/11 from being plotted and financed in 1999, nor did he prevent MULTIPLE terroist attacks from being carried out while he was in office. Bush did more to combat terrorism in the first six months after 9/11 than Clinton did throughout the 1990s. You are getting funnier by the minute!
“That is why Republicans hate him.”
Americans hate him because he did little to protect them from terrorists.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:40 pmto me is more important than which corporation he supported. Comment by Kermit
June 29th, 2006 at 7:54 pmWell…mmmm. The killing really began when US and NATO started to dropping bombs over albanians. I will post this.
I agree with you in many points, but dont make a hero out of another “pacifier”.
Kermit.
The U.S. watched for three years as Serb forces killed Muslim civilians in Bosnia, before its launched decisive bombing raids in 1995. Even then, it never intervened to stop atrocities by Croatian forces against Muslim and Serb civilians, because those forces were aided by the U.S. In 1999, the U.S. bombed Serbia to force President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw forces from the ethnic Albanian province of Kosovo, which was torn a brutal ethnic war. The bombing intensified Serbian expulsions and killings of Albanian civilians from Kosovo, and caused the deaths of thousands of Serbian civilians, even in cities that had voted strongly against Milosevic. When a NATO occupation force enabled Albanians to move back, U.S. forces did little or nothing to prevent similar atrocities against Serb and other non-Albanian civilians. The U.S. was viewed as a biased player, even by the Serbian democratic opposition that overthrew Milosevic the following year.
Sorry for the lenghty post.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:58 pm“Running the government would be easier in a dictatorship, as long as I’m the dictator”—- George W. Bush.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:29 pm“Whose more Pres-i-dental? I am. Heh, heh. See this codpiece. And my Texas walk that you call a swagger. Heh, heh. I can even ride a mountain bike and get right back up when I crash it. That’s hard work. Gotta do hard work when your the Com-man-der in Chief. That’s right, and look Pres-i-dental. That means, lookin like a Pres-i-dental. I’ve been practicing in front of the mirror in the O-val Off-ice. Heh, heh. Condi’s been helping me. Heh, heh. Lookin good. Pres-i-dental. I decided. Heh, heh”
June 29th, 2006 at 9:13 pm- GWB
You weren’t scared at all by those planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon?
Scared? No. I wasn’t living in NYC or DC, so I wasn’t in imminent danger. Shocked was a better word. Never scared. As I pointed out, there are greater dangers in our daily lives than Osama. And fear doesn’t help - it shuts of the rational part of teh brain. Seriously. A doctor explained this to me. When you’re afraid, adrenalin causes your brain to shut off all functions except the ability to fight or flee, heartbeat and breathing. You lose the ability to think in a logical manner. This is why the neocons in charge want you to be afraid, because it turns you emotional and irrational. Not a knock on you, just a fact of human anatomy.
So, I’m not afraid of Osama attacking me. But I am afraid of second hand smoke, pesticides and hormones in my drinking water and Global Warming. Not afraid as in shrieking like a B-grade horror flick victim, but concerned enough to want to fight against those things.
19 hijackers killing over 3,000 people within a few hours is the same as thousands of others murdering one many two at a time each over a year’s time is comparable? Please tell me you are joking.
If the end result is death in every instance, does it matter the method? No, of course not. So, don’t try to spin it away from the fact that more Americans kill Americans than any terrorist ever has. Or ever will. And that your fear of being attacked by them is irrational.
You saying that you don’t have those same fears is a lie.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
No it’s not. I just have a different perspective. I’ll give you an analogy. YOu are standing at the bottom of the Empire State Building, at the edge of the curb where taxi cabs are whizzing past you. You’re anxious. I, however, am at the top of the building with a view of most of Manhattan. Now, someone asks us both “Are taxi cabs dangerous?” Do you genuinely expect us to have the same answer?
It’s all perspective Tracy. You choose to be afraid. We choose a different perspective. Until you can grasp that fact, you will never understand that you have choices. Adn the choice is to step back, off the curb and find a better perspective. I don’t expect you to get it. Because if you did, you’d understand why most of the liberals in here have served in the miltary, and most of you conservatives have not.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:17 pmThat would be kinda hard to do, but I could remind their leaders about those Europeans who died on 9/11, because they didn’t and still don’t seem to care much.
Comment by Tracy — June 29, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
So everyone else is wrong and you are right?
Lemme remind you, before you answer, that we are fighting a losing war in Iraq - who did not attack us, while Osama is still, 5 years later, free and at large…
June 29th, 2006 at 9:21 pm#60 - Bravo, Paul in LA! *standing ovation*
Comment by Zookeeper — June 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
HERE! HERE! I’ll 2nd that!!!
#61 was rich too!
and “hillary c” sure sounds like “amy”,the troll…
June 29th, 2006 at 10:10 pmjust sayin’
Tracy,
June 29th, 2006 at 11:16 pmBush didn’t do a damned thing about Bin Laden until after 9-11. He ignored multiple warnings from intelligence officials. Once he did do something, he decided to leave the Afghanistan situation up in the air in order to invade Iraq, a country that was not involved in the 9-11 attacks. SOunds to me like Clinton did less harm to our national security than Bush has done.
…could Tony’s cancer have metastisized…
…into his brain?
June 29th, 2006 at 11:30 pmIt sure does. especially when there was no UN Resolution authorizing Clinton to bomb the Serbians. With what UN Resolution did Clinton have the authority to bomb the them?
Comment by Tracy #65
T’rashy,
…”genocide” - such as that being committed by the Serbians upon the Muslim populations in bosnia-Hercegovina…
…gave Clinton a much HIGHER authority to act than a UN resolution…
…that’s right you al Cracker Bushite TRAITOR…
…Clinton had MORAL authority…
…and the WORLD agreed with his actions…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:38 pmMe to Tony Snow saying Bush isn’t trying to expand power. “Oh. Really..”
June 29th, 2006 at 11:40 pmWhat a hoot to read the drool from tracy here regarding Reagan and Clinton, some of his rants have gone beyond most myopic fools that defend the Bush/Rove/Cheney regime. One of the first points to be made regarding the worship of Reagan that we still are forced to endure is the fact that most fools like tracy think Reagan “won” the Cold War. Of course he helped bring down the Soviets but the Soviets were falling apart at the seams and didn’t need much help, there system didn’t work and failure was assured with their arrogance. The man Reagan told to “tear down this wall” played a much bigger role in ending the Cold War than Ronnie. With what you have drooled here tonight tracy I know you don’t agree, you have a pair of blinders glued to your head. But we can agree that if you say we owe Reagan a nod for ending the Cold War what has our current President (it is pissing on that word to call Bush a President) done, he has brought the same worries back. After all these years of fools like tracy giving lectures on how Reagan saved us from the threat of Armageddon and proceeding to hold him up as a great leader we now face a much more unstable world because of the unchecked hubris of the pnazi fools you are so proud of. Bush is pissing on Reagan if we are to believe the sputum spewing from your brain tracy.
This is the most secretive administration in our nations history, this doesn’t represent freedom or anything that relates to American values. To defend the destruction of the Constitution as you and your ilk do is pathetic. What is your comeback?? More drool about Clinton? How pathetic. Don’t forget that the very Military Bush and co. are slowly destroying was built up by Clinton. Yeah go ahead and lol like the fool you are. We have no draft and our Military is spread so thin with the deployment in Iraq we have very little chance of responding to other conflicts that are on the horizon, North Korea etc., with anything but a desperate nuclear attack that could create even more global conflict to say the least. We are now hated by a vast majority of countries that previous to the Bush regime were respectful and our allies and now wouldn’t think of being our allies. Oh, just a reminder Clinton was responsible for much of that respect and admiration not Ronnie.
And to get back on topic there hasn’t been a President in our nations history that has pissed on the Constitution with such frequency as Bush, drooling about Monica and cigars up her snatch won’t change that. Don’t forget the $500 billion and counting we have borrowed to spend in Iraq. At least Clinton raised taxes on the ultra rich so we had a strong economy with a large surplus, the one Bush pissed away in no time at all. These neo-cons that you cherish tracy have subverted the Constitution to the point we have a government by and for the corporations and if you haven’t noticed they are screwing you in the ass. The power grab by these jerks should upset any true conservative that for years cried about (and still do) government intrusion into personal lives not to mention that government is the problem not a solution for anything. You know the line of bull from Grover, drown it in a bathtub. So why do you stand by these fools when they wish to pass anti-flag burning amendments, tap phones, e-mails, bank records and intrude into almost every freedom that made our country great before the neo-cons took power??? The answer is you are drunk on the kool-aid and your posting here proves it. Take the blinders off and open your foolish pea-brain and maybe you will se the light, even if you do you are doomed to sheep status with a two digit IQ like yours.
“Bush did more to combat terrorism in the first six months after 9/11 than Clinton did throughout the 1990s. You are getting funnier by the minute!” pea-brain trailer tracy
Your pea-brain at work tracy. How about the memo regarding terror attacks with the possible use of aircraft. What did Bush do after reading those tracy??? He cleared more brush and loafed at his ranch. It is fact that the Clinton administration warned Bush that the biggest threat was to come was from these terror mongers and the arrogant fools that you admire ignored these warnings. Blame Clinton all you want but Bush was president and we were attacked on his watch not Clintons. And by the way i didn’t like Clinton for other reasons that regard domestic policy not 20 year old real estate deals and his sex life. Clinton will go down in history with a solid foreign policy record as opposed to Duhbya.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:44 amThe word is “led,” not “lead.”
June 30th, 2006 at 4:48 amSNOWJOB, SNOWJOB, SNOWJOB…….
June 30th, 2006 at 6:23 amum.. look.. i am not proud to admit it, but there were a few days i was hung over and slept in [i figure if i was rich i could be President]. So maybe i missed it. When did congress declare war. Cause otherwise the last i checked they haven’t done it since WWII.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:27 amif they control the language.. they can frame the debate.
#99
“Scared? No. I wasn’t living in NYC or DC, so I wasn’t in imminent danger. Shocked was a better word. Never scared.”
THAT is the only reason you weren’t scared. At the time those planes hit you were positive that where you live wouldn’t be a target? I live in the Dallas area and you bet I was scared considering I work in the downtown area. I didn’t know which cities would be hit next or if airplanes were their only weapon. I don’t know where you were at on the morning of 9/11 but it must have been somewhere where those terrorists wouldn’t bother hitting.
“But I am afraid of second hand smoke, pesticides and hormones in my drinking water and Global Warming.”
I am too but this is not at all the same when your country is under attack by terrorists. Again you were exposed directly so you have nothing to compare it to.
“This is why the neocons in charge want you to be afraid, because it turns you emotional and irrational.”
Bush doesn’t WANT you and I to be afraid but consider neither you or I have REALLY exposed to terrorism we don’t have any thing to relate to. Do the neocons in Israel embellish the terrorist threat in their country in order to drum up support for fighting Hamas? I think not. You and I live in relative security and have no experience in the exposure to terrorism so for you to say you aren’t afraid is probably true…untill you are directly exposed to it and then I GURANTEE you will change your tune.
“If the end result is death in every instance, does it matter the method?”
No but your comparison is in the same general area but not even close to being on target.
“And that your fear of being attacked by them is irrational.”
I am not trying to say that mine or your fear of being mugged its irrational, but again your comparison is not a rational one.
“Now, someone asks us both “Are taxi cabs dangerous?†Do you genuinely expect us to have the same answer?”
No. That is exactly my point! You have a different perspective than I do because where you live apparently there wasn’t any danger of being attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
“Because if you did, you’d understand why most of the liberals in here have served in the miltary, and most of you conservatives have not.”
Only here in this forum…of course. In the real world, at least from the multiple military personel I have talked to the vast majority of the military is far more conservative than liberal.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:44 amRe: #89
Untill you present a court ruling or opinion stating otherwise that the NSA wiretapping program is illegal you comment is irrelevant.
I guess these Rebublican senators are irrelevant too. Per ThinkProgress:
Some of the harshest criticism have come not from Senate Democrats but Senate Republicans:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that.â€
[Sen. Graham has logged six-and-a-half years of service on active duty as an Air Force lawyer, and in 1988 went into private law practice before being elected to the Senate.]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “â€There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.â€
[Sen. Specter began his career in public service as an Assistant Philadelphia District Attorney. While serving in that position, he was named Assistant Counsel on the Warren Commission investigation into President Kennedy’s assassination. Two years later, Senator Specter was elected District Attorney of Philadelphia at the age of 35.]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so…â€
[Sen. McCain doesn’t have a law degree, so I guess he can just shut up.]
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis…â€
[Sen. Brownback was president of his class at University of Kansas Law School. Over the years, Sam has been a radio broadcaster, attorney, teacher, administrator, congressman and senator.]
Unless you are going to support a bipartisan congressional inquiry to find out once and for all if any innocent Americans were spied on, YOUR comments are irrelevant.
Oh, and if Bush has nothing to hide as he has stated, what is HE afraid of???
It was an accident! Please! LOL!
I was referring to Bush sanctioning the events after the shooting. Did you overlook that word?
Didn’t affect his job in anyway.
I didn’t say it did. But considering another situation in which he was “away from the office” as he sat for 7 minutes in a Florida classroom after finding out a SECOND plane had hit the WTC towers and did NOTHING, I have to wonder about his effectiveness away from Washington.
You took that literally? That explains alot.
Then we can’t take his statement saying he wanted Bin Laden “dead or alive” as literal either, now can we?
In fact, we shouldn’t take anything this president says as literal. You know, there is a pattern going on. As you may recall, in the last SOTU address he said he wanted to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil. Several days later, as you’ll recall, spokesmen from his administration told us he wasn’t being literal.
I am sure the governor and the mayor of New Orleans were there riding out the storm.
That doesn’t excuse Bush’s inaction. Bush didn’t give damn. It’s as simple as that. The mayor’s and governor’s actions, or lack thereof, doesn’t give Bush an excuse. I suppose a county fire department that is restricted from crossing the city limits to respond to a fire should just let the house that is 50 yards away just burn to the ground, along with the humans inside it. After all, they can blame the city fire department for being ineffective and too slow to respond.
Like? If you are referring to the NSA program, try again.
I didn’t realize any law had recently been signed by Bush regarding the warrantless wiretapping. Care to provide a link?
From those damned irrelevant lawyers:
What does Leahy know about law? Oh, yeah:
Since you aren’t a counter terrorism expert you couldn’t possibly know what this program entails.
You are right. I only have what has been reported and what President Decider tells us:
So we “strictly target al Qaeda” yet we are reportedly scanning calling patterns of tens of millions of Americans. Hmmm. Scanning them to isolate patterns of terrorist activities. If my records are being looked at, scanning to see my 50 calls to my wife’s cell phone in March, and the dates and times and call lenghts and hoping that they don’t raise a flag so that the FBI can bust down my door without announcing themselves, an action SC has recently approved, and hopefully not giving me a heart attack in the process.
BTW your link isn’t that revealing so don’t bother.
I didn’t provide a link, fool. But here it is. Now go read the fact sheet and come back here and tell me that none of this information helps terrorists in any fashion. Come on. You can say it. The information posted by the White House does not help terrorists or hamper our efforts at tracking them in any way.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am#100
“So everyone else is wrong and you are right?”
No, I said that that if the leaders of Europe cared as much about the genocide that was going on in Croatia and Albania (Muslim BTW) they would show the same regard for those in Iraq who were just as deserving to be saved from Saddam as those being slaughtered by the Serbians. Same goes for those in Rwanda…thanks to the French.
“Lemme remind you, before you answer, that we are fighting a losing war in Iraq”
As you stated before, that all depends on your perspective.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:11 amTHAT is the only reason you weren’t scared.
No… I already explained this
At the time those planes hit you were positive that where you live wouldn’t be a target?
Boise, Idaho? I was sure.
I live in the Dallas area and you bet I was scared considering I work in the downtown area. I didn’t know which cities would be hit next or if airplanes were their only weapon. I don’t know where you were at on the morning of 9/11 but it must have been somewhere where those terrorists wouldn’t bother hitting.
I wouldn’t have been afraid in other cities, except maybe LA. It was pretty obvious that they wer going after high profile and high populated areas. You can deduce those things if you don’t freak out.
I am too but this is not at all the same when your country is under attack by terrorists. Again you were exposed directly so you have nothing to compare it to.
A lot of things scare you. This explains why you’re frequently operating from your ‘reptilian’ brain (what my doctor friend called the part that we are reduced to in a state of fear). Because you guys on the right frequently view everything in terms of fighting or fleeing, with wide-eyed panic and extreme urgency.
Bush doesn’t WANT you and I to be afraid
Yes he does. It gives him carte blanche. He likes having that power. I can say this because of his actions. A man who doesn’t want people to be afraid wouldn’t always be telling them that they should be. And he does.
but consider neither you or I have REALLY exposed to terrorism we don’t have any thing to relate to.
That’s why we on the left don’t get your fear.
Do the neocons in Israel embellish the terrorist threat in their country in order to drum up support for fighting Hamas? I think not.
I don’t know, and frankly, neither do you. It’s not a good analogy in this case because it’s a very different culture than we have here. We can’t compare to what they do because they have a very different way of life.
You and I live in relative security and have no experience in the exposure to terrorism so for you to say you aren’t afraid is probably true…untill you are directly exposed to it and then I GURANTEE you will change your tune.
Human beings are born with very few instincts. Those that we gain in life are a direct result of the things we’ve experienced. As Deepak Chopra says “We fear most deeply, the things that have already happened to us.” So, I agree with you that if I’d survived 9/11 in NYC, I’d be more afraid of it.
And so, then you have to now explain why people in NYC and DC who are obviously more afraid of terror attacks since they lived thorugh them would vote overwhelmingly for John Kerry - the opposition - in 2004, and not Bush. They believed Kerry would make and keep them safer than Bush. Can you explain that without insulting these people (they are highly educated compared to the rest of teh country - just Google demographic statistics to see how many of the people in these places have an education), or changing what you said?
No but your comparison is in the same general area but not even close to being on target.
It was very much on target. If it weren’t then you could have debunked it rather than criticize me for offering it.
I am not trying to say that mine or your fear of being mugged its irrational, but again your comparison is not a rational one.
I’m not afraid of being mugged.
My comparison must be very valid as you can offer not rebuttal - just an ad hominem in response.
No. That is exactly my point! You have a different perspective than I do because where you live apparently there wasn’t any danger of being attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
Apparently neither was where you live. Dallas wasn’t attacked, or even close to the areas that were attacked. So your fear was perceived. Not real.
Only here in this forum…of course. In the real world, at least from the multiple military personel I have talked to the vast majority of the military is far more conservative than liberal.
Comment by Tracy — June 30, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Only because you talk to more conservative people.
Having been conservative, I used to think the same. As a liberal, I now see that it breaks down differently. It’s not about those who’ve served - but those who have seen live combat. In which case, those who have not fiught tend to be conservative, and those who havem tend to be liberal. Why? Because reality has a liberal bias…
June 30th, 2006 at 11:15 amAnd Tracy, while you are at it, I questions Bush’s rationale for bypassing FISA on warrantless wiretapping. Consider:
Scenario #1:
With the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by Bush, at least one of the calls originates or ends in a foreign country. Bush: “If al Qaeda is calling into America, we want to know.”
Situation: We’ve got a call coming from Iran into NY with the go ahead for an attack tomorrow.
FISA is bypassed because the process is “too slow” and we need to act quickly to prevent the attack.
Scenario #2: Bush says domestic-to-domestic calls are covered by FISA (remember: too slow, too much paperwork).
Situation: A terrorist in LA is calling another one in Dallas to approve an attack, also set for tomorrow.
Isn’t it just as important to act as quickly as possible in that same situation?
Summary: Bush says FISA is too slow on a domestic-to-foreign call, yet is perfectly acceptable on a domestic-to-domestic call.
Explain.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:26 am#108
Bush doesn’t WANT you and I to be afraid.
Yes, he does. That’s why Dick Cheney declared that if Kerry were elected, we would certainly be attacked again.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:28 am#102
He was only in office in for 6 months before 9/11. Clinton had eight years.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:30 amTracy:
My point is that it was alright with the European countries like France and Germany to take care of Milosivic without UN approval
Then why did you make the point by saying Clinton didn’t act Presidential? Seems a funny way to make that point.
Clinton didn’t prevent 9/11 from being plotted and financed in 1999
That would have been difficult to do, considering most of the intelligence chatter occurred in the summer of 2001.
Clinton did prevent the millennium bomber, though. And as much as Cheney likes to point out we have not had a domestic al Qaeda attack betwen 2001 and 2006, we didn’t have one between 1993 and 2001 either. Lots more overseas attacks since 9/11, though. Now, compare what Clinton did to what Bush did before 9/11, when Bush decided he had done enough to deserve a long vacation.
Now then…
“He denied them a base of operations and training ground in Europe.â€
Peanuts compared to the one Bush took out in Afghanistan.
So the Taliban is completely gone and not in control of large parts of the country now? And no al Qaeda training camps just over the mountains in Pakistan (where the London bombers trained)? Or is that not important?
“Clinton stopped a civil war.â€
Only because we as STILL THERE!!! Give us a break!
And how many American soldiers have died there? Less than 2,500? Was the operation a failure or success?
Juan C, I’m not saying clinton was a saint, but I think it is important to show conservatives that Clinton is better than Bush by their own objective standards.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:38 amHe was only in office in for 6 months before 9/11. Clinton had eight years.
Comment by Tracy
You seem perfectly comfortable comparing the six months after 9/11, why not the six months before? Seems a more fair comparison given Bush’s constant harping about the pre/post-9/11 mindset.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am#114
And what was George Bush Bush, involved in politics as governor of Texas from 1994 to 2000 and who likely had presidential aspirations during most if all of that time, doing prior to his first “election”?
Answer: apparently not paying to damned much attention to the world going on around him.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:41 amAs you stated before, that all depends on your perspective.
Comment by Tracy — June 30, 2006 @ 11:11 am
You’re right. And from your perspective, you must have your head in the sand or are hiding under a bed…
June 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am#106
“Clinton will go down in history with a solid foreign policy record as opposed to Duhbya.”
Except for his inaction in regards to terrorism.
Boy, you are one angry woman….pitty. My condolences.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:47 amOoops…
too damned much attention.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:47 amHey…you guys ever read the biography of Pres. Bush on the WH web site? It starts out like this:
Notice that it has no reference to his first “election” but has the exact date of the second one.
I guess it wouldn’t look too good if it said, “George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was appointed president by the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, after a nasty legal battle with candidate Al Gore and sworn into office on…”
June 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#119 It doesn’t matter how many actions we point out, or the terrorists he brought to justice, ideologues will always repeat “Clinton’s inaction on terrorism.” We’ve pointed out some of his actions here. We didn’t mention brokering IRA disarmament, crackdown on domestic terrorism after OKC, imprisoning the blind Sheik and probably a few other things.
Seems to me you give Bush a pass for inaction before 9/11. Why not extend the same courtesy to Clinton, even if you ignore all the things we’ve pointed out to you?
As for inaction, let me point out some things Reagan did that Clinton did not: Putting troops in Beiruit with no plan, arms for hostages, arming the Taliban, is that the sort of action you wanted from Clinton? Bin Laden thanked the Saudis for bringing him American help in the 1980s. They were bad guys then too.
Don’t forget, immediately after 9/11, Bush invited the King of Saudi Arabia to his home, held hands, and kissed him.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#111
“Unless you are going to support a bipartisan congressional inquiry to find out once and for all if any innocent Americans were spied on, YOUR comments are irrelevant.”
I do support an inquiry, but the courts will make the decision as to the matter of legality…not the U.S. Congress….so this really does make your comments irrelevant.
“I was referring to Bush sanctioning the events after the shooting. Did you overlook that word?”
Does it really matter considering it WAS an accident?
“Then we can’t take his statement saying he wanted Bin Laden “dead or alive†as literal either, now can we?”
Well considering his actions speak volumes to the contrary….I believe we can.
“That doesn’t excuse Bush’s inaction.”
I am NOT excusing his inaction.
“I didn’t realize any law had recently been signed by Bush regarding the warrantless wiretapping.”
Considering a court has not rendered an opinion or ruling the legality, not new law is needed. I do however think that new laws need to be written in order to squash any ambiguity in the future.
“…so that the FBI can bust down my door without announcing themselves, an action SC has recently approved, and hopefully not giving me a heart attack in the process.”
“The information posted by the White House does not help terrorists or hamper our efforts at tracking them in any way.”
If it really did it would be posted fool. There is nothing in the link that the terrorists didn’t already know or suspect.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#123
I do support an inquiry, but the courts will make the decision as to the matter of legality…not the U.S. Congress….so this really does make your comments irrelevant.
So the Congressmen’s views as I posted in #11 really don’t mean anything. In other words they should have kept their mouths shut.
Since Bush is stamping “state secrets” on practically everything he does, I doubt any type of inquiry will occur. But glad to see that you support one.
Does it really matter considering it WAS an accident?
Ok…one more time. Yes, it was an accident but that doesn’t excuse the fact that Cheney refused to be interviewed until the next day and hid behind the reason of national security. You and I know that neither of us would be so lucky.
Well considering his actions speak volumes to the contrary….I believe we can.
Hmmm.
I want bin Laden dead or alive = literal.
I don’t care where he is = not literal.
So says Tracy.
Well of course Bush doesn’t care where he is. He got way more mileage out of the Iraq war than he could have ever imagined had we continued to focus efforts at finding bin Laden. Who in their right mind would have changed presidents in the middle of a war with another country? Advantage: Bush.
Considering a court has not rendered an opinion or ruling the legality, not new law is needed. I do however think that new laws need to be written in order to squash any ambiguity in the future.
You are the one who equated a signing statement to a law about wiretapping. I was just following up on that to make sure I understood where you were coming from.
If it really did it would be posted fool. There is nothing in the link that the terrorists didn’t already know or suspect.
I want Bush and the administration to admit that talking in public about our efforts at tracking terrorists has not been a good thing to do.
Oh, and the SWIFT co-op that everyone is talking about, including the NYT, reportedly has a Web site that gives details that any terrorist would be interested in.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pmOh, and one more thing about warrantless wiretapping, Tracy. I want to know if ordinary Americans were spied on. Apparently you don’t care. I’m so glad you trust the government, one that in the past conspired to attack its own people (see Operation Northwoods) to drum up support for attacking another country, and one that had a participant named Nixon who abused his powers and resigned instead of facing impeachment hearings.
If a court should decide that what Bush did was against the law and he abused his power, what sort of punishment would you support? Impeachment proceedings? Slap on the hand?
June 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pmTRACY,
This is my first ever post onTP. After reading your comments; I now realize why things are the way they are in the USA. FEAR!! I have worked on Broad and Wall St for over 8yrs. I ran on 9/11 from downtown over the Brooklyn Bridge. I still live in NYC. NO FEAR OF TERRORISM…my only FEAR; what people like you and MY Governmnet does in our names of the living and fallen. Stay away from NYC to many different folk for someone so SCARED of an emotion (TERROR) I and many others lived through 9/11 and walk past the WTC every day to work, thought provking..emotional sometimes,but no FEAR no TERROR. LIVE FREE OR DIE
June 30th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#102
He was only in office in for 6 months before 9/11. Clinton had eight years.
Comment by Tracy #114
T’rashy,
If memory serves…
…Clinton was in office only a few months before the FIRST WTC bombing…
…and he managed to…
…capture the blind Sheik and other co-conspirators…
…without killing tens of thousands of innocents, breaking the American treasury, destabilizing the ME, and permanently damaging America’s reputation (abroad and at home)…
…I’d say Clinton wins this comparison hands down…
…and fu*k your WARPED, twisted, spin-filled (Limphog, O’Lielly, Scum Vanity dictated) perspective…
June 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pmAs a liberal, I now see that it breaks down differently. It’s not about those who’ve served - but those who have seen live combat. In which case, those who have not fiught tend to be conservative, and those who havem tend to be liberal. Why? Because reality has a liberal bias…
Comment by unbelievable #111
unbelievable,
…well said…
…what thinking, feeling, intelligent HUMAN BEING….
…supports WAR?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pmDid anyone read the NYT article? Here’s something that stood out:
See, Tracy, this is the problem I have with this. It’s people like this “one person” that I worry about.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but here’s what I have a problem with: on the one hand, our government tells us that the efforts to track terrorists, whether by wiretapping, monitoring phone records, reading e-mails, or tracking finances, are “targeted” and “limited” yet companies are turning over millions of records to the government.
Bush wants to track down terrorists? I have no problem with that; why should I? Compile a list of known or suspected terrorists, get warrants, and go to the companies that have the info they are looking for and then get it and start investigating. Why does Bush need trillions of individual phone calls to track down a limited number of al Qaeda operatives?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pmWelcome, SBinNYC!!!
June 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pm122–good post
I also remember that when Clinton ordered attacks on suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998, he was accused of trying to distract attention from Lewinsky http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ ALLPOLITICS/ 03/ 23/ wag.dog/
I don’t know what Tracy said in 1998, but I think some people are trying to have it both ways–Clinton didn’t go after terrorists, Clinton went after terrorists to distract from Lewinsky
What Clinton did with Lewinsky and what he said about Lewinsky was idiotic and irresponsible. But the fact that people tried to bring down his presidency over this — and may have made it harder to go after terrorists without being accused of trying to change the subject– is infuriating
June 30th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#113
“I wouldn’t have been afraid in other cities, except maybe LA.”
Why? You just said you are not afraid of bin Laden launching an attack on you. Oh I forgot you are only afraid for yourself and not others. My bad.
“A man who doesn’t want people to be afraid wouldn’t always be telling them that they should be.”
Bush has said the we should be on guard…not afraid.
“That’s why we on the left don’t get your fear.”
I know you don’t get it….you guys live in a bubble.
“And so, then you have to now explain why people in NYC and DC who are obviously more afraid of terror attacks since they lived thorugh them would vote overwhelmingly for John Kerry”
“Can you explain that without insulting these people (they are highly educated compared to the rest of teh country”
Liberal are liberals no matter what happens to them.
“It was very much on target.”
We will just have to disagee on that one.
“Apparently neither was where you live. Dallas wasn’t attacked, or even close to the areas that were attacked. So your fear was perceived. Not real.”
Why should where I live negate my fear? Again this “I am not afraid because it didn’t affect me attitude” of your is repugnant. You don’t fear for other people’s lives?
“I’m not afraid of being mugged.”
For about the millionth time you aren’t afraid ONLY because of where you live.
“Only because you talk to more conservative people.”
Because the military is far more conservative that liberal. If you look at the ballots cast by military personnel over the years you will understand this.
“In which case, those who have not fiught tend to be conservative, and those who havem tend to be liberal.”
You are going to have to offer some evidence to back up that BS.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#114
“Bush says FISA is too slow on a domestic-to-foreign call, yet is perfectly acceptable on a domestic-to-domestic call.”
When did Bush say it was “perfectly acceptable” on a domestic-to-domestic call?
June 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#117
“Then why did you make the point by saying Clinton didn’t act Presidential?”
I said we was not doing his job in regards to fighting terrorism, i.e. he didn’t fully exercise his powers as commander-in-chief.
“That would have been difficult to do, considering most of the intelligence chatter occurred in the summer of 2001.”
No excuse for not having human intelligence trying to track bin Laden and his network considering he had already pulled off multiple other attacks. If you are going to try and blame Bush for not taking action in the few months prior to 9/11 I sure as hell can blame Clinton for not doing anything to DEGRADE Al Quaeda.
“Clinton did prevent the millennium bomber, though.”
LOL! Clinton had absolutely ZERO to do with preventing that attack. Read your history.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4864792/
“So the Taliban is completely gone and not in control of large parts of the country now?”
There aren’t any terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Nice try on attempting to change the subject.
And no al Qaeda training camps just over the mountains in Pakistan (where the London bombers trained)?
Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are allowed to operate, is no the that same as Pakista