Breaking: Domestic Surveillance Docs Subpoenaed
Breaking: Domestic Surveillance Docs Subpoenaed
The Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council for documents related to President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. AP reports:
Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council.
The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.
Leahy’s committee authorized the subpoenas previously as part of its sweeping investigation into how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons.
UPDATE: Statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program. [...]
“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”
UPDATE II: The committee vote was 13-3, with all Democrats and Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Charles Grassley (R-IA) voting for subpoenas.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
125 Responses to “Breaking: Domestic Surveillance Docs Subpoenaed”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ok Cheney here's your chance to pleade executive privilege. Oh wait, your not part of the executive branch.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm"Oh wait, your not part of the executive branch.
Comment by Crump's Brother — June 27, 2007 @ 1:19 pm"
Well, today he is...... Who knows if he will try to claim he is not tomorrow again.
It all depends on what suits him tomorrow.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pmAnd the very public court fight begins......
June 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pmIt's about time!
June 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pmI hope there is a long steady stream of subpoenas to follow. And following that...heads will roll!
Just more papers and stuff sent to the Bush regime. Paper has lots of uses.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pmTime to shed the light on the evidence which will lead to IMPEACHMENT.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pmWhat! No more breaking news about the Paris Hilton case? I thought this site was determined to start three threads a day and the skank.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI'm sure that Dick Cheney, being the law-abiding patriot that he is, will collect and turn-over the documents, post haste.
He understands that this could clear his name.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm"Smithers, release the hounds..."
June 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pmForTruth,
Right you are. This man has been heard to say that the constitution is just a "goddamn piece of paper", what do you think he thinks about these pieces of paper.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#4 - Mark @ News Corpse
June 27th, 2007 at 1:31 pmAnd following that…heads will roll! ---- Never happen! Last minute pardons and whatnot. Short of murder or stuffing cash in their freezer (and only if they're caught in the act) they won't do a day.
Who will be the first from FOX to voice his supreme indignation at the committee issuing subpoenas to the WH and VP?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:31 pmWH will just stonewall and fight this all the way to SCOTUS.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pmNever happen! Last minute pardons and whatnot. Short of murder or stuffing cash in their freezer (and only if they’re caught in the act) they won’t do a day.
Comment by SGT Higgins
You'd be ok with that, Sarge?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pmAre you sure subpeonas are necessary? Maybe if you just issued another stern warning... I'm sure if you made it stern enough, they would listen.
I'm just concerned about Democrats overreaching on this, that's all. Really I am.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pmDeLay Wins Round in Texas Court YEA!
June 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pmI don't care if Delay never gets in legal trouble. He's out of power.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pmI wish the lovely, perky Dana would already be on tv giving a statement about this latest development.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pmHello? As Happy Dude pointed out in his attempt to slam TP, this is not news!
June 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pmBrittany Spears possibly getting back with KFed? Stop the friggin' presses!
Paris Hilton's intimate disclosures about prison? Be still my heart, give me more info!
The vice president of the executive branch, being served papers regarding illegal warrantless wiretapping?
Boring!!! Say, isn't there a NASCAR race on today, or possibly a pay per view wrestling event? Reruns of American Idol?
Has anyone considered that the dems aren't vigorously prosecuting the BA is so that they can do so under a President who won't pardon them?
Give them enough rope....
June 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pmWow! Looks like the Republic Party is making a comeback!
Not.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pmHas anyone considered that the dems aren’t vigorously prosecuting the BA is so that they can do so under a President who won’t pardon them?
Give them enough rope….
Comment by TROLLBAIT3000
That's an interesting angle.....
June 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm#17 Flaco
Holy Lone Star State! Are you REALLY still in lust with Tommy Boy Delayer? Hasn't he done enough damage to Texas' reputation (not to mention all those pesky bugs he hasn't been killing lately)?
Or maybe you admire his W30 hair do.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pmit's nice the Dick was subpeonaed, but who really believes that 1. he will show up or 2. that, even under oath, he will tell the truth?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm#15 - You’d be ok with that, Sarge? --- Ok? No. Just being realistic. We all know they're NOT above the law at that level of gov't (no matter the party affiliation)....but try telling THEM that.
"documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program" ---- And if I read this correctly......doc's being subpoenaed to determine who said what and to whom......why exactly? to separate the wheat from the chaff?
"internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program" --- bet that's happened a lot throughout the history of the office.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pmyah, I'm sure they'll go after them once they're out of power....not. I truely believe that Leahy's motivation for attacking the Bush regime is moralistic, however, I question the motivation of many others. Most politicians act on politics, when bush/cheney/gonzalez have no power there would be no reason to go after them, politically.
More relevant: are these subpoenas binding? Does the bush regime HAVE to turn over documentation, or can they just tell congress to go f*ck themeselves?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pmBoring!!! Say, isn’t there a NASCAR race on today, or possibly a pay per view wrestling event? Reruns of American Idol?
Comment by DRxJ
Glad you mentioned it, all that blonde bimbo stuff is so ten minutes ago. It's all about the roid rage wrestler who killed his family and himself. Who's Dick Cheney?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#27 - Does the bush regime HAVE to turn over documentation, or can they just tell congress to go f*ck themeselves? --- lmao..that's probably what the 'internal squabbles' are all about today.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm"More relevant: are these subpoenas binding? Does the bush regime HAVE to turn over documentation, or can they just tell congress to go f*ck themeselves?
Comment by konflikt — June 27, 2007 @ 1:45 pm"
Welcome the the Constitutional Crisis.....
I see this going to the Supreme Court.
The Congress has the DUTY to oversee the WH, and if there was questionable acts of law breaking going on then they MUST investigate.
Batten down the hatches because it is going to get rough.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmHas anyone considered that the dems aren’t vigorously prosecuting the BA is so that they can do so under a President who won’t pardon them?
Give them enough rope….
Comment by TROLLBAIT3000 — June 27, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
I hadn't, but since you suggested it, that would be real justice, actually.
With 18 months to go, however, I do wonder if the counter move would be to stop the elections and install Shrub as King? Though, from the many protests lately, I wonder if there are finally enough people who would take to the streets if they did so. And it's not like our military could (or would) exactly stop us.
Seems the cons might be running out of angles to play...
June 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pm#29: They'll tell the congress to get stuffed, it will all end up in front of SCOTUS and by a 5-4 decision WH will win.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pmSounds like the Supreme Court will rule 5-4, in favor of Cheney. LOL!!!!
Poor Think Progress. You don't have the votes to impeach Cheney or make his life miserable. AND when John Paul Stevens steps down from the Court early next week, you'll lose another liberal for your cause.
The Supreme Court is FOREVER. We will stop the fascist fairness doctrine and any left wing witch hunt against the President.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pmThe Congress has the DUTY to oversee the WH, and if there was questionable acts of law breaking going on then they MUST investigate.
Batten down the hatches because it is going to get rough.
Comment by RemoveBush
I say until impeachment is back on the table, the least we deserve is making these crooks worry every day about what's coming next.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pmI am assuming that subpoenas issued by Congress have to be "served" just like legal subpoenas issued to the likes of the rest of us? If so, can't you just see Cheney hiding under his desk (or in his "undisclosed location" bunker) to avoid being served? ("ha ha - can't catch me!" said the wriggling snake to his captors)
June 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm“documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program†—- And if I read this correctly……doc’s being subpoenaed to determine who said what and to whom……why exactly? to separate the wheat from the chaff?
Comment by SGT Higgins
Very often, when you receive subpoenaed documents, those documents lead to new information and new supoenas. Better to ask for more than less.
That's why the discovery process in a trial can take so long -- new information, more questions.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm"John Paul Stevens Will Retire": And do you know what will happen before that? After 2008 the overwhelming dem majority in the house and a dem president are going to increase the number of SCOTUS judges and pack in a few liberal ones.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThe'd have to void the Constitution to do this, and I don't think they're that stupid. Self-survival is the #1 priority of any organism.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThey’ll tell the congress to get stuffed, it will all end up in front of SCOTUS and by a 5-4 decision WH will win.
Comment by Think Prostate
Hey Tinkle Prostate, GET STUFFED. Glad you guys admit the Supreme Court is corrupt. Anybody know how we can get rid of them?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm#25 it’s nice the Dick was subpeonaed, but who really believes that 1. he will show up or 2. that, even under oath, he will tell the truth?
Comment by daveincolorado
Maybe they can bring out the waterboard or make him look at wife Lynn's overtight facelift under bright lights for 24 hours. Oops that last one would be considered torture even by Darth and Gonzo!!
A Fellow Coloradoan here!
June 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm#31 - unbelievable - And it’s not like our military could (or would) exactly stop us.
We could......we wouldn't, though. Attacking those we've sworn to protect would seriously dampen morale....we're YOUR Army, after all. The sitting Pres is the commander in chief of the Military..but we are not his personal sidearm.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pmComment by missmolly — June 27, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Great visual, missmolly. :D
If the subpoena is "accepted," it will most likely be taken by David Addington, Cheney's attorney. Or whatsiwhosit, the WH counsel.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pmHe *is* a member of the executive branch...*except* when he's not.
It's a petroleum based food extract--*and* a dessert topping!
It's a wave--*and* a particle! Simultaneously!
His nature changes upon observation..."I'm part of the executive branch--until you try to observe me, at which point I'm part of the legislative branch!"
June 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe reason it's called "warrantless" wiretapping is because it's highly illegal. They've broken the law and now must receive the justice they deserve.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pmIf no one answers the door, they can tape it in a conspicuous place on the outside of the building or the gate to the premises - and the party named in the subpoena is considered served.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pmhttp://msbands.com/?p=139
THAT is my opinion, lol.
No but seriously, this is just bullcrap. 18 freaking months, come on.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#37 - Justice Stevens is retiring next week, not in 2008. AND if you knew anything about the Court, you would understand that Democrats are working at a negative to keep the Court left.
AND after Hillary loses the 2008 election, a Republican President will put the final touches on a radical right-wing majority on the Supreme Court.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pmTROLLBAIT3000: Why would it void the Constitution? And even if it did, have you heard Kissinger's "Illegal we do immediately, unconstitutional just takes a bit longer" adage. Everthing the current WH guys know, they learnt it from him and Tricky Dick.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm#36 - Zooey --- Better to ask for more than less.
That’s why the discovery process in a trial can take so long — new information, more questions.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm---- thanks...explains why this 'process' has been 6 months in the making and looks like it could go on for several more months.....damn near a quagmire if you ask me.
And all of this will happen after the second coming of Christ. Yeah. Right.
Get your meds adjusted, Granny.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmPoor Think Progress. You don’t have the votes to impeach Cheney or make his life miserable. AND when John Paul Stevens steps down from the Court early next week, you’ll lose another liberal for your cause.
The Supreme Court is FOREVER. We will stop the fascist fairness doctrine and any left wing witch hunt against the President.
Comment by John Paul Stevens Will Retire
You got a link for this retirement because you guys have been talking about it for three years now.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pm#47 IN YOUR DREAMS! hahahaha! Thanks for providing some much-needed comic relief on another day of Republican scandals!
There will never EVER again be a Republican elected to the White House - that will be cinched with each passing week that these scandals prevail and the henious, amoral, illegal war continues.....
tick...tock....the GOP's clock is running out. Soon they will be no longer.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#52 - you'll need meds, my friend. Hillary will lose badly in 2008 for the sheer fact that she is a lying liberal. Edwards will lose because his wife and him are shameless political pigs. AND Obama will lose because he's a Muslim.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI'm not certain that there is not a provision wherein the people can impeach Supreme Court Justices....hmmm....Our founding fathers must have made provision for dealing with Justices who are out of touch with the will of the american people. Let's dig and find it...
June 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#55: Hello Jake/Patrick1.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmWith their waning numbers, it looks like the Republican Party will soon become our "new third party".
June 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI can think of any number of reasons that the SCOTUS express condonment of potential criminal activity by another branch would void the Constitution. Removing the legislative branch's right to issue a subpoena to conduct its oversight role, for starters.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm#54 - why are the GOP candidates tied with Democrats in all 2008 polls????
Why are Pelosi's favorables negative now? Harry Dingy Reid at 19% favorable???? By next fall, the American people will be scared to death of the pro-fascist, anti-free speech and pro-hate Democrats and we will elect a GOP president. Just like in 1988.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmGOP’s clock is running out. Soon they will be no longer.
Well, there's always the military option. Can't trust this nation to dems, can we?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThe Supreme Court is FOREVER. We will stop the fascist fairness doctrine and any left wing witch hunt against the President.
Comment by John Paul Stevens Will Retire
Be careful what you wish for, JPSWR. Americans will put up with only so much they consider unjust. Remember the Dred Scott case from your history classes? That SCOTUS ruling galvanized abolitionists in ways that would give conservatives nightmares if that kind of uprising from progressives happened today. Slavery was doomed.
If a right-leaning court erodes the bill of rights beyond recognition, if it capitulates to big business interests consistently, if it allows elected officials to spit on the constitution and make up their own rules --- look for a similar uprising from the people when they get fed up. I would not use the word FOREVER to describe a right-wing court, as hubris has a way of changing things.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThere is no way their appointment can be "for life" if the people want them out. Our founding fathers were much too cagey and intelligent for that. No doubt there is a remedy for justices who no longer represent the majority of the people.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pm#56 - you wish. If that were the case, the Supreme Court of the 70s would have all been impeached. Sorry, you lose. The right-wing owns the Court now. As it should. Bye, bye Roe!!!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmTHIS is the one that could break the camels back. When it's fully revealed that Bush IS Nixon (which we already know by his obfuscation, warrantless wiretapping, and flagrant ongoing violations of the Constitution and all civil liberties), even this bored, distracted nation of "reality TV" watchers will demand impeachment.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pm#47 - JPS -AND after Hillary loses the 2008 election, a Republican President will put the final touches on a radical right-wing majority on the Supreme Court.
--- Hell dude, I'M a republican and I don't even think there will be a 'next republican president' for 5.5 years, maybe longer. I don't think it'll be Hillary, though. Likely Obama vs. Giuliani(?), Thompson or Romney. And if that's the case, I think the R's will get their hats handed to them.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#59: Oh, I never meant that SCOTUS would strip congress of its right to submit subpoenas. They'll just rule that Executive may ignore those subpoenas.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#62 - the uprising has already happened, unfortunately it has happened to your cause. The movement against the ACLU, PFAW and Planned Parenthood has been years in the making. We won now. We are the abolitionists. You are the slave owning partial birth abortionists.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#64 I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. Constitutional scholars are looking into this right now. As far as I can tell, the only thing which distinguishes you from the "garden variety troll" is that your eccentricity trumps even your stupdity.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm"Why are Pelosi’s favorables negative now? Harry Dingy Reid at 19% favorable????"
They lost popularity because they took impeachment off the table.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmSetting aside your falsehoods for a moment, you think any of these Republic candidates is Presidential material? You think your smear tactics wil work again?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Ha!
like I said: get your meds adjusted, Grandma.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmBack to the subject of the thread, shall we....and evacuation of this Hijacker Troll....which, unfortunately, for any republiscum Troll, happens to be the highly illegal wiretapping for which the Bush Cabal will be impeached.....next~!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmMissmolly: People are easily distracted, you know. Throw Paris back in jail and that solves the problem.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pmI'd say that the Congress is allowing Gonzocchio to become hoist on his own pitard with this one.....soon this liar will be painted into the darkest of corners with no way out in sight.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pmAnyone have the thread regarding Nixon's impeachment....for illegal wiretapping??? It's got to be out there somewhere....
June 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm#70 I believe that you are correct. The moment Pelosi defied the mandate of the people to rid the government of the Bush Cabal by impeachment, she lost ground. This is why her numbers and Harry's are abysmally low. People are equating them with the liars they were elected to impeach.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmI will believe what I was programmed to believe! I am Computroll3000!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pmTroll alert! Troll Alert! John Paul Jones's Geriatric Sister is on the loose. Head for the hills.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pmFor life? So we end a few more lives in our juggernaut "war on terra". if that's our only option, so be it.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pm...and in the process, violate the Congress' oversight role. Not Constitutional.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:14 pmHey lady, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pmAbortion has nothing to do with values and everything to do with slavery and control. If you control the woman, you have her raise her poverty stricken children to become the slaves of the rich.
The rich never have to worry about what Roe v Wade does, they just go somewhere else to have their abortions.
I think it's going to be interesting watching what happens to the SCOTUS. The last couple decisions appeared to be rather contemptuous from within.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm—- thanks…explains why this ‘process’ has been 6 months in the making and looks like it could go on for several more months…..damn near a quagmire if you ask me.
Comment by SGT Higgins
The wheels of justice grind slowly, and those of congress -- even more slowly...
June 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThe wheels of justice grind slowly, and those of congress — even more slowly…
Comment by Zooey
Ah, the grinding sound that's music to my ears...
June 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pmOff Subject:::
Hey lady, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.
Comment by TROLLBAIT3000 --- See now, the problem i have with that is this: Why should the gov't be involved in the decision AT ALL? Why should fed. dollars pay for this? We don't pay for breast augmentations, and that's elective, too.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pmIgnore Troll "John Paul Stevens Will Retire".
It is clearly Patrick1, and it appears neither the therapy nor the medication had any effect on his delusional state. Sad, really, but we can't expect our health care system to work miracles, now, can we?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:30 pmSee now, the problem i have with that is this: Why should the gov’t be involved in the decision AT ALL? Why should fed. dollars pay for this? We don’t pay for breast augmentations, and that’s elective, too.
Comment by SGT Higgins
I think most women who have abortions pay for them, or they are insured. The women who might need an abortion paid for with government dollars is most likely already receiving government help. Paying for that abortion is a one time cost, as opposed to the likelihood of paying to raise that child for 18 years.
That may seem harsh.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pmWe don’t pay for breast augmentations, and that’s elective, too.
Comment by SGT Higgins
Sure we do. It's called a mastectomy, breast removal, as in when a woman (or man) has breast cancer.
Same goes in the situation when a woman's pregnancy is life-threatening to her.
Haven't you ever heard of Preventative medicine? And yes, those who are on government assistance get these procedures paid for by you and me.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pmAh, the grinding sound that’s music to my ears…
Comment by Not Canadian
It is nice to finally hear it.... :)
June 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pm#88 - That may seem harsh. -- A little bit, yeah. Since when is it ok to value saving $$ over a period of time (18 yrs) rather than looking at the 'big picture' and saying, "This is messed up" ?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmZooey, well said about abortion.
The fact is that they want to neither fund abortions for the poor NOR pay for children below the poverty level. They want these children to be born but care nothing about them once they are here.
Those 18 years (IF they get to 18 years) are riddled with the kind of strife we couldn't begin to imagine (like, where their next meal might come from, or sleeping in cars).
The vast majority of people below the poverty line in America are single, white mothers.
It's about sexism and control. And the children are pawns.
When abortion became an issue, it had nothing to do with supposed morals. It was doctors complaining that midwifes were the one performing them, thus taking away from their coffers. Religion was quite late to that table.
If a woman can't control he own body, she will be controlled.
Why do some insurance companies pay for Viagra but not birth control?
This is but one issue, but it all comes down to controlling the little people in the country, be they poor, women, downtrodden, etc.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmAND the 28th (tomorrow) is supposed to be ANOTHER DEADLINE, no??
Maybe we can get MORE SUBPOENAS out to the CRIMINALS this week?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm#89 - Sure we do. It’s called a mastectomy--- medical reasons....no problem
Same goes in the situation when a woman’s pregnancy is life-threatening to her. ---- medical reasons...no problem.
those who are on government assistance get these procedures paid for by you and me. -- Well you, not me.....I get mine back being in the Military (nyah nyah! jk) And then some! looking at a page, I noted that PP receives $50 mil from Title X (whatever the hell that is) and $50 mil from medicaid....performed roughly 250,000 abortions....$400/each?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pmPlanned Parenthood picks up where alot of other healthcare slips through the cracks. They perform services for women, OB/GYN exams, preventative planning, and more.
Do you really think PP only does abortions? I guess the right propaganda got to you. Read up on it. You might learn something.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pmA little bit, yeah. Since when is it ok to value saving $$ over a period of time (18 yrs) rather than looking at the ‘big picture’ and saying, “This is messed up†?
Comment by SGT Higgins
It's totally messed up! The thing is, the problem exists now. This admin relies on abstinence only, which is unnatural to the human condition. There is less funding for education and birth control.
People who oppose government paying for abortions, often oppose paying for welfare and daycare programs. If that woman wants an abortion, isn't it more prudent to pay the $500(?) for the abortion, rather than 18 years of support for an unwanted child?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pmIf that woman wants an abortion, isn’t it more prudent to pay the $500(?) for the abortion, rather than 18 years of support for an unwanted child?
Comment by Zooey
C'mon, stats and facts don't fit well with 'talking points' these poor people have been brainwashed into believing.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pmDo you really think PP only does abortions? I guess the right propaganda got to you. Read up on it. You might learn something.
Comment by MsJoanne
Right, MsJoanne. PP is so much more than abortion. That gets lost in all the anti-choice rhetoric.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pmMeanwhile, John Kerry goes after David Addington: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/26/184210/172
June 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pmC’mon, stats and facts don’t fit well with ‘talking points’ these poor people have been brainwashed into believing.
Comment by Not Canadian
You know what, NC? If I find someone who's the slightest bit interested, I'm going with that. We have enough trolls around here to whack.
Hacker Bob and I knock heads all the time, but his mind is more open than most. That works for me.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:50 pmTrue dat, Zooey.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pmBTW, where's ol Hack-Bob been lately?
The miltary obviously needs him more than we do!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pmPhoenix Woman, I saw this Cheney Caves piece on politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4679.html
June 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm#95 - Zooey - People who oppose government paying for abortions, often oppose paying for welfare and daycare programs.
--- Says who? I dunno, maybe I just don't 'fit the mold' but if someone is a 'right to lifer' (like myself) and then balks at helping a woman get childcare (so she can work) well, that's just asinine.
If that woman wants an abortion, isn’t it more prudent to pay the $500(?) for the abortion, rather than 18 years of support for an unwanted child? --- Yeah sure, if 'prudence' is our motivation.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pm# 94 - MsJ - Do you really think PP only does abortions? --- Primarily, yes...only? prob not.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pmI guess the right propaganda got to you. Read up on it. You might learn something. --- Fair enough.
BTW, where’s ol Hack-Bob been lately?
The miltary obviously needs him more than we do!
Comment by Not Canadian
He's in the process of moving his family to a new base. I'm sure he'll be back in a couple weeks.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pmSgt, here, let me help. Look at the number of abortions vs other services. Millions vs.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pmOops, didn't like the less than symbol.
Millions of services vs. less than 300K abortions.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/pp-services-5552.htm
June 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#106 - lmao...great! Fill in the blank? Pop quiz? brb
June 27th, 2007 at 3:06 pm— Says who? I dunno, maybe I just don’t ‘fit the mold’ but if someone is a ‘right to lifer’ (like myself) and then balks at helping a woman get childcare (so she can work) well, that’s just asinine.
That's why I said "often," not everyone feels that way. It is asinine to require that a woman go through with a pregnancy, and then deny the help she might need to make a life for herself and that child. But it happens constantly. There is very little affordable quality daycare available, and funding is constantly running out.
If that woman wants an abortion, isn’t it more prudent to pay the $500(?) for the abortion, rather than 18 years of support for an unwanted child? — Yeah sure, if ‘prudence’ is our motivation.
Comment by SGT Higgins
What would your motivation be in forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pmthe "right wing" doesn't own the court or the WH.The only thing theright wing criminals own is a spot in hell.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:17 pmThey all whine and cry for their criminal elected idiots. What a bunch of scumbags.
The Rethug/neocons are few and far between thank heavens. They will never again be in the WH. Roe will endure forever, get over it.
I'm not precisely sure of what this move means but I can say that I hope to hell that dickey has to appear under oath and be brought to his knees literally crying and begging for mercy . . . That's before he meets his Uncle Satan.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:22 pm#109 - There is very little affordable quality daycare available -- Ain't that the truth! We live on one income and can't afford the 'Military rate'.
What would your motivation be in forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child? --- There's a big difference between 'forcing a woman to give birth' and not wanting gov't funds to pay for it....unless it's a medical necessity.
You want the gov't to stay out of your personal affairs but insist they fund them? You want Big Gov't to ensure everyone gets a fair shake and then denounce the gov't for being too big for it's britches.
btw, when i say 'you' it's not a personal attack, I'm using 'you' in lieu of 'the left'.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWaa-Hooo! Newsflash, Democrats Grow A Spine! I can only hope that this is their first step in a real, Honest to Goodness, Constitutional Exercise of Oversight!!! This is unbelievably overdue, but its here at last, here at last!
June 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pmThere’s a big difference between ‘forcing a woman to give birth’ and not wanting gov’t funds to pay for it….unless it’s a medical necessity.
A woman discovers she's pregnant, maybe the birth control failed, and she knows she cannot afford another child. But she's uninsured and doesn't have the money to pay for it herself. There's no medical necessity for the abortion, she simply can't take on another child.
How is this not forcing a woman to give birth?
I'm all for smaller government, and everybody minding their own business. Take a look around, Sarge, government is as big as it's ever been, and it's gobbling up more money than ever -- and most of the money isn't being spent on the health or education of the people.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pmThe "left" didn't get it that way.
YOU GUYS let the idiot trolls highjack the tread again, don't respond to the idiots, don't even read what they post...they are IDIOTS that are loyal to Party and not Country.
IGNORE THE TROLLS - Debate good, Trolls suck A$$
June 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pmshe simply can’t take on another child.
How is this not forcing a woman to give birth? --- She made a mistake? Why should Fed $'s pay for it? Hell, I've made mistakes but I never expected Uncle Sam to bail me out. That's the problem with always assuming a victim mentality.
most of the money isn’t being spent on the health or education of the people. ---- So who should decide where the best place to spend the money is?
June 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThe “left†didn’t get it that way. -- Well finger pointing won't change get the problem solved.
why the f*ck are you all talking about abortions? this is the cheney is a lying douche thread.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThe Supreme Court decides in favor of the Executive (... that they can choose to conduct their business without Congressional oversight.) Then it's up to Congress. They can and should impeach the entire Supreme Court for failing to support the clear meaning of the Constitution. Appoint new judges and make it clear that the legislature decides the law and the Executive obeys it - period!!
June 27th, 2007 at 5:58 pmGO PAT, GO! SUBPOENA the HELL out of them! If they can be obstructionist, we can tangle them in court for YEARS!
June 27th, 2007 at 6:49 pmMany americans have fallen victim to this illegal poitical abusive secret program. These are long overdue court procedings, Thank you Mr. Leahy for attempting to expose the truth, regardless of the gross DELAY.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pmTake a good look at recent photos. This is all wearing very heavily on shrub. He's aged thiry years since he was inaugurated the first time.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:30 pmI think this has proven that articles of impeachment need to at least be discussed..
June 27th, 2007 at 8:12 pmCheney tell truth never happens.
What a disgrace.
How can any member of the GOP pretend they have done the right thing by creating the concept that its OK to have an autocracy which is really a dictatorship as long as its GOP?
they have disgraced the nation. All members of the GOP Senate and Congress which have allowed this to occur and helped to create this situation have proved that greed is their sole motivation.
all should lose their position in government
June 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pmThe Senate and House needs to do the right thing. Quit investigating the babbling buffoon and cheny and impeach them and kick their butts out of office. there is more then even reasons to accomplish it. the babbling buffoon and cheny is far more dirty and guilty of wrong doings then nixon ever was.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pmWe could……we wouldn’t, though. Attacking those we’ve sworn to protect would seriously dampen morale….we’re YOUR Army, after all. The sitting Pres is the commander in chief of the Military..but we are not his personal sidearm.
Comment by SGT Higgins — June 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Thus, the swift building up and intense use of Blackwater and other mercenary companies. When Blackwater is hired to oversee that which the military refuses to do, what will the military do? Do you, the military, stand by and watch the deployment of the private army of the Commander in Chief, or fight at the side of the American people against Bush and Company?
That is before you take into account that the military has purposefully been lowering its standards, and accepting recruits who do not meet the psych requirements. If enough of these are people who don't care who they fight against, their programming may very well override their humanity.
Finally, you have the domestic 27%ers, who will take up arms on the side of Bush and Co. Then you are dealing with mercenary companies and part of the military, and the fundamentalist and other extremists on the right, fighting against the patriots still present in the military and the bulk of the American people.
What a mess. What happens? We all have to wait and see. The response to these subpoenas, the resulting court battle, and everything that entails determines the overall direction this country takes. I sincerely hope they do not fight to the bitter end, and take steps that will fracture this country in an extraordinarily violent manner. If they choose the nuclear option? Ugly, ugly times thanks to an ugly administration.
What an embarrassment to this country's rich history, is this administration. What an utter embarrassment to all of humankind.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pmIf that woman wants an abortion, isn’t it more prudent to pay the $500(?) for the abortion, rather than 18 years of support for an unwanted child? — Yeah sure, if ‘prudence’ is our motivation.
Comment by SGT Higgins — June 27, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
"Prudence" has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do what is safest for the woman. If abortion is (once again) illegal, you will have girls killing themselves, purposefully and accidentally. You will have the return of the Back-Alley Butchers, making a living cutting women and girls up in risky and horrific ways. You will have women dying in the hospital, as their extremely risky baby, that they would have aborted if it were legal, kills them in the birthing.
Or, you will force women to go back to the days of our ancients. Where their rabbi or priest or shaman would prescribe to them some "moon tea" (as it was called in the Bible) or other such "natural" remedy for a pregnancy. These are oft-mild poisons, that cause a miscarriage, and the fetus is flushed when the woman's cycle resumes.
Regardless, abortion will never, ever be stopped. That we can make it safe, free (since the poor are by FAR the most in need of it, and the least able to afford it), and educate women on the alternatives, and on birth control, is the best we can hope for.
Please don't bring us back to the days of the butchers and the charlatans and the greedy killing our young women.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:17 pmThank you Ralph Nader and supporters.
We all know an Al Gore presidency would have had nothing but contempt for democracy and the rule of law. (note sarcasm)
June 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am#89 - If a woman can’t control her own body, she will be controlled ---- If a woman can't control her own body, she'll end up pregnant and then be responsible for a child.....if we keep removing (by way of abortion) all accountability for one's actions, then we're propagating a victim mentality.
#124 - Regardless, abortion will never, ever be stopped. ---- I'm not advocating it being stopped, just that it not be free to everyone, not just the poor and downtrodden.
That we can make it safe,---- As it should be. I don't want that the OPTION be taken away, just that the Gov't stay out of it. "Keep your laws off of my body.....but if it's all the same to you, I'd like to keep my hand in your wallet"??? Advocating for having it both ways?
free (since the poor are by FAR the most in need of it, and the least able to afford it), ---- but even PP's website says it provides them to anyone who is at 150% of the poverty level. And according to their own numbers of abortions performed vs. Fed. $$'s taken in, they're all being paid for with Fed $$'s, not just some, here and there.
and educate women on the alternatives, and on birth control, is the best we can hope for. --- Agreed, but that's NOT where the money is going.
Sorry for 'hijacking' the Cheney discussion.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am