You must really be an insider to have that kind of insight into G.W. Bush’s mindset. Are you on the President’s or VP’s staff? Cabinet Member? Cabinet Member’s staff? If not, what position DO you hold in the White House? Who’s staff are you on?

Or maybe you’re a U.S. Attorney, or on a U.S. Attorney’s staff? Or perhaps on Patrick Fitzgerald’s staff? Or one of his assistants or on their staff?

Really, you must have some direct contact with the case to be so “in the know” about it.

Otherwise, you are just another Bush hater who’s commenting on a case you read about in the papers, saw on T.V., or read about on the usual anti-Bush blogs and websites. Nothing new there. The thinking has been done for you.

Remember, all you people who think Bush is just some dolt being controlled by Cheney…if that’s the case, how does he keep outsmarting the rest of the world and get away with it??? Over and over, time and time again, continuously, repeatedly, for the last 7 years…etc. etc….

Just extremely lucky, I guess??? I would like to have that kind of dumb luck too!!!

8 reasons for the Iraq Invasion? I bet there were dozens, many yet to be revealed. Just because another reason is given, does not mean it supplants the previous reason(s). Just because some folks’ attention span is more attuned to 30 second sound bites and the neatly wrapped-up terrorist wars packaged for dramatic television or the theatre does not mean the real world operates the same way.

In short, we had every right to invade Iraq, get Saddam out of there, and give the Iraqi people a chance at freedom. Whether the Iraqi people choose to “take the bull by the horns” so to speak, is yet to be seen. But we have seen enough to know that many, many Iraqi’s do want some form of freedom, even if it isn’t equal to the freedom we in the U.S. expect.

Regardless, we have a military base, on U.S. soil, in Cuba, which was an integral part of winning the “cold war” against spreading Communism. Using the same tactic by establishing a long-term military base in Iraq to keep the pressure on Iran and other terrorist-supporting middle eastern nations is, in my opinion, a good idea.

We cannot simply put the blinders on, and go about our business thinking the terrorist enemy will just go away. If we do it again: “Surprise!!!”

“And what can we be assured of under continued Republican leadership?

More torture.
More indefinite incarcerations.
More death.
More destruction.
More War.
More debt.

Comment by Briseadh na Faire”

More torture- If by torture, you mean playing loud Christina Aguilera music, underwear on the head, sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc. I have no problem with it. Nothing deadly here. If the enemy THINKS it will kill them, all the better if they will talk.

More indefinate incarcerations- If by indefinate, you mean keeping the enemy under wraps and feeding them better than our own troops, giving them better medical care than they’ve ever had in their lives, and providing air-conditioning and a clean place to live until we figure out what to do with them, once again, I have no problem. What I DO have a problem with is keeping them in better conditions than our own U.S. Servicemen and Servicewomen have to live under.

The alternative?: Let’s see… we could just be shooting the enemy on sight, as has been done in previous wars such as the Civil War, WW1, WW2, etc.

As George S Patton once famously said: ” No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

More Death- If you mean more deaths of the enemy who wants to kill both you and I, Good! Better them than us.

More Destruction- If you mean the destruction of the enemy’s ability to wage terrorist, guerilla warfare on us, then I am all for it. I say it’s time to “take off the kid gloves” and finish them off. We’ve been fighting them piecemeal for decades, and they keep coming back to haunt us. As Bush said, and I’m probably paraphrasing here: “You are either for us, or your against us.” We find the enemy, wherever they are hiding, and we totally annihilate them, and those who harbor them. When it was merely words, the world cheered. Since President Bush has actually taken action, it’s been a different story. The reality of war is always more horrible than the rhetoric of war, but reality it is nonetheless. Seems many of our allies “on paper” have plenty of stomach for rhetoric, but not much stomach for reality.

You folks who are anti-war at all costs need to realize that just because you want to play nice, does not meant that our enemies agree. They have publicly stated that they intend to killl both you and I, and they continue to attempt to make good on those promises. What sand pile did you have YOUR head buried in on 9/11???

More War- If by more war, you mean that we should wage war on the terrorists in their own sandbox rather than in our backyard, I wholeheartedly agree. The enemy has already come to our country to wage war on us, and has attacked U.S. civilian and military targets world-wide for decades. Unless we keep the pressure on, it will most definately happen again. For more information, see “More Destruction-” above.

And to Bartlbee…Sorry, but the Newspapers of the United States don’t make public policy. They can critisize and condemn President Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence all they want. That’s their right, and they have the editoral power guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to do it. However, It’s a credit to President Bush that he has the courage (and Constitutional authority) to do what HE believes is right regardless of public opinion at the moment. In other words, he doesn’t have to take a poll prior to making a decision, unlike some previous Presidents.

More to follow, as time permits…

“It was not to save Iraqis from Saddam.”

If you didn’t hear that then I can’t help you.

“Still does not prove that had he been elected, America without a doubt would have been attacked again.”

Sorry I side with the facts and his voting record when it comes to foreign policy and national security sucks. Not worth the risk…not even a little.

“Again, source?”

You want me to explain that it’s technically harder to track a phone call comming in to the U.S. than one going out? Seem like common sense to me.

“Thus going through FISA is too slow, and the monitoring of domestic calls will suffer. Yet we still do it.”

It depends on the circumstances and the ability to gather information in a timely manner. Those doing the monitoring should have the discretion.

“Then why didn’t the 109th Congress and President Bush make an effort to just eliminate the FISA court since it is no longer necessary??”

Are you saying that’s it’s illegal to wiretap before the warrant is issued? I sure hope not. What is YOUR reason for FISA still requiring a warrant if the information has already been gathered?

Sorry, Zooey it that was that moron BARTLEBEE in #731.

Comment by DICK Tracy — July 3, 2007 @ 6:48 pm

Its amazing that your brain can generate enough electricity to spell the word moron.

The point of going in to Iraq was to knock out a “gathering threat.” You know…mushroom clouds over New York City and all that. It was not to save Iraqis from Saddam.

“Yes, she unknowingly made a factual point with her statement regardless what she ment.”

You are full of sh*t.

“His voting record in regards to foreign policy issues proves it….easily.”

Still does not prove that had he been elected, America without a doubt would have been attacked again.

“Considering it is technically correct in the world of telecommunications why would it be necessary to have a source from the Bush administration prove a well known fact?”

Again, source? Besides…

The Bush Administration rejected a Congressional initiative in 2002 that would have lowered the legal threshold for conducting surveillance of non-US persons under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from “probable cause” that the target is a terrorist or agent of a foreign power to “reasonable suspicion.”

Yet in a speech this week on the NSA domestic surveillance program Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael V. Hayden indicated that the executive branch had unilaterally adopted a similar “reasonable suspicion” standard.

We also have this, as you surely recall:

The investigation, launched in January 2006 by the Department’s internal watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) — an office created in the wake of the Watergate scandal to prevent similar abuses by DoJ officials — would have examined whether Department officials had properly reviewed the legality of the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, which dates back to 2001.

As you know, Bush personally shut down this investigation by refusing to give security clearances. Yet he had no problem giving security clearance to civilians when he wanted to get info regarding the leak of the program to the press.

The key is this: the investigation “would have examined whether Department officials had properly reviewed the legality of the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program.” Bush has insisted all along that the program is legal. So what is the problem? Obviously, despite what he says, the legality is not a cut and dry issue. As we also know, Bush and Gonzales have both said that nobody in the administration had a dissenting opinion about the program, yet we have recently learned that that was not true either.

And finally, the following. You’ll notice that Bush ignored the question asked, and said nothing specifically about international calls taking more time to track and thus he can’t go to FISA:

President Bush held a press conference on Monday morning to defend his policies in Iraq and his authorization of domestic eavesdropping. In this press conference, Bush stated one of the reasons he permitted NSA domestic wiretapping without a warrant and not go through FISA is “because it enables us to move faster and quicker.” He explained FISA is “for long-term monitoring.” President Bush said that the NSA domestic wiretapping is only for calls that originate from overseas, not those within the country. He claimed they would still go through the FISA courts for calls that are within the country. A reporter who caught this contradiction asked why the administration did not go through the FISA courts for all calls. President Bush responded by stating, “I said we use the FISA courts to monitor calls. It’s a very important tool, and we do use it. I just want to make sure we’ve got all tools at our disposal.”

(source: http://www.lp.org/printer_253.shtml)

Thus going through FISA is too slow, and the monitoring of domestic calls will suffer. Yet we still do it.

“Having to have a warrant issued thru the FISA court retroactively doesn’t have any value. It’s not illegal to collect the info before the warrant is issued anyway, so please tell us what the point of getting the warrant.”

Oh really? Then why didn’t the 109th Congress and President Bush make an effort to just eliminate the FISA court since it is no longer necessary??

“Regarding Bush’s stance about coutries that capture our soldiers: The big question is “IF” regarding countries like Iran or N. Korea treating our soldiers in accordance with the Detainee Detention Act. Yes in a perfect world “if” the U.S. could gurantee that other countries would abide then it would be OK, however we all know that countries like Iran and N. Korea wouldn’t do it.”

The issue, since you seem to be missing it, is that if our soldiers are captured by an enemy, they can be held indefinitely, and can be put on trial and convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see; these are provisions within our own MDA. And Bush says that if our soldiers are subjected to this in another country, that is fine with him.

Sorry, Zooey it that was that moron BARTLEBEE in #731. Your comment was #730.

“Would have saved a bunch of lives, including those of the coalition, not to mention innocent Iraqis…”

Yes and during Saddam’s reign of terror for that last 30 years those Iraqis were just expendable, i.e. better to keep him contained and kill only a few thousands more Iraqis vs. getting rid of him and possibly giving the Iraqis a CHANCE to stop the genocide….which was exactly what was happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. Getting rid of him was the ONLY way to allow that Iraqi’s to have a chance…his sons would have extended the terror for another 30 years.

“That’s not what she meant, and you know it.”

Yes, she unknowingly made a factual point with her statement regardless what she ment.

“Can’t prove it. Crystal balls are, um, imaginary. It was a fear tactic, nothing more.”

His voting record in regards to foreign policy issues proves it….easily.

“If you can show me a source from the administration that specifically proves your point, you get bonus points.”

Considering it is technically correct in the world of telecommunications why would it be necessary to have a source from the Bush administration prove a well known fact? Having to have a warrant issued thru the FISA court retroactively doesn’t have any value. It’s not illegal to collect the info before the warrant is issued anyway, so please tell us what the point of getting the warrant. FISA warrants aren’t an easy or quick thing to get BTW. Also revealing which telephone companies taht might or might not be helping with data gathering absolutely does help the terrorists avoid the authorities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/us/29nsa.html?ex=1303963200&en=e5a904a73266d384&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Regarding Bush’s stance about coutries that capture our soldiers: The big question is “IF” regarding countries like Iran or N. Korea treating our soldiers in accordance with the Detainee Detention Act. Yes in a perfect world “if” the U.S. could gurantee that other countries would abide then it would be OK, however we all know that countries like Iran and N. Korea wouldn’t do it. Hell just recently Iran violated the Geneva Convention by using British soldier for propoganda and forcing them to make false statements. The third Article of the Geneva Conventions clearly prohibits the public exhibition of POWs.

Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

I made no such claim.

You will have to prove it, if you think I did.

And using the prosecuter’s definition of sexual relations (which did not include a bj) to then say you did not have sexual relations ( a judge later ruled that– either way–it was immaterial to the Jones case and therefore could not be perjury or obstruction of justice) is really not on the same level as dozens of lies taking us into an illegal, extremely costly (one million lives and $2.3 Trillion), and counter-productive war.

Comment by Keith G. — July 2, 2007 @ 10:46 pm

Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

I suppose that’s one way to interpret it…

I said “all” these reasons weren’t given before the invasion, meaning that Bush didn’t lay out, you know, ALL of them…every one of them…before the invasion. Learn to read, will ya? Translation: the mission kept changing because America grew weary of the war.

Yeah, for his entire eight years while in office! Exactly!

That’s not what she meant, and you know it.

And it was a good thing just to keep kicking the can down the road as we did for 10 years prior?

Seeing as how he wasn’t a threat to us, and that he was bottled up, yes. Would have saved a bunch of lives, including those of the coalition, not to mention innocent Iraqis including that 14 year old girl who was raped and then her body burned, and her family shot to death, all because of some drunken soldiers having a little fun.

Sound like bad info from Tenet and the CIA.

That’s beside the point.

Rummy, 3/3/03:

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Rummy: 5/4/06:

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words — my words were that — no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

Kerry wouldn’t have put the resources necessary to shut down al Qaeda. He would have followed Clinton’s lead and done NOTHING.

Can’t prove it. Crystal balls are, um, imaginary. It was a fear tactic, nothing more.

It a hell of a lot easier to track domestic calls than international ones. Please.

Source? If you can show me a source from the administration that specifically proves your point, you get bonus points. Besides, Bush was once asked about the very contradiction I point out. He didn’t use that excuse…his response wasn’t even close.

Revealing how the program work as in the case with the NY Time revealing just that with the SWIFT database does help that terrorists avoid the authorities.

I was talking about wiretapping phone calls. SWIFT tracks financial transactions. Nice try at changing the subject, however.

We aren’t talking about another country putting our soldiers on trial.

Oh yes we are. Here’s the Bush/Gregory conversation:

Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there’s another important test. These critics include John McCain, who you’ve mentioned several times this morning.

And that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, “Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions,” and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able
to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?

BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the
world would be better. That’s my reaction.

Comment by Tracy — July 3, 2007 @ 3:11 pm

You sneaky little thing. You left this part out:

Still, by standards of recent political history, it’s bad news for Republicans to be even with Democrats on the national security issue.

Heh.

“And all these reasons weren’t given prior to the invasion.”

I sure remember that idea of democracy in Iraq as a reason given before the invasion.

“….because Condi Rice is on record as saying that the Bush administration, it its first few months leading up to 9/11, did at least as much to track terrorists as Clinton did.”

Yeah, for his entire eight years while in office! Exactly!

“As evil as Saddam was, it was none of our business.”

Whatever! I am assuming you think that it was none or our business in 1990 to eject him from Kuwait.

“Powell went on to state that Iraq had been contained, the sanctions against him were working as planned”

And it was a good thing just to keep kicking the can down the road as we did for 10 years prior?

“And speaking of WMDs, we recall Rumsfeld stating that “we” knew exactly where they were located in Iraq”

Sound like bad info from Tenet and the CIA.

“I’m sure you recall Cheney warning America that we’d surely be attacked again if Kerry won the presidency in 2004…”

Kerry wouldn’t have put the resources necessary to shut down al Qaeda. He would have followed Clinton’s lead and done NOTHING.

“And let’s not forget Kerry suggesting to Bush that he use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help out with gas prices in 2004…”

Wouldn’t have made any difference to the price. Bush was dumb for suggesting it to Clinton BTW.

“Bush has no problem going to the FISA court for a warrant to wiretap a domestic call, which could easily involve two terrorists talking to each other, but when pressed to go to FISA when one end of that call is outside of America, oh dear, banish the thought. There’s not enough time.”

It a hell of a lot easier to track domestic calls than international ones. Please.

“And spare me the notion that revealing wiretapping programs harms the security of our country and helps the terrorists.”

Revealing how the program work as in the case with the NY Time revealing just that with the SWIFT database does help that terrorists avoid the authorities.

“In other words, he doesn’t give a damn about the men and women of our military and how they would be treated if the tables were turned.”

We aren’t talking about another country putting our soldiers on trial. The reference is to our soldiers captured by a group like Hezbollah and how it would matter to them in the least how their comrades were treated by the U.S. military….they still wouldn’t treat our with any humanity.