Democrats & Liberals Archives

More fallout from ACSP (American Citizen Surveillance Program)

With the news (link) that US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to protest President George W. Bush’s authorization of a domestic spying program. He served for 11 years on the court and believes the court may have been tainted by Bush’s 2002 authorization.

And the news (link) that the warrant-less American citizen surveillance program (ACSP) approved by President Bush did capture purely domestic communications, despite the public statements by administration officials that one end of the intercepted conversations took place on foreign soil.

The Bush administration must be thinking that things aren't going well. The bravado that Bush ran on, while using the adage: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission", has backfired primarily because that adage only works for legal things. Once you over step your boundaries and blatantly ignore the law, bad things will happen.
The resignation of the Judge is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the ACSP to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens. Robertson was concerned that the information gained from warrant-less ACSP could have been used to obtain FISA warrants. That's a problem most people forget. Ill-gotten gains are still ill-gotten.

The support for Bush and Company, from within his own party is waning. Even Frist is conceding that hearings probably will take place. He reluctantly said : "I have been in discussion with the various chairmen and will continue that discussion," Frist said. "And then decisions will be made as to whether or not (there will be) hearings, and where such hearings would be carried out." That's code for: It's too big for even me to get in front of.

When judges begin resigning in protest over the abhorrent behavior of their President, it's only a matter of time before the truth comes out. Judges like Robertson, who have an insider's account of both the process and the legalities associated with FISA, show more respect for the laws and the constitution of this land and should be regarded as a role-model for our children.

Frankly, it's something that Bush himself should admire rather than condemn.

Posted by john trevisani at December 21, 2005 8:56 AM
Comments
Comment #105393

I’m not suprised he quit in protest.

But then again - ‘Judge Says Detainees’ Trials Are Unlawful’

How much good can he do out of his job?

Bush & Co. won’t be upset he is gone.

Posted by: dawn at December 21, 2005 9:09 AM
Comment #105400

Here’s some history about the judge and that court he quit.

‘Clinton Appointees Meet Privately’

Sounds like a political move to me.

Posted by: dawn at December 21, 2005 9:14 AM
Comment #105417

John,
The Judge resigning on top of evertything else should wake up even the most hardcore Republican that something is not right in Washington. However, I want to know the facts before I say a word.

Dawn,
Sad to say, but as long as VP Cheney is in charge that is just what is going to happen.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 21, 2005 9:31 AM
Comment #105424

“Stupid is as stupid does” — Forrest Gump

Applies quite well to Bush, just add “Dictator”

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 9:48 AM
Comment #105441

john:

I’m continually surprised by the “left’s” willingness to play judge and jury without the trial. The “left” has convicted Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, Halliburton, Lewis Libbey, and Karl Rove, among others, without any trials, and in some cases (Lay) without even any charges having been brought.

The “left” bought hook line and sinker the Dan Rather memos, the AWOL charges against George Bush, the idea that the Abu Ghraib scandal went all the way to Rumsfeld’s office etc.

It is perfectly legal, and perfectly acceptable, to call for investigations when suspicions of wrongdoing are found. I’m on record as recommending they ‘throw the book’ at anyone found guilty of charges against them, but only AFTER they are found guilty.

We currently have some in Watchblog actively calling for the impeachment of George Bush, despite the fact that no evidence has been gathered to support such an action. Cart before the horse……again.

I’m truly not against investigating misdeeds, but the way the “left” pronounces guilt before the evidence is even collected, much less reviewed, is simply amazing. Yet those on the “left” are typically the ones calling for more tolerance.

It appears they favor tolerance only when it benefits their interests.

Postscript: The term “left” is used generally to describe those on the liberal, Democratic, anti-Bush side of the scale. Readers are free to determine for themselves if they fit the criteria.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 10:12 AM
Comment #105443

Politics, of course. But good politics. This latest Bush outrage should bring America to attention. Demand accountability! Get rid of these criminals.

Posted by: cml at December 21, 2005 10:15 AM
Comment #105450

Dawn:
‘Clinton Appointees Meet Privately’
Sounds like a political move to me.”

Robertson was appointed to the federal bench by Clinton, but he was SELECTED by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court. That should prove that he was highly respected by both sides of the political isle.
Why must everything be viewed as one side or the other? Murtha was accused of politics too, and he had also been highly respected by both sides — until now. Is it so impossible to believe that a judge who understands the rule of law is simply angered and disgusted by the actions of this president?

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2005 10:29 AM
Comment #105452

joebagodonuts

I am constantly astounded by the “rights” unquestionable support of the republican party. Even if they break the law, the “right” say it is okay.

If a democrat had done this, you would be screaming “IMPEACH ‘EM” at the top of your lounges.

Personally I will wait to see if the Republicans will allow any hearing to take place and not hide behind their majority before passing judgement.

Posted by: Tom at December 21, 2005 10:30 AM
Comment #105457

—-
I’m continually surprised by the “left’s” willingness to play judge and jury without the trial. The “left” has convicted Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, Halliburton, Lewis Libbey, and Karl Rove, among others, without any trials, and in some cases (Lay) without even any charges having been brought.
—-

Ummm… from all of the discussions on going - we’re just deciding that these guys are guilty ass hell. Obviously, it’s up to the courts to make the legal on all of this… but with every person you’ve mentioned, you have to admit that they have acted inappropriately, if not down right illegally. I guess I’m just amazed at how far the REP party has had to go to support these people, when it seems like they should be the first to be demanding accountability and ethics from within their own party. (BTW - Halliburton has been convicted and fined on numerous occassions for fraud and mishandling of funds… when is enough enough?)

Posted by: tony at December 21, 2005 10:35 AM
Comment #105460

Joe,

I’m continually amazed at how far you are willing to bury your head in the sand to assert that there is no evidence implicating any of the people you mentioned. Despite your claims, there is plenty of evidence. In addition, there has also been evidence presented that attempts to exonerate those individuals. Reasonable people can look at both sides and form an opinion. It is not legally binding, it is not a trial. It is merely an opinion.

Heaven forbid people on the left should form or especially discuss an opinion, eh Joe?

Yet, despite your affinity for using Clinton in many of your posts, I see that you left him out here. There are many people here at Watchblog who continue to bring up so-called scandals like Whitewater and Travelgate, etc. despite the fact that those investigations led to nothing.

In fact, I don’t recall Clinton being tried and found guilty for perjury. Yet you, and virtually everyone else, assumes he was guilty. I don’t blame you for that. It’s a very reasonable opinion - yet it flies in the face of your argument.

We currently have some in Watchblog actively calling for the impeachment of George Bush, despite the fact that no evidence has been gathered to support such an action

To say that there is no evidence is just plain wrong. You may disagree with the evidence, think it isn’t enough to impeach, or even think that the evidence is false. But you can’t say it doesn’t exist or that people aren’t free to form an opinion on it.

Posted by: Burt at December 21, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #105468

Tony,

Bush already admitted he is spying on American citizens without warrants. He also said he is going to keep doing it. I think the only remaining argument is whether they can be convicted.

Tom, Burt,

The right is being besieged, they are wrong and they know it. So, they grab at straws and justify themselves like guiltridden 1st graders unable to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Eventually, unlike their master, most will develop and recognize their error, eventually admitting their mistakes. We should grant them amnesty for a limited period of time, after all, the internally corrosive nature of their vitriolic hypocracy should be enough punishment.

After the amnesty period, however, they should have to go to Gitmo and “not be tortured”

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 11:00 AM
Comment #105484

joebagodonuts,

“I’m continually surprised by the “left’s” willingness to play judge and jury without the trial. The “left” has convicted Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, Halliburton, Lewis Libbey, and Karl Rove, among others, without any trials, and in some cases (Lay) without even any charges having been brought.”

I was unaware the we were able to convict them. This truly is a joyous day. How much time did they get?
Delay an Abramoff will find a great deal of success in prison. they’d have an illegal cotraband operation running w/in a week.

I’d like to overturn the conviction of Haliburton and have Cheney do the entire sentence for his “Old” company in Abu Graib or Guantanamo.

Rove would definitely be someones B*@$h. Rove would be wearing “daisy dukes” and being traded for 3-4 cigarettes a pop.

If you have any trial footage, I’d love to have a copy. Imagine the most vile scumbags in U.S. government were tried and convicted and I missed it.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at December 21, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #105485

Now it’s completely clear why the surveillance program is nececcary. Should a judge like this guy have the final say in whether or not a terrorist can be put under surveillance? Or the elected president of the United States?

Posted by: sanger at December 21, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #105492

Now it’s completely clear why the surveillance program is nececcary. Should a judge like this guy have the final say in whether or not a terrorist can be put under surveillance? Or the elected president of the United States?

=================

my choice here is between a terrorist and a terrorist. I’ll pass.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 21, 2005 11:51 AM
Comment #105497

Joe,
Impeachment is a process which is much like a trial. We have the evidence; in this case Bush admitted he authorized the wire taps. The question is whether or not a law was violated. Opinions may vary and Bush & Co sure are trying to wiggle around the law, possibly with a valid loophole, but since there is evidence of a crime why shouldn’t the process of impeachment be started? If there is a valid loophole then he will triumph. Besides the deck is so weighted to his advantage, it is inconceivable that he would be found guilty.
I firmly believe in the Constitution and I do not see this falling under any executive authority, in fact I see these acts as violating the rights we have under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I’ve heard many people say that if you’re not doing anything wrong why worry? I worry because it is an incremental intrusion into our rights. What if it was decided that all newspaper articles needed to be approved, well would these same people say that as long as the article was truthful it’d get published? Who decides? There is a reason these things need to be conducted in an open environment, and though FISA warrants are still secretive they at least have the oversight of another branch of the government. A small but constitutionally necessary check on power.

Posted by: vague at December 21, 2005 12:00 PM
Comment #105499

First someone infers that Robertson is merely performing a political spectical at the cost of the Bush administration. Then they say that it’s okay to pre-judge the judge but not members of congress that have been indicted.

Some may see that inconsistency as funny, i see it as prolific.

Brushing aside all of the Rs and all of the Ds, we’re all just Americans (i assume). And as Americans we must support our President’s position in defending America from its enemies. However, as Americans we also must respect our Constitution and our laws, based on the Constitution. When the two priorities conflict is when we have this problem.

Ben Franklin said when you give up a little of one (liberty) for little bit of another (security) you deserve neither. It’s a little harsh but he’s got a point.

We cannot allow for Bush and company to ignore our stated laws. Without our rule of law, we are all just outlaws. There is no exception.

Let’s act as Americans. Regardless of R or D, this behavior is unacceptable and should be treated as such. Respect our laws and you’ll respect yourself.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 21, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #105501

Vague-

I agree. Impeach Bush. Cheney would make a much better President anyway….

Posted by: George in SC at December 21, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #105508

Sanger

The judge was part of a rubber stamp court that only rejected 10 of 10 thousand requests. The fact that Bush even thought this was too restrictive shows how over the deep-end he and his inner circle have become. You still trust Bush but the majority of Americans now see that he lied to us on the justification for the war and we don’t want this guy authorizing spying on Americans.

Bush has made the US the true evil empire as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He illegally invaded a country and under his leadership our CIA agents have kidnapped and detained and tortured innocent people for months on end, he fought to keep torture, and he is illegally spying on American citizens. Your blind support for his actions are not justified by the facts.

Posted by: RJacob at December 21, 2005 12:17 PM
Comment #105509

“Imagine the most vile scumbags in U.S. government were tried and convicted and I missed it”

You missed it?
Just go back and read the blue column archives.
They all have been tried and convicted with the lefts opinions and dreams.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 12:23 PM
Comment #105511

Burt:

I’ll allow you to hold me to MY words and actions, but certainly not the words and actions of others.

I’m continually amazed at how far you are willing to bury your head in the sand to assert that there is no evidence implicating any of the people you mentioned.

I said no such thing. Read what I wrote, not what you wanted it to say. I specifically stated that the “left” has convicted these people without any trials and in some cases without even any charges. Ask Richard Jewell how it feels to be publicly tried for a crime, before all the evidence is collected and before any trial occurs. Ask him whether any harm was done. You can say its just opinion, but its really more of an attempt to paint Bush in a negative way for political purposes. What’s worse is that I think you know it, but hide behind the ‘opinion’ line for safety.

In fact, I don’t recall Clinton being tried and found guilty for perjury. Yet you, and virtually everyone else, assumes he was guilty.

Again, that just isn’t true about me. Clinton was impeached on perjury grounds, but was not found guilty by Congress. He was found to have given false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process, and to have given “intentionally false deposition testimony” in the Paula Jones case, so we know that he was not truthful.

You see, Burt, I’m not assuming anything. I’m simply stating things factually. Clinton admitted not to perjury but to misleading the country. That is what I hold him guilty of.

You claim I bring up Clinton in many posts—if I do, then it is in historical context. I’ve often said, for instance, that the policy of regime change and pre-emptive military attack in regard to Iraq started during the Clinton presidency—and some might see that and use the “he’s blaming Clinton” talking point defense. But its just a historical fact. If it started in the Reagan presidency, I’d refer to that. Its just history, and if it happened from 1992-2000, then it occurred under Clinton’s presidency. Don’t assume there is any other meaning contained….that’s where you go wrong.

Lastly, you referred to the “no evidence” for impeachment and you are correct. I was talking about the NSA wiretaps, and should have said there is insufficient evidence to be talking impeachment. There are varying ways to look at this situation (I’ve listed some Democratic opinions in another thread to show that not everyone agrees the wiretapping is illegal), and at this point, there just isn’t evidence for impeachment.

As alwsys, I’ll wait for the information, rather than getting inflamed over things quickly. As a reminder, note how so many on the left got excited over the Dan Rather memos, only to find they were forgeries….and therefore there was no story there.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 12:34 PM
Comment #105513

Andre:

Read, think, seek to understand……then respond. It works so much better when you actually follow that progression.

You’ll note that I said the “left” wants to be judge and jury WITHOUT a trial, and they convict people. So obviously I did not use the term “convict” in the strictly narrow legal sense that you took it.

I hope not to have to resort to wasting time clearing up every obvious point for you. You’ll help me not have to do that by following the above adage: Read, think, seek to understand……then respond. FYI, the most important one is ‘think’. ;)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 12:41 PM
Comment #105515

“Imagine the most vile scumbags in U.S. government were tried and convicted and I missed it”

You missed it?
Just go back and read the blue column archives.
They all have been tried and convicted with the lefts opinions and dreams.

Posted by kctim at December 21, 2005 12:23 PM
==============================================
Ah, kc, you finally get it! BushCo does contain the most vile scumbags in this country. Add one more to the Blue column!

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #105524

John:
“And as Americans we must support our President’s position in defending America from its enemies.”

Yet certain Americans are no longer considered American, instead we are the enemy to this administration. Now that peaceful anti-war protestors (like myself), and even highschool kids are considered a threat by the Dept. of Homeland “Security” why should we support ANY of this administrations positions AT ALL?

These Neocons have no regard for our Constitution. Without a doubt, that makes them Americas enemy — just as much as Al Qaeda.

“Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
—Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #105526
Ask Richard Jewell how it feels to be publicly tried for a crime, before all the evidence is collected and before any trial occurs. Ask him whether any harm was done.

I refuse to accept your analogy because it is so hypocritical. Why don’t you ask Jose Padilla, an American citizen, if there was any harm done in being singled out as a terrorist and held without any rights for years on end, despite the fact that the government refused to even charge him with a crime, let alone give him a trial.

My personal opinion is that Padilla is probably a menace to society and should be locked up, but that would never prevent me from demanding that he receive his rights as an American citizen and receive a fair trial - as the “right”, the Bush administrations, and Bush apologists are so quick to do.

You can say its just opinion, but its really more of an attempt to paint Bush in a negative way for political purposes. What’s worse is that I think you know it, but hide behind the ‘opinion’ line for safety.

So you think that I belive that Delay, Rove, Lay, and Libby are great Americans who are getting a raw deal? Haha! You don’t know me very well my friend. I believe that they are due their day in court, and if they can beat their raps, so be it. But I don’t believe they are innocent yet proclaim otherwise in this forum. Nor do I think that you believe Bush has broken the law, but protest his innocence. Fair enough?

Clinton admitted not to perjury but to misleading the country. That is what I hold him guilty of.

I’ll have to take your word on this that you have never accused Clinton to be guilty of perjury. Any comment on the proof that Bush lied about the wiretaps in 2004? Do you hold him guilty of that, despite the fact that he hasn’t admitted to it, yet his words are a matter of public record?

Lastly, you referred to the “no evidence” for impeachment and you are correct. I was talking about the NSA wiretaps, and should have said there is insufficient evidence to be talking impeachment.

That’s your opinion. You have a right to it, and I have a right to disagree whether or not impeachement procedures ever move forward.


Posted by: Burt at December 21, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #105527

Adrienne:

i agree with your post.

Bush and company have certainly created an untenable position for true Americans; the true Americans that believe in our constitution and value the lifes that were put on the line to defend that constitution. To tell soldiers that they are defending a constitution that (bush) regards as an outdated piece of paper, is abhorrent behavior, bordering on pathological.

My comment about supporting a president’s position was a literary point of reference. The point being that only when the President supports its citizens will its citizens support their President.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 21, 2005 1:11 PM
Comment #105534

Burt:

So you think that I belive that Delay, Rove, Lay, and Libby are great Americans who are getting a raw deal?

Again, I never said that. I can’t stop you from trying to put words in my mouth, but I can and will take issue with it.

What I said was that the “left” has been willing to try them and convict them in the court of public opinion with no trial, no defense, and in some cases, no charges. I’ll refer to the Dan Rather episode as an example. When the memos Rather used as evidence were shown to be forgeries, Rather did not blink but said that even though the evidence he used to reach his conclusion was forged, his conclusions were correct.

Just imagine a trial where the prosecutor could say, “Yes your Honor, I know all my evidence has been shown to be faulty, but I just know the guy is guilty.” Okay, you might be able to imagine that…so now try to imagine the defendant is not a Republican.

My irritation is not that these guys are being investigated. Its the speed with which the “left” finds them guilty without even bothering to look at the evidence first. It shows the partisan nature of those who think that way.

And Burt, if you don’t think that way, then take no offense from my comments. They are directed at those who do.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #105538

Rather did not blink but said that even though the evidence he used to reach his conclusion was forged, his conclusions were correct… “Yes your Honor, I know all my evidence has been shown to be faulty, but I just know the guy is guilty.” Okay, you might be able to imagine that…so now try to imagine the defendant is not a Republican.

Posted by joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 01:37 PM
==============================================
Isn’t that what Bush and You are saying about Hussein being an immenent threat?

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 1:40 PM
Comment #105541

I found out an interesting fact from the “Daily Show” (you can learn everywhere.)

You guys who want to impeach Bush - you get Cheney. Are you happy. What if you get rid of Cheney too? You get Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. In case you don’t remember, he is the guy trying to sell the bridge.

You can’t win no matter what you do. Forget about it.

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #105542

I cannot imagine the President being unable to order a legal surveilance if all it takes is securing a warrant (even if it takes 48 hours).

If we don’t have enough information that identifies someone as a suspected terrorist or is a participant in a terrorist network any sooner than two days prior to the commitment of the act then we need to revisit our entire homeland sewcurity intentions.

The procedure for obtaining the warrant is unknown to me but if necessary there should be a person (or group of people) standing by at the ready to issue the warrant immediately when it is requested.

Posted by: steve smith at December 21, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #105544

The procedure for obtaining the warrant is unknown to me but if necessary there should be a person (or group of people) standing by at the ready to issue the warrant immediately when it is requested.

Posted by steve smith at December 21, 2005 01:43 PM
=================================================
There is. The FISA court.

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 1:46 PM
Comment #105547

impeach Bush - you get Cheney. … get rid of Cheney too? You get Senator Ted Stevens

Posted by Jack at December 21, 2005 01:43 PM ====================================

Jack,

The idea is that BushCO’s panties will be in such a buinch they won’t have the time or credibility to continue commiting the crimes they are now.

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 1:49 PM
Comment #105552

Dave

There you go again with that crimes word. The term is politics. In the case of Bush and Cheney, it is successful politics.

The test for law is conviction. The test for politics is election. The rest is just talk, speculation, inuendo etc. Under these two tests, what would you say about Bush and Cheney?

Posted by: Jack at December 21, 2005 1:57 PM
Comment #105555

>>I hope not to have to resort to wasting time clearing up every obvious point for you.>>I hope not to have to resort to wasting time clearing up every obvious point for you.

If you are unwilling to clarify a point that you purposely obfuscate, why bother writing at all?

I just read down through all the postings and yours are the only ones with questionable content.

Be clear or quit complaining…


Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2005 2:19 PM
Comment #105564

He’s the ONLY one not complaining.
Withhold judgment until you know the facts and don’t convict a person simply because of their political affiliation. Have absolute proof to support your case. Basically KNOW what the hell your talking about instead of just tossing out alot of BS to score political points.
That is all he is saying.
Its the only sensible thing posted to this topic so far.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 2:38 PM
Comment #105568

joebagodonuts,

“Read, think, seek to understand……then respond. It works so much better when you actually follow that progression.”

It was an attempt(try,endeavor, make an effort) at humor(temperment, faculty of saying or perceiving what excites amusement).
“I hope not to have to resort to wasting time clearing up every obvious point for you.”

When you start sounding pompous and whiney, I know I hit a nerve.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at December 21, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #105573

—-
Have absolute proof to support your case.
—-

That’s the Court’s job. Our job as citizens is to watch and judge our elected officials, and make those decisions in the voting booth.

How can anyone of a sound mind look over this administration’s track record and avoid assuming a certain amount of guilt based on consistency alone? I know Bush is a Republican… who cares?! The guy and the people he has put into office have either been found engaged in either very questionable activities or basic incompetence. Who cares about legal issues - go back and think on what he PROMISED us as he ran for office. Maybe there will be convictions down the road, maybe not, but I can’t see anyway you can look at his record and think that he did anything other than completely fail to keep his promises to the American Public.

(Or is his political persuasion preventing you from seeing these short comings?)

Posted by: tony at December 21, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #105581

In the case of Bush and Cheney, it is successful politics.

Posted by Jack at December 21, 2005 01:57 PM
===============================================
Nope, it’s criminal. Tough to prove, but criminal and treasonous in my opinion.
BTW: It was “succesful politics”. Now, it’s being seen for the vile sputum it is.

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 3:07 PM
Comment #105591

Jack-

Don’t know if you caught Rummy’s interview with O’Reilly (ooh that name burns over here).

Oh, I think it’s always been so. In World War - in the Civil War they just vilified Abraham Lincoln. George Washington was almost fired a couple of times. Think of, think of World War II and Franklin Roosevelt. I was alive and, and he was vilified, Franklin Roosevelt. People …

I don’t know. I just know that there’s nothing new about this. And, and Harry Truman was pounded over the Korean War and look at Lyndon Johnson on the Vietnam War. This is what happens in a war. It’s tough business and people die and our heart goes out to those wonderful people, but, by golly, if every time people started criticizing what’s going on and, and, and you stopped doing what you were doing and didn’t complete the task that’s got to be completed over there, our country would be a totally different place and our way of life would be totally different.

The term is indeed politics, and it is a very old sport. Even the criminalization of it isn’t new.

Posted by: George in SC at December 21, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #105597

“But by golly” ?
Rummy is an ignoramus. He’s the guy who said “I can’t imagine why would need more troops to keep the peace than win the war.”

Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 3:19 PM
Comment #105602

I thought this was interesting:

The Post said Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless National Security Agency surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants.

FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the NSA spying program, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring, the Post said.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #105605

John:
“My comment about supporting a president’s position was a literary point of reference.”

I knew that, John. I was just trying to make it clear that things are so contentious and upsidedown with this administration, that even the word “enemy” has actually become debateable.

“The point being that only when the President supports its citizens will its citizens support their President.”

Indeed.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”
—Thomas Jefferson

Jack:
“In the case of Bush and Cheney, it is successful politics.”

When our citizens are constantly at each others throats, their politics should not be considered successful — instead they are harmful.

“The test for law is conviction. The test for politics is election. The rest is just talk, speculation, inuendo etc. Under these two tests, what would you say about Bush and Cheney?”

First test: Not only has he admitted to an impeachable offense, but he is insisting that he will keep on committing that offense until we stop him.
Impeach. Then convict.

Second test: Highly questionable, I’d say.
In my state, Diebold machines have not been re-certified because they couldn’t meet the standards of NOT ONE of ten security requirements.

Dave, your comments — spot on.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2005 3:24 PM
Comment #105617

womanmarine,
That is very interesting. Do you remember the title of that Post article? I’d like to read the whole thing.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2005 3:38 PM
Comment #105619

“That’s the Court’s job. Our job as citizens is to watch and judge our elected officials, and make those decisions in the voting booth”

Yes, we must watch our elected officials, but how in the hell do you judge somebody fairly when you don’t know anything about the facts?

“How can anyone of a sound mind look over this administration’s track record and avoid assuming a certain amount of guilt based on consistency alone? I know Bush is a Republican… who cares?!”

Who cares? You do or you would not have already convicted him based simply on your “assumptions.”

“Who cares about legal issues”

Most Americans who arent trying to score political points do.

“(Or is his political persuasion preventing you from seeing these short comings?)”

Not at all.
I just refuse to let politically motived “assumptions” rule over facts.
I’ll make up my own mind. I dont need the likes of Dean or Pelosi to tell me what to think or do.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #105623

Adrienne:

Here

Hope I did the link right :)

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2005 3:45 PM
Comment #105633

whether or not a terrorist can be put under surveillance

Are they carrying little cards that say that they’re members of the terrorist party? Will FBI agents be planting those cards on them?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the terrorist party?
Let’s make a list of things that are American and Un-American, and set up a committee, what shall we call it, how about the American and Un-American Activities committee this time.

Adrienne, you hit a nerve when you mentioned Diebold, this site is very informative: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ .

Posted by: ray at December 21, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #105636

Gee…Lets wait for the courts to handle it.The same courts that annointed Bush presdent?The same courts the right are frantically trying to stack as we speak?
Saying there is no real evidence for these crimes reminds me of the blog about ID where one party stated there was no evidence for evolution.Just because one refuses to look at the evidence does not mean it is not there.

Posted by: Bill at December 21, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #105645

Bill
Then take the evidence to a major newspaper.
Bush will be impeached and we can be done with all this whining.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 4:25 PM
Comment #105658

So at what point are we allowed to start referring to them as criminals? ;)

Posted by: bystander at December 21, 2005 4:39 PM
Comment #105661

—-
Not at all.
I just refuse to let politically motived “assumptions” rule over facts.
I’ll make up my own mind. I dont need the likes of Dean or Pelosi to tell me what to think or do.
—-

Yet - you just ended you comment with a lame - politically motivated statement like this?

Sorry for trying to discuss this, I had no idea what kind of argument I was getting into.

Posted by: tony at December 21, 2005 4:43 PM
Comment #105664

Thanks womanmarine! Much appreciated.
ray — I do know about the good work the Blackbox.org folks have been doing. But thanks so much for putting up that link, not only because it’s really nice of you to share your info with me, but because it’s a great relief to know that others are keeping up on this issue! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #105669

We can’t have a special prosecutor, since Ken Starr made a complete mess out of that, but when I read the article about Abramoff, the word scapegoat, invented by William Tyndale 1494-1536, immediately came to mind.

I dont need the likes of Dean or Pelosi to tell me what to think or do.

How are they telling you what to think or do? Did they insert a chip in your brain?

Posted by: ray at December 21, 2005 4:59 PM
Comment #105670

tony
Yeah, kind of what was expected.
Ignore the hard part and start with the insults when you have nowhere else to go.

Trying to discuss it? Pretty weak attempt.
Just because everybody doesnt agree with you is no reason to take your ball and go home.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 5:01 PM
Comment #105673

“How are they telling you what to think or do? Did they insert a chip in your brain?”

Good one ray. lol, loved it!
No, no chip in my brain, but talking points are in abundant supply here.

Oh, a guy told me a guy told him that he read on the internet that Bush was going to put chips in everybody’s brain.
He assumed it was true so it must be.
Impeach now before the govt is controlling our every move!

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 5:05 PM
Comment #105682

kctim…

Yea - nobody else on the “LIBERAL” blog agrees with me. WHAAA WHAAA. Sheeesh. You attack the obvious as ‘politically motivated’ without coming up with a single fact or link to disprove what I said. Then you attack me as being ‘politically motivated’ and then lob political insults.

Sorry - but so far there’s not been much feed back to me other than ‘fluff.’

Look at the track record and tell me that you see no pattern… that the convictions and fines and indictments are irrelevant… or just hardball politics… It all sounds like desperate gasps for air.

Posted by: tony at December 21, 2005 5:16 PM
Comment #105703

“Look at the track record and tell me that you see no pattern… that the convictions and fines and indictments are irrelevant… or just hardball politics… It all sounds like desperate gasps for air”

I too see a pattern, but it dates back before Bush and continues today.
The convictions, fines and indictments are irrelevant only because WE have allowed them to be because of party before country.
The desperate gasps you speak are coming from our country, because its people have decided it is ok to convict or ignore based on assumption and not fact.
Disliking the president and demanding justice based on “facts” is a needed part of our REPUBLIC.
Hating the president because of his party and demanding impeachment based on assumptions is nothing but politics.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #105705

“You attack the obvious as ‘politically motivated’ without coming up with a single fact or link to disprove what I said”

Sorry, didn’t mean to miss this one.
Single fact or link for what? I’m not the one saying there is evidence, you guys are.
If there is evidence based on fact, not assumptions, to prove you are right, then by all means let the media know about it and proceed on with impeachment.
Have a blast with it for all I care.

All I am saying is that demanding justice without the facts is partisan behavior.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 5:50 PM
Comment #105706

kctim,

>>Then take the evidence to a major newspaper.
Bush will be impeached and we can be done with all this whining.

If he takes his evidence to the NYT, it will be quashed for three years, and if it goes to the Wash Post, there will be a two year hold. The deck is stacked, so blogs are it for now…

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2005 5:53 PM
Comment #105731

Gasp…Did someone accuse me of being partisan? Damn right I am. I have seen what the Republicans have done to the country since reconstruction.
Those critical of Howard dean have a point. A better spokesman would be Partick Henry. We cannot expect the neo-cons to get off their power just because they are voted out or convicted of criminal behavior. They are dangerious and will stop at nothing.

Posted by: Bill at December 21, 2005 6:32 PM
Comment #105747

Let’s see, 1. Illegal sying on Americans in the USA. 2. Secret prisons in Europe. 3. Prisoner abuse in Iraq. 4. Prisoner abuse in Guatamano, Cuba 5. Illegal transportation of prisoners over sovereign boundries. 6. Spying on college students at anti-Bush rally in Des Moines, Ia. 7.Identifying anyone who dissents as anti-American or unpatriotic. 8.Secret energy policy meetings. 9.Extremist nominees to the supreme court. 10. Paybacks to corporate interests who gave money to Bush campaign. Sounds like a fascist totalitarian regime to me.

Posted by: Marko at December 21, 2005 7:31 PM
Comment #105748

Some interesting numbers:

http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/SRC2005.pdf

Obviously there have been a number of proper applications to the FISA court since 9-11 so what could be different about those approved only by presidential order?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at December 21, 2005 7:35 PM
Comment #105763

Something I’ve discovered from my reading on this subject…
From 1979 until 2002 ALL FISA court surveillance requests had previously been granted. Every single one. Then for reasons known only to the FISA judges, four of this administrations surveillance requests were turned down. So, it seems that until this president, all the other requests had seemed legal and reasonable.
Therefore, it appears to me that Bushco decided that if they were going to recieve any kind of resistance from the FISA court over doing whatever it was they wanted to do, they’d simply circumvent the rule of law and discard the 4th Amendment.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2005 8:54 PM
Comment #105773

I bet there was discussion at 1600 about how FISA was acting unAmerican, so it was within their right to go it on their own.

Posted by: tony at December 21, 2005 9:48 PM
Comment #105776

Dude
“If he takes his evidence to the NYT, it will be quashed for three years, and if it goes to the Wash Post, there will be a two year hold”

Why? Is that when the next book is due out?

You could always email it to the DNC, moveon, michael moore etc…
Oh wait, Bush is spying on you so it would never get there, right?

Be for real. If ANYBODY has concrete evidence of criminal activity involving Bush, it would not be hard to get it into the media.

Blogs are it for now simply because everything you have is based on assumptions and anti-Republican opinions.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 10:06 PM
Comment #105794

KCTIM,
You are in some serious denial. The first answer from bushco; ” we needed to move Quickly” Oops! the FISA court will grant a warrant after the wiretap has been in place for 72 hrs. The next response; “Clinton did it too!” Oops! the executive order he signed specifically excluded american citizens.There are numerous other examples of their B.S. excuses. Now you say; “there’s no evidence!” This (incredibly arrogant) president admitted,in a speech, on NATIONAL TELEVISION, that he ordered warrantless wiretaps. The law REQUIRES a warrant. Even for the president. Even though he says the constitution allows it. It does not. There exists all the probable cause in the world to impeach this man. You’ll be hearing a lot more of this word in the coming weeks, as this issue gains “traction”. You will no dout be able to assuage your disappointment over this outcome by indulging in some more of those great drugs you must be taking. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!!

Posted by: Steve Miller at December 21, 2005 11:03 PM
Comment #105861

kctim,

Be for real. If ANYBODY has concrete evidence of criminal activity involving Bush, it would not be hard to get it into the media.

Blogs are it for now simply because everything you have is based on assumptions and anti-Republican opinions.

You haven’t been paying attention. There is plenty of evidence based on more than assumptions, it is being widely covered in the main stream media, and plenty of Republicans are pissed too and are calling for Congressional investigations.

Posted by: Burt at December 22, 2005 8:32 AM
Comment #105871

Adrienne:

Something I’ve discovered from my reading on this subject… From 1979 until 2002 ALL FISA court surveillance requests had previously been granted. Every single one. Then for reasons known only to the FISA judges, four of this administrations surveillance requests were turned down.

I think you have the year wrong, as the below information shows that in 2002, all 1228 applications were approved. You’d be correct about 2003.

I bring it up only for one reason though. Your position is that Bush circumvented FISA because FISA was denying his applications (the four you cited). But the claim is that Bush began his NSA wiretapping in 2001, and it would not be until 2003 (or even with your dates—2002) that FISA ever turned down an application. The dates don’t favor your argument as to why Bush would circumvent FISA.

I don’t know why he felt the need to go around FISA. I’ve asked for opinions and gotten precious few ideas. The question for me remains: If he could have gotten the same approvals and information from FISA, why would he circumvent FISA?


“During calendar year 2002, 1228 applications were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic surveillance and physical search….Accordingly, all 1228 applications presented to the Foreign Intelligene Surveillance Court in 2002 were approved.”
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2002rept.html

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 9:07 AM
Comment #105873

Joe -

I think everyone is just trying to make sense out of these actions. They seems to be rather ill-sighted… and could be a very dangerous legal situation for Bush. If you can get a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER surveillance begins, why would you even consider this route?

I have no ideas… seems kind of stupid to me.

Posted by: tony at December 22, 2005 9:24 AM
Comment #105898

Joe, Adrienne,

It appears a miracle has happened today.. You both agree the wiretaps by President Bush are illegal and illogical.
But, of course:
(1) JBOD continues to search for reasons to justify {but there is hope for him yet :-)} &
(2) Adrienne continues to search for the hidden and nefarious {someone else will have to critique, since I agree with her}

Happy Holidays to all…

Dave

Posted by: Dave at December 22, 2005 10:03 AM
Comment #105901

JBOD: Any feedback on this:

Rather did not blink but said that even though the evidence he used to reach his conclusion was forged, his conclusions were correct… “Yes your Honor, I know all my evidence has been shown to be faulty, but I just know the guy is guilty.” Okay, you might be able to imagine that…so now try to imagine the defendant is not a Republican.
Posted by joebagodonuts at December 21, 2005 01:37 PM
==============================================
Isn’t that what Bush and You are saying about Hussein being an immenent threat?
Posted by Dave at December 21, 2005 01:40 PM

Posted by: Dave at December 22, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #105947

Joe, guess I didn’t say it right, but that is what I meant. That from ‘79 all the way through ‘02 every single FISA request had been accepted. Starting in ‘03 they began turning them down.

“But the claim is that Bush began his NSA wiretapping in 2001, and it would not be until 2003 (or even with your dates—2002) that FISA ever turned down an application.”

Maybe because they knew the kind of wiretapping they wanted to do and were doing would never be approved by the FISA court?

“The dates don’t favor your argument as to why Bush would circumvent FISA.”

Yeah, its all very odd, but I still found it interesting that only with this president did that court ever turn down a request.

Nevertheless, he has admitted he decided to circumvent the court, and will continue to break the law in this manner.
As to why, I couldn’t guess. But after everything I’ve been reading about FISA, I honestly don’t feel he has a legal leg to stand on.

Dave — thanks! :^x

Posted by: Adrienne at December 22, 2005 11:14 AM
Comment #105957

Dave:

Joe,

You…agree the wiretaps by President Bush are illegal and illogical.

I have no idea how you could have read my post and come to the conclusion you did. I’d love it if you’d take the time to cite the statements I made that led you to that conclusion. It appears you simply read my words through the lens of your own feelings and then applied your viewpoint to the posting.

I said nothing about legality or illegality of the NSA wiretaps at all. I simply showed that Adrienne’s logic as to why Bush might have approved them was flawed due to the dates. Bush authorized the NSA wiretaps BEFORE FISA ever denied a wiretap, so how could the denials have been a factor in his thinking. Care to explain?

I also did not state that the NSA wiretaps were illogical. I questioned why Bush would bypass FISA if he could have simply gotten the wiretaps by going to FISA. My premise is that politicians will take the easiest of paths, the safest political path, and the path that allows them to accomplish their goals. FISA certainly was the easiest and safest of the paths, yet Bush went elsewhere. IFFF FISA would have given him the same information gathering ability as the NSA wiretaps, then what was Bush’s reason for taking a harder and more dangerous path?

Dave, in your apparently cursory reading of my post, you assume I think Bush is illogical. I don’t. I assume that he had his reasons, and I don’t yet fully know what they were. Once known, I’ll then evaluate them.

Regarding your Hussein comment, neither Bush nor I claimed Hussein was an imminent threat. Bush stated he did not want to wait UNTIL Hussein became an imminent threat. The ‘imminent threat’ argument is a great talking point, but nothing more.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 11:31 AM
Comment #105960
I don’t know why he felt the need to go around FISA. I’ve asked for opinions and gotten precious few ideas. The question for me remains: If he could have gotten the same approvals and information from FISA, why would he circumvent FISA?

Joe, this is the $64,000 question. Why in the world would the administration put its neck out on the line like this if they could have done surveillance just as quickly and effiiciently under the FISA court guidelines?

The only answer that I can come up with is that they wanted to spy on individuals who they felt the court would never approve the warrant for - even retroactively within the 72 hour grace period. Essentially, the only thing I can come up with is that they wanted to spy on American citizens that no reasonable person would be able to tie to Al Qaeda or terrorists.

You may think that is a cynical sugggestion, but if you can come up with a better one, I’m all ears.

At least we can agree that the administration’s argument that they needed this power to act more quickly than with the FISA court doesn’t hold water.

Posted by: Burt at December 22, 2005 11:33 AM
Comment #105967

Adrienne:

Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t taking exception to your dates, just trying to clarify them. I see now what you meant.

I’m not even disagreeing with you about your conclusions, because they are only guesses. That’s all we have right now as to motives for circumventing FISA.

There are legitimate questions about whether Bush has broken the law. I’ve seen comments from knowledgable people on both sides of the aisle that take differing viewpoints on the legality of his actions. Cass Sunstein for example is a law professor who generally leans left, and he has said that Bush did have the authority to approve the NSA wiretaps. As for me, I just dont yet know about the legality of them….but its clear to me that its not a cut and dried issue.

If his actions have indeed prevented another attack (and I’m not sure this is provable as true or false), then in a way I’m glad he has done it. I wouldn’t be favoring infringement of rights, but rather that I’m in favor of no attacks. In that event, I’d still say the legality issue needs to be determined. If he has done something illegal, then there are ramifications—that’s for a court to decide then.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 11:50 AM
Comment #106002

jbod,

I don’t know why he felt the need to go around FISA. I’ve asked for opinions and gotten precious few ideas. The question for me remains: If he could have gotten the same approvals and information from FISA, why would he circumvent FISA? Posted by joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 09:07 AM

I guess my fantasy in thinking you saw the light about the illogic/illegality for this one was based on my understanding that:
1 - “Few ideas why he would do such a thing” is generally applied when it doesn’t make sense.
2 - “circumvent a law” generally means “break a law via justification”

As for the other part:

Regarding your Hussein comment, neither Bush nor I claimed Hussein was an imminent threat. Bush stated he did not want to wait UNTIL Hussein became an imminent threat. The ‘imminent threat’ argument is a great talking point, but nothing more.
Posted by joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 11:31 AM
What the f*&k? “Until”! Holy LSD Batman, get the charcoal and life preserver! Your statement against Rather was: “Yes your Honor, I know all my evidence has been shown to be faulty, but I just know the guy is guilty.” That’s the same statement many make against Bush.

Posted by: Dave at December 22, 2005 12:21 PM
Comment #106023

Adrienne,

ur’ welcome, any time…(blush)

Posted by: Dave at December 22, 2005 12:39 PM
Comment #106086

Dave:

Thanks for showing me where your understanding was faulty. Circumvent CAN mean what you assumed it to mean, but it also means “To go around; bypass” or “To avoid or get around by artful maneuvering”. When you assumed you knew what definition I was using, that led to the misunderstanding.

Re the Hussein/Dan Rather comparison: Read UN resolution 1441, which details all the areas in which Hussein’s Iraq broke resolution after resolution. We won’t go back to arguing the war (yet again), but 1441 will show you a vast array of evidence against Hussein. None of it was incontrovertible or even in question. The only question was what to do about it.

With regard to Rather’s memos, that was the cornerstone piece of evidence he had for his story. Once that single piece of evidence crumbled, his entire story crumbled.

So in conclusion:
Rather——1 piece of evidence that was forged.

Hussein—-UN resolution 1441, which references 10 other resolutions, contains information from UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, information from the IAEA, declares that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations”, states that “Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure”, states that ” Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites”, mandates that ” the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq”, and said that Iraq “failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998.”

Your choice, Dave. Which case do YOU want to stand by?

Amd remember, we are NOT discussing the war here, or our divergent thoughts on it. The point you took exception to, and compared to Hussein and Bush, was my statement that Rather stuck with his story even after his evidence flew out the window. In the case of Hussein, despite the absence of WMDs, there is plenty of evidence. Go read 1441.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 2:10 PM
Comment #106099

Burt:

You might be correct in your assumption about Bush’s reasoning. Part of my thinking is that I don’t see a nefarious plot to undermine civil liberties here. I see someone trying to prevent terrorist activity. He may (or may not) have done something illegal in his attempts to prevent terrorism. But I don’t see it as a power grab for nefarious purposes.

The end doesn’t always justify the means, but in some cases it might. Its a bit of a tightrope. For instance, during the KKK days, the FBI infiltrated the Klan, and some agents ended up having to beat people up etc in order to maintain their cover. While loathesome, it also points out that without doing so, the FBI might never have broken the back of the Klan. I’d suggest that the end justified the means in that instance.

If an illegal wire tap prevented another 911, I think I’d be in favor of it, from a pragmatic approach.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #106163

jbod,

Let’s talk about congress’ resolution, the one Bush is legally bound to. He and many of his appolgists tend to disregard the UN, so there is little purpose in your referencing it as justification.
In the resolution, he was authorized to use force only if there was an “imminent threat”. Yet, you just said:

Regarding your Hussein comment, neither Bush nor I claimed Hussein was an imminent threat. Bush stated he did not want to wait UNTIL Hussein became an imminent threat. The ‘imminent threat’ argument is a great talking point, but nothing more.
Posted by joebagodonuts at December 22, 2005 11:31 AM
So you admit Bush broke the law by prosecuting a war where conditions for his authority were knowingly not met. His “evidence” was bogus, he knew it, we know he knew it, you know in your heart he knew it, yet, you still defend him. Why?

Posted by: Dave at December 22, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #106276

Joebago,

>>Dave, in your apparently cursory reading of my post, you assume I think Bush is illogical. I don’t. I assume that he had his reasons, and I don’t yet fully know what they were. Once known, I’ll then evaluate them.

If history repeats…you will NEVER fully know, because this squirmy president, the one who Repubs brag about being a stand-up guy, is not going to be up front about any of this. He will lie like a rug, cover his ass as if it were cold and stonewall all the way. If he is honest about it he will be impeached. For him, dishonesty is the prefered route, and swift boating is his moral position.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2005 7:44 PM
Comment #106355

I think when the real story comes out some purely
domestic surveillance will be found of news media
not sympathetic to the rights agenda. I mean why
monitor terrorists, a healthy fear of them has
served as a smokescreen for nearly 6 years of
misdirection and blatant untruths.

Posted by: tattooddude at December 22, 2005 11:39 PM
Comment #106533

Dave:

In the resolution, he was authorized to use force only if there was an “imminent threat”.

I can only assume you are referring to H. J. RES. 114 October 2, 2002 [Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

I’d appreciate if you would read through the resolution and find the phrase “imminent threat”. I’ll even provide a link to the document to make it easier for you. If you are referring perhaps to some other resolution, please provide the heading for such resolution.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

When you find it, please cut and paste the paragraph containing it in your next post to me, so that I can reference it properly. Thanks ;)

Since you didn’t comment on any of the other information I provided showing why your Rather/Hussein example is flawed, I can only guess that you’ve either lost interest in that topic or have agreed with my position. You made quite a shift to now talking about the Iraq war, which I specifically said was NOT the topic.

You’ll note that I brought up UN 1441 not to justify the war, but rather to compare the volume of evidence the US had against Hussein with the shabby single item that Rather had against Bush. (I recognize also that there was other Bush evidence, but not for Rather’s story. His story was specifically predicated on the memos….without that single piece of evidence, he had no story).

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 8:13 AM
Comment #106537

Marysdude:

Its quite possible that we will never know the full truth about a lot of things. Kennedy for instance was killed in ‘62 and there are still questions. There are questions about Viet Nam, WWII, Pearl Harbor, Iran/Contra, Whitewater, etc.

But in the absence of the evidence that you say will not be forthcoming, what choice do we have? Do you support the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ that our country is built on, or would you toss it aside when it suits you?

I support investigating this kind of issue, and determining first the legality or illegality of it. There are legitimate and intelligent folks from the left side of the political landscape who are saying the NSA wiretaps are legal. There are also legitimate and intelligent folks from various sides saying its illegal.

If its found to be illegal, then its pretty clear that Bush has broken the law, and should be held accountable by the courts. Such is the way our legal system works.

For the record, I’ve admitted that Bush lies. The reason I admit this is that ALL politicians lie, and Bush is a politician. You can apply my statement to Murtha, Kerry, Cheney, Pelosi, Hoyer, Hastert etc.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 8:26 AM
Comment #106592

jbod,

Again, we were discussiong your comment:

“Yes your Honor, I know all my evidence has been shown to be faulty, but I just know the guy is guilty.” That’s the same statement many make against Bush.
Even if we overlook the fact he lied,
even if we overlook the fact that he lied so he would not be legally accountable to the resolution authorizing force {Sec 3(a)(b)(1) and (2)},
even if we overlook the gross incompetence in which he prosecuted the war that he lied in order to start,
the fact is that the evidence he used was faulty and his protestations of “trust me, I know he was guilty” are hollow.
You belittle Rather who used flawed data to support the abundence of other data showing Bush is a chickenhawk who bailed on his guard duty (to paraphrase Rummy “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”).
You support Bush the chickenhawk even though he has fouled up this country for a generation at least, if not longer.
Why do you support a neurotic lazy incurious asshole led about by the evil twin traitors DickRove?

BTW, for marydudes reply; there is a difference between crafted “campaign promises” and political posturing and starting a war.

Posted by: Dave at December 23, 2005 9:58 AM
Comment #106630

Dave:

You’ve done a really nice job of trying to change the topic. You’ve done it skillfully so that some might not even note the change, but….you are dealing with me, and I’ve noted it, commented on it, and even requested you not do it before you went and did it. I said, and I quote:

“Amd remember, we are NOT discussing the war here, or our divergent thoughts on it. The point you took exception to, and compared to Hussein and Bush, was my statement that Rather stuck with his story even after his evidence flew out the window.”

You then have moved to discuss the war, the reasons for it etc. That is not the topic. The topic is that Rather had one single piece of evidence, while Bush had volumes against Hussein. Remember, the story of Bush being AWOL had already been vetted and told—-Rather’s story only news BECAUSE OF THE NEW EVIDENCE and when that solitary piece of evidence was shown to have been forged, his entire story went up in flames. .

Bush never made the argument that Rather made. Rather said that even though he had NO evidence, he still thought his story was accurate. Bush said that there are many reasons we went after Iraq (again, read 1441 for the list of reasons) and one of them, albeit a very primary one, was based on innaccurate information, and turned out to be wrong.

You have chosen to simply ignore all the other evidence I’ve provided, and its easy to see why. The rest of the evidence proves my point, so you can either acquiesce or ignore.

Dave, everyone around the world admits Saddam was guilty. The question is: Guilty of what? Bush said he is guilty of having WMD’s, breaking resolutions, not allowing access to inspectors, killing his own people, humanitarian issues, trying to assassinate a US President, genocide against the Kurds etc. The world agrees with all but one of those issues. Even Chirac from France agrees that Saddam was a bad guy who deserved to be removed, but simply not on the basis of WMDs.

So, Dave, you can continue to ignore the salient parts of my comments, but its plain to see that you are doing so. You have a wafer thin argument that is not standing up to scrutiny, so you want to change the focus to the war in general, which has been discussed ad nauseum. That is specifically why I chose not to discuss it, nor will I from this point forward. Should you choose to continue down that path, and ignore the original discussion, you may do so alone.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 11:12 AM
Comment #106646

Dave:

I also noticed that you ignored my request for you to provide the location of the phrase “imminent threat” in the US Congress’ resolution that Bush was legally bound to. You said, “In the resolution, he was authorized to use force only if there was an “imminent threat”.”

I’ve asked you to cut and paste the paragraph that contains that statement, so that we can all assess the context.

You have three options available to you: 1) Prove me wrong by supplying the paragraph containing your phrase, 2) Admit that it does not exist in the Congressional resolution, as you claimed, or 3) ignore it and hope its forgotten.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #106662


Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 11:30 AM

I hope he choses number three, as it is not material to anything. Do you doubt that Dubbya was a lax military man? Do you doubt that he, as a member of Americas’ well bred elite, he didn’t cheat on any part of the Guard that he found difficult or distasteful? What difference what Rather said or how he might have said it in court? Look at it pragmattically. Bush’s lies and incompetencies have muddied the water for all of us. No one any longer even remembers what Rather said. All the survivers remember what Dubbya did…

Posted by: Marysdude at December 23, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #106671

Marysdude:

You need to do more than a quick read of my posts, since you got the information wrong. The last two posts are on different topics—you seem to have missed that. You see, my last post had nothing to do with Bush’s military service, nor even to do with Dan Rather. It had only to do with Dave’s statement that I’ve said was incorrect. I’ve given him the opportunity to prove himself correct on it, if he so chooses.

Dude, the discussion is not about Bush or his military background. The discussion was on how Rather stuck with his story, even after his one piece of evidence in the story was proven false. That certainly is not good logic, and its definitely not good journalism.

I’ve said often that if the 2004 election were based solely on military service, I’d have voted for Kerry. Anyone voting on the same would of course have had to vote for Bob Dole over Bill Clinton for the same reasons. But military service thankfully isn’t the only issue.

I hope Ive been able to clarify for you the difference between my two posts. A quick read will sometimes cause confusion, while a thorough reading helps you to understand.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 12:02 PM
Comment #106706

Nice spin jbod. You must watch Handjoby and O’lielly, eh?
To begin, you are the one guilty of attempting to change the thread to your pet goats; “innocent until proven guilty”, “we don’t have enough evidence to impeach yet”, and “Saddam is guilty/bad/worse.” You’re the one who tried to change this into “Rather failed to prove it”. Too bad the thread is about why domestic warrantless wiretapping is illegal and that Bush admits it and says he’ll keep doing it anyway.
My points: Bush is a liar, has lied since he ducked and covered his DUI and bailout of the guard, he has and is lying about why we are at war, and has long since lost the right to the benefit of doubt in the court of public opinion. Your point… He’s the president and hasn’t been convicted yet.

As for imminent threat, it is not explicit in the 2002 resolution but your handlers never give you the full story.
2002 resolution, in addtion to {Sec 3(a)(b)(1) and (2)},:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

WAR POWERS RESOLUTION 1973
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (c)
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term “introduction of United States Armed Forces” includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

That term is used throughout the WPR. To “Get our of Jail” Bush had to “determine” among other things that (a) Iraq was responsible, at least in part, for 9/11, i.e. “an attack on the US” and (b) that we were about to be involved in military action with Iraq. These ‘determinations’ were based on lies, deny it all you want, but it’s just denials. But, even in the denial mind set your quote still haunts: “Yes your Honor, I know all my evidence has been shown to be faulty, but I just know the guy is guilty.” Heh…heh heh…heh

Posted by: Dave at December 23, 2005 12:53 PM
Comment #106724

Dave:

Its common knowledge that when you resort to namecalling, or the use of names like “handjoby” for hannity, that you’ve reached the end of your credibility. For your edification, I don’t subscribe to cable TV (I’m a cheapskate, according to my kids), so I’ve possibly seen Hannity and/or O’Reilly once or twice at most. But hey, your assumption allowed you to get a jab in, so despite the inaccuracy…..good job.

You might note as well that my comment about Rather was contained in a post to Burt, not you. You then picked up that comment and focused on it. You actually posted it twice (once on 12-21 at 1:40 and then again on 12-22 at 10:13). How funny is it that you now accuse me of changing the subject to Rather, when the facts show otherwise. Damn those pesky facts…damn them!!

Now, to your misapplication of the War Powers Act and its statement about imminent threat. You’ve read the phrase, but you failed to recognize that it is being used in a different context.

I’ll explain: Your initial use of the phrase “imminent threat” related to whether Iraq was an “imminent threat”. Section 8(c) of the War Powers Act is simply defining what the term “introduction of United States Armed Forces” means. If you look at Section 8(a), you’ll see that military forces can be used as long as there is “legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities”.

Regarding the wiretaps, I’ll say it one last time. There is no question that he authorized the wiretaps, and will continue to do so. The question is whether the wiretaps were illegal, and there is significant disagreement about this. Neither you nor I are qualified to make the legal arguments on it, unless you’ve somehow kept the fact that you are a lawyer experienced in US and international law secret from me.

Lastly, Dave, I’m off for a short Christmas trip and will be unavailable to read or respond to anything further you might choose to post. I require nothing else to offer as proof of my case; its all there for you to read. My best wishes to you and yours for a Merry Christmas.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 23, 2005 1:32 PM
Comment #106744

Whereever you got the skill, good spin. And, thanks for telling me what I said.
You’ll need to read the rest of the War Powers act to see where the requirements of when the use of force is allowed. Since the resolution in 2002 required him to meet the conditions of the WPR, those requirements in the WPR were a precondition to the authorization for the use of force.

As for the wiretaps, why should worry about if a lawyer can wiggle out a reason? The gov’t should be above repraoch in it’s actions, not always looking for a way out.

Anyway, we’re away for the weekend too, where I hope to enjoy my Chanukah, thanks; may you have a merry Xmas and a healthy happy and prosperous new year.

Posted by: Dave at December 23, 2005 2:05 PM
Post a comment