Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush's Lewinsky Moment

While the claim that “Bush lied” has been overused, here is one you can take to the bank:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

President Bush, April 20, 2004

Any comments?

Dubya often leaves himself some wiggle room, but this time there is none. Note the context of "chasing down terrorists". If it wasn't there, one might claim that there was an implicit exception for people with suspected or known terrorist connections. But he has cut off that possibility. Also note that he repeated himself for emphasis. He is lying.

Some of you are probably thinking: How can you compare this to Monica Lewinsky? That was just about a BJ! I agree.

Posted by Woody Mena at December 27, 2005 6:23 AM
Comments
Comment #107896

Pardon the redundant posts. I deleted them and they won’t go away.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 27, 2005 6:38 AM
Comment #107911

With Bill it wasn’t about the BJ or that he lied, it was about the fact Bill lied under oath.

Posted by: Winship at December 27, 2005 8:18 AM
Comment #107913

I would rather have Clinton lie under oath about sex than to have “W” lie at all about the wire taps.
Clinton’s lie merely hurt his personal credibility and possibly his marriage. It did not infringe on anyones civil liberties or privacy. “W” is stepping all over those things and thats a problem, whether he’s under oath or not.

Posted by: Bill at December 27, 2005 8:29 AM
Comment #107918

Some would argue that “lying” is just part of politics. Unfortunatley the spin machine is a reality of the system. The key is who is injured by the spin. Comparing Clinton’s lies to Bush’s is like comparing a “blow-gun” to an H-bomb! I’ll take the BJ situation any day over what’s going on now.

Posted by: Renobee at December 27, 2005 9:32 AM
Comment #107921

I would rather have Clinton lie under oath about sex than to have “W” lie at all about the wire taps.

Bush lied about using Echelon?

When?

I thought all this whinging was because he out-right said “Yes, I did it, and I’ll keep on doing it”

Posted by: Ynot at December 27, 2005 9:59 AM
Comment #107925

The wiretapping doesn’t bother me, so not telling the truth about it doesn’t bother me.

Let’s be a little clearer about what we mean. We are not talking about wiretapping conversations between Americans talking about what they watched on television last night. These are communications between Americans and people overseas (who we suspect of terrorism) or between non-American citizens in the U.S. and people overseas, or between people overseas whose commmunication happens to be routed through the U.S.

Our wiretap laws were set up to deal with ordinary crime or against state actors during the cold war. Communications have made national borders less important. (Anybody reading this not in the U.S.? Was it hard to get?) Terrorists can take advatage of the permutations in our rules.

It is always good to have a purposes principle. Why do you do what you do? Why to we regulate wiretaps? To preserve the privacy of innocent Americans, right? If that purpose is not being served, or has become impossible to do, don’t stick to the process that you created to do it.

Posted by: Jack at December 27, 2005 10:18 AM
Comment #107926

Ok, it seems as though you guys want to forget that Clinton did the same thing. He did! Ynot talked about the NSA’s “Echelon”; there’s also a time when Clinton used satellites to spy on white supremacist (american citizens in the US) after the Oklahoma bombings. Where were your pleas of injustice there?

Newsflash, if you did not get upset with Clinton for his “inherent” powers as a President, then don’t get on Bush when he uses the same inherent powers during his Presidency!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 10:26 AM
Comment #107927
We are not talking about wiretapping conversations between Americans talking about what they watched on television last night.

That seems to be true so far, but there’s no reason that this will remain true. Once the President decides that laws about wiretapping do not apply to him, how can we guarantee that internal surveillance will not expand?

We can’t.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2005 10:28 AM
Comment #107932

Clinton did the same thing.

So, you’re saying that because someone committed a crime and got away with it, then others can come along and do the same thing because it’s now legal? Would this work with any other crime? Say Mr.X robbed a bank 10 years ago and got away with it. So,Mr. Z comes along and robs that same bank, but he gets caught. He tells the arresting officer “But Mr.X did it!”

Is that a valid defense?

Posted by: isisbless at December 27, 2005 10:51 AM
Comment #107935

Hey, wait a minute. There was (is) wiretaping of everyday folks. It is reported that these guys are spying on outspoken groups like Earth First! or Greenpeace. And don’t think for a minute that won’t check out some of the authors of opinions written on pages such as this.

Posted by: DEL at December 27, 2005 11:04 AM
Comment #107936
Ok, it seems as though you guys want to forget that Clinton did the same thing. He did! Ynot talked about the NSA’s “Echelon”; there’s also a time when Clinton used satellites to spy on white supremacist (american citizens in the US) after the Oklahoma bombings. Where were your pleas of injustice there?

Boy, I’m so tired of the “Clinton did it too” arguments that always seem to miss the main point. We’re not talking about injustice, here, we’re talking about much more concrete concepts, illegal and unconstitutional. The use of spy satellites is legal in the same way that intercepting calls made on your cordless phones is legal (though intercepting calls made on your wired phones is not) because of a legal theory, “reasonable expectation of privacy”. I’m not a lawyer, if you’re really interested there are several sites where you can get an explanation. Basically it boils down to you’re outside where anyone can see you; if you don’t have the sense to take precautions, too bad.

What Clinton did, while morally reprehensible (or not, depending on your point of view) broke no laws and therefore did not violate his Oath of Office. What Bush is doing, admits he is doing, is proud of doing, and intends to keep on doing, does. There are several arguments in favor of the theory that he knew it was illegal when he did it, and decided to do it anyway, but I don’t have the time to go into them at the moment.

Posted by: nilajean at December 27, 2005 11:07 AM
Comment #107937

O.K. , I really have had enough of this… This is the United States of America. The leader of the free world is a blooming idiot… Has said that he launched a war on Iraq with faulty intelagence… OMG, Will you all stop raising cane about the smoke screen and look at this Man. If ANY Democrate did that, It would be a non issue, they would be impeached NOW ! In America that is how it should be, Ya’ll voted this Man into office, He works for you. Would you keep an employee that had such disregaurd to your company ? I think Not…an employee that lies, ransacks your property, listens to your private conversations, puts your Sons and Daughters at risk of death and torture. FIRE HIM. He is setting the stage for a Dictatorship, while ya’ll sit around complaining about B/J’s, Bush and cohorts are taking your country away… Wake up America !!

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 11:08 AM
Comment #107944

Isisbless,
“So, you’re saying that because someone committed a crime and got away with it, then others can come along and do the same thing because it’s now legal? Would this work with any other crime?”

Nilajean,
“Boy, I’m so tired of the “Clinton did it too” arguments that always seem to miss the main point. We’re not talking about injustice, here, we’re talking about much more concrete concepts, illegal and unconstitutional.”

No. Clinton with his wiretaps and Bush with his are both legal and constitutional. That’s what I’m saying. The point is that people are trying to ignore this fact and just “blame” Bush once again. It was eavesdropping on Al Qaeda calls to the US, come on folks! Stop politicizing this and thank the President for what he did; because we all know how the same people whining now would be complaining (and whining) about how the President didn’t use his powers to protect us.


Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 11:32 AM
Comment #107946

The problems I see first and foremost is the fact we are a people divided. When we stop thinking as liberals and conservatives. And start thinking as Americans then things might change. Both sides have good points but they get over shadowed by the stuff that get put in bills to make money for the few and not for all. Also we need to get rid and here is where I’ll get yelled at. The Lobbyists and special interest groups that throw money at congress and the senate. Just to get what they want. And most of the time they don’t want to help all Americans. If Americans don’t help Americans then Americans will cease to exist.

Posted by: Dan at December 27, 2005 11:34 AM
Comment #107949

If I’m not mistaken, King Bush could have had these tappings run through the secret court RETRO-ACTIVELY! Some are saying that he has gotten so imperious that he didn’t even think he needed to bother. BTW gypsyirishgirl right on sister.

Posted by: toochmerli at December 27, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #107950

Actually, what Bush is doing is not legal.

FISA

§ 1802.

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;



§1801
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(j) “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Posted by: isisbless at December 27, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #107951

Wow, setting up a dictatorship huh? Wow. That’s really gonna be a kicker. I’m glad some real level headed reason is finally coming to the forefront of today’s politics.

Anyways, the point over the Clinton administration is not about injustice at all, it is about reaction. What the right is saying is that noone denounced Clinton for his “intelligence gathering” concerning US Citizens, which was obviously just as illegal. So obviously, gypsyirishgirl’s arguement is out, perhaps the Democrat wouldn’t get fired.
It would however seem to say that firstly, a President can do a lot and not get fired for it (perhaps a felxibility of our system that allows for change) and secondly that perhaps if two presidents on different sides of the line have to resort to similar tactics to procur intelligence, then perhaps we should be looking at reforming our intelligence laws.
However, living abroad, and having increasingly liberal families I would not be suprised if I have personally been tapped. Now I haven’t seen any difference in my life, or that of my families. So Hitler and Stalin aren’t quite knocking yet, and let me tell you my family has said some pretty outrageous things in their day. My question is simply this… can I see a link to a NON-EDITORIAL/NON-OPINION based source that demonstrates a concrete link to arrests or blatant injustices concerning these “wiretaps.” I am certainly not saying that they do not exist, I simply want to see one.

Posted by: The BDB at December 27, 2005 11:46 AM
Comment #107952

can I see a link to a NON-EDITORIAL/NON-OPINION based source that demonstrates a concrete link to arrests or blatant injustices concerning these “wiretaps.”

Are you sure there is such a thing. :)

Posted by: isisbless at December 27, 2005 11:49 AM
Comment #107954

isisbless,

You see, that is the stupid part of our intelligence laws. In essense what that law is saying is that the President can circumvent the court system through the attorney general to get a wiretap, BUT US citizen’s private information cannot be accessed. SO, this leads us to believe that the President can authorize a wiretap between to foriegners legally? What happened to their civil liberties? Wait, we should have that right but not the right to tap our own citizens? Wait, I think the better reform should be no intelligence. If we want to go with this law’s train of thought, if Ms. US citizen is getting information on bombings from Mr. Terrorist, and we ‘wiretap’ we can “detain” Mr. Terrorist, but not Ms. US. Well is that really fair to Mr. Terrorist? Why doesn’t he have the right for a court order? Pardon the reference to the left’s rhetoric, but “just because he isn’t American should he really be deprived of his civil rights?”

I don’t mean to sound critical of your stance, but I do reiterate that the law needs reinterpretation. Communications are far to broad of a scope today to be subjected to laws created in the Seventies! Why are anti-gay laws being overturned? Because they were outdated and wrong! The same holds true here!

Posted by: The BDB at December 27, 2005 11:56 AM
Comment #107955

And Clinton followed the law by getting a court order. Bush did not.

Can we please get rid of that strawman and get on with the prosecution of the criminals?

Posted by: isisbless at December 27, 2005 11:56 AM
Comment #107956

isisbless,

HAHA, no no I don’t. But if it does exist, can we call it a belated Christmas gift to me?! Anyone, anyone? Heck, if it is small and perhaps not 100% legit, I’ll consider it a stocking stuffer.

Posted by: the BDB at December 27, 2005 11:59 AM
Comment #107957

But that is just a repost of what you said earlier. It doesn’t give any proof that that is not what Bush did, or that what Clinton did with that order was any less illegal in execution then what Bush has done. I disagree as much with Bush’s spying on Environmentalists as I do with Clinton’s spying on White Supremesists. Just because Clinton wrote it down doesn’t make it legal!

Posted by: The BDB at December 27, 2005 12:02 PM
Comment #107958

The BDB,

Our government can tap away as long as they get a court order, that’s the point. They do it all the time, legally. The thing is, if they’re allowed to do it without oversight then they can go overboard. Either party can get out of control with too much power. Bush could have gotten warrants, but he didn’t. Why not? Is he hiding something? I think that’s the real issue.

I agree that the laws need to be re-examined. But they’re still the laws right now.

Posted by: isisbless at December 27, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #107960
With Bill it wasn’t about the BJ or that he lied, it was about the fact Bill lied under oath.

Winship,

And Bush was and is under oath as well:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why do you think this oath is less important than the oath Clinton took and broke?

We are not talking about wiretapping conversations between Americans talking about what they watched on television last night.

Jack,

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

It was eavesdropping on Al Qaeda calls to the US, come on folks! Stop politicizing this and thank the President for what he did; because we all know how the same people whining now would be complaining (and whining) about how the President didn’t use his powers to protect us.

rahdigly,

Oh, yes, everyone thank Mr. President for protecting us from the Quakers,
college students, members of Concerned Citizens of Colorado, military recruitment protesters, and the other Americans on this list

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

“Bushie, you’re doing a helluva job…”

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 27, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #107959

Isisbless,
“FISA 1802”

Looks legal to me. Now, let’s look at what Jamie Gorelick said during the Clinton regime:

http://thinkprogress.org/gorelick-testimony/


“The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that the Fourth Amendment requires all searches to be reasonable, including those conducted for foreign intelligence purposes in the United States or against U.S. persons abroad. For the reasons I just mentioned, however, we believe that the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to such searches. We are satisfied, therefore, that Attorney General approval of foreign intelligence searches pursuant to the President’s delegation of authority in Executive order 12333 meets the requirements of the Constitution.”

“As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements. Nevertheless, I reiterate the Administration’s willingness to support appropriate legislation that does not restrict the President’s ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. We need to strike a balance that sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #107961
It did not infringe on anyones civil liberties or privacy.

Actually, Clinton did infringe on someone’s civil liberties. It was only the one person though. However, it is unfortunate that many supporters of Clinton seem so easy to throw Paula Jone’s rights to a fair trial out the door, ignoring her charges of sexual harassment, since it seems to them that sexual harassment or denying someone the right to a fair trial is inconsequential in the big scheme of things.

At what point does it become ok to start worrying about people’s civil liberties? 10 Amerians? 50? 5000? What is that magic number?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 12:07 PM
Comment #107963

The issues:
WARRANT or NO WARRANT (Constitution)
UNFORTUNATE or MATTER OF POLICY (Constitution)

BUSH is worse than NIXON or any other president in American history. NIXON had his own BRAIN and BUSH doesn’t care about the country, only his political capitol.

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 12:15 PM
Comment #107966

Rhinehold,

1 is the magic number. If Clinton illegally violated the civil liberties of 1 American then he broke his oath of office and the law and should have had to answer for it. Now let’s keep our eyes on what is happening now, and stop trying to divert attention to the past.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 27, 2005 12:21 PM
Comment #107968

Jay,

“Bushie, you’re doing a helluva job…”

Ahh, there you go, Jay. Even though your were being sarcastic, that still sounds better. Now, do the same for Clinton when he went after Aldrich Ames (remember him?!) and that will complete the balance…

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #107969

JayJay

Your article for the “Post” actually points up a problem with regulating. Data mining is a way to establish patterns to stop terrorists. When sifting the data, you are not sure whose data is included. Like the miner looking for gold is tons of sand, most of what they are sifting doesn’t matter. But you have to investigate before you know if you have to investigate. The world is just more complex than it used to be. If you are going to demand a warrant for each data mine, you can’t do data mining and you are throwing away one of the most useful tools we have to stop terrorism.

We are still living with yesterday’s paradigms. We are thinking of two people on the phone with a guy listening in on headphones. This is rarely what we are talking about today. Most of this is analysis of communications.

One paragraph from the article you gave us stood our for me:

“The growth of that transit traffic had become a major issue for the intelligence community, officials say, because it had not been fully addressed by 1970’s-era laws and regulations governing the N.S.A. Now that foreign calls were being routed through switches on American soil, some judges and law enforcement officials regarded eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of those decades-old restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance.”

This means if bin Laden in Pakistan calls Zarqawi in Iraq AND the call is switched in Los Angeles, we can’t listen without a warrant, according to some interpretations. Is that what you want? Because that might be what you get.

If we can get bin Laden to get a permit before he blows something up, maybe we can talk about getting a warrant before we listen in on his plans.

Posted by: Jack at December 27, 2005 12:35 PM
Comment #107971

This is exactly why we need checks and balances.

He broke the law. It is that simple.

But with a republican house, senate, court system, and executive nothing will be done about it. Nothing.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 27, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #107972

Rhinehold,

The magic number is one. He is the President of THE UNITED STATES, and his first priority is the people of this country — ALL people, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Christian, Muslim, Jew, liberal and conservative. This man has shown over and over again that the only people he cares for are Republicans and conservatives. The rest of us can go to hell.

Anyone who compares this to Clinton is excusing this behavior for reasons I cannot fathom. Looking to the past — making it all seem equal is nothing more than partisanship and protection of a party that has lost its way. The party first, the country second. There is no comparison — what Bush is doing goes against his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and therefore, the American people. He uses fear of terrorism to attempt to gain complete and total power for the executive branch with no disregard for what is legal. How can anyone not see that?

He BROKE the law! He ignored the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. He admitted it arrogantly and without conscience or concern for every single American whose civil liberties he spits on. Sometimes I’m just so appalled at his actions, but then I become dispirited and saddened by people that excuse it — anyone who puts America first before their political party would care about a healthy balance of power, the adherance to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to democracy and freedom.

Worst. President. Ever. Most dangerous man we ever elected and we will pay a high and mighty price for selling out our soul to him. We will lose much more than we ever lost on 9/11.

Posted by: Chris at December 27, 2005 12:41 PM
Comment #107974

Treehugger,


Prove what the President did was illegal. Prove it.


Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #107975

Tree hugger;

I wouldn’t start to teach special-ed in this thread if I were you :-)

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #107978

This is supposed to be a blog; people come here to debate. So, if someone makes a statement, like oh I don’t know “what Bush did was illegal”, then let them back it up.


There’s no need for the “special ed” comments…


rahdigly 4 liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 12:51 PM
Comment #107981

Prove it.

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 1:02 PM
Comment #107982

You have to look at the whole picture…then it gets scary…Simultaneously we are faced with our own government deliberately or inadvertently spying on U.S. citizens, kidnapping terror suspects and sending them for ‘questioning’ in special prisons, and operating all of this with money that does not appear in any official appropriations bill…all without any oversight, access to due process or sunlight for that matter…It is NOT unreasonable to start getting more than a little paranoid…There is absolutely NOTHING stopping special operations types from scooping any citizen up off the street and rendering/renditioning that person except FAITH! GEEEEZZZZEEEE! This is all starting to make Ollie North look like a mischevious boy scout! Come on…regardless of which way you lean…as Americans, we have to be concerned about the direction this is all taking.

Posted by: John at December 27, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #107988
rahdigly 4 liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 12:51 PM

Thank God for unbiased judges.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2005 1:11 PM
Comment #107989

John,

If you truly believe what you just stated, then I hope you will join me in the Libertarian party where we want to limit the size of government so that they do NOT have this type of power ever, not just when the people we don’t like are in office.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 1:13 PM
Comment #107992

can we pleeeeeeeeeeeeazzzzzzzze just impeach him now?!?!?!

Posted by: ? at December 27, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #107994

Hello when Clinton used wirtaps on the rightwing nuts he went to the secret court. That was following the law dunce. Bush and his brownshirt facists are out to steal our freedom while claiming to be for freedom in Iraq. Of course you clowns think Oh our brave President is protecting us. It must be ok to take some of our freedoms away, Patroit Act, and listen to Americans Phone calls. Now here is something no one has noticed. While this little dipshit in the White House is breaking the law over in Iraq we let top Saddam followers out of jail and allowed them to leave the country. Over 2100 Americans have died to get these killers and Bush lets them go. What up with that my little stupid rightwing buttholes?

Posted by: jack bishop at December 27, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #107995

Jack,

If the FISA laws are so outdated, then why did Bush not work with the congress to change those laws? The data mining that is happening is fine if it is within the law. If it isn’t then the President has an obligation under the Constitution to address his concerns with Congress, and recommend changes. Despite what the President and his “lawyers” believe, he does not have the authority under the Constitution to take it upon himself to change the law. He may very well have had good intentions, but that does not excuse him from the law or his obligations under the Constitution.

Article II, section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

It is ironic that this administration claims to have implied powers under Article II of the Constitution. Ironic because this is the same administration that opposes supposed “activist judges” that interpret the Constitution beyond what is actually written. Nowhere does the Constitution give the executive branch the power that the President claims he has as commander in chief. In fact if he followed the letter of the Constitution his authority would be greatly diminished. His own appointies to the Supreme Court, who he believes would follow the Constitution, would be forced to rule against him.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 27, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #107997

?,

“can we pleeeeeeeeeeeeazzzzzzzze just impeach him now?!?!?!”

Finally, someone that is being honest. We all know that this isn’t about legal/illegal or civil liberties, this is about impeaching the President. That’s all it’s about and I wish the Bush haters would step up and admit that.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 1:22 PM
Comment #108001

“this is about impeaching the President.”
No it’s not.
Prove it.

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 1:29 PM
Comment #108004

rahdigly,

I cannot speak for others but for me personally, this is about civil liberties. As I have said before if Clinton violated civil liberties while president then he violated his oath of office and should have had to answer for that. It is very scary that people would be so willing to give up on the principles that this country are founded, out of fear. Scary because history has shown us that democracies are not safe from facist dictators. History has also warned us that the greatest threat to our way of life doesn’t come from outside threats, it comes from within our own government.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 27, 2005 1:33 PM
Comment #108007

Chris
Dangerous, you bet your socks he is… And anyone denying that is a Bush robot, unable to use their God giving brain. I would love to know how they determine that a call is from a terrerist… is there a bell or whisle or red light that flickers ? OR does the NSA have to listen to random phone calls from YOUR freinds and family, only to GET LUCKY and stumble on a plot !! Come on people !! ding,ding use your brain… He’s spying on you all. While everyone sits around and compares a Good “President” working to make the lives of Americans better. This joker is getting away with crimes agaist you all. You all , even you rahdigly…
toochmerli~~~thanks
tree hugger~~~ good point

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #108013

Jay,
“As I have said before if Clinton violated civil liberties while president then he violated his oath of office and should have had to answer for that.”


My point has been that Clinton, and every other President before and after, didn’t “violate” civil liberties; what they did was constitutional and is their duty as executive branch for being responsible for foreign policy.


Are you telling me that you would be defending Bush had he not did what he did and the Brooklyn Bridge were attacked and it happened b/c Bush didn’t order wire tapping (in order not to infringe on civil liberties) or that he did get a warrant and it took to long. If that were the case, would you be defending the President, even though there was another attack and more Americans die, that at least he didn’t violate civil liberties. Would you defend him then? Be honest, Jay…

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 1:50 PM
Comment #108014
He’s spying on you all.

LOL, yeah, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be GOOD for goodness sake!

You act as if he has little better to do than to spy on YOU personally. YOU are that interesting.

Come on, I am no friend to encroachments on civil liberties but unfortunately we, as Americans, gave up those rights decades ago by trying to ‘go after the drug dealers and mobsters’ in the ever-ongoing ‘war on drugs’. It’s just a new war with a new name using the same old tactics. You can’t pick and choose when and where to allow infringements to occur, just because at one time it’s a president and/or cause you support and the next time it’s a president and/or cause you don’t support.

But beyone that we HAVE to dispense with the over-the-top rhetoric. It just serves no purpose.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #108020

BDB,
I never mentioned Clinton. So, your point of telling me the point about Clinton is a non point. Hitler and Stalin don’t have to come knocking at the door, We have Bush right at home…

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #108023

The message this president is sending is that he wants to blunt the power of the Judicial branch by ridding it of supposed “activist judges”, and removing thier power of oversight. He wants to blunt the power of the Legistative branch by taking Constitutional power away from them by way of twisting the meaning of Article II, and by ignoring the laws set by Congress. However, he wants to increase the powers of the Executive branch, to be able to set laws and opperate outside the Constitution. Folks, anyway you look at it, this is called a Dictatorship.

BTW: According to former Sen. Tom Daschle The President asked for war powers within the United States, but the Congress denied that request.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 27, 2005 2:03 PM
Comment #108024

Quick question. Who is worse, Al Qaeda or Bush?

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #108025

“we, as Americans, gave up those rights decades ago by trying to ‘go after the drug dealers and mobsters’ in the ever-ongoing ‘war on drugs’. ” Rhinehold

Speak for yourself. I’ve never advocated giving up the right of privacy, a primary protecter of which is the requirement for warrants. I’m not even happy about making warrants “roving” nor am I supporter of the so-called war-on-drugs. More wasted money and power-to-the-government.

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #108030

Good Grief,
While I enjoy your sence of humor, I never said he was “out for me”. What I said was that “they” the NSA had to listen to RANDOM phone calls… ie, yours and mine. Show me were that is legal. Aside from China…

“LOL, yeah, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be GOOD for goodness sake!”

You said it , not me…

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 2:10 PM
Comment #108031

rahdigly,

It was eavesdropping on Al Qaeda calls to the US, come on folks! Stop politicizing this and thank the President for what he did; because we all know how the same people whining now would be complaining (and whining) about how the President didn’t use his powers to protect us.
How naive can you get? I worked for almost 30 years in the telcommunications industry and I can tell you that unless you are tapping individual phone lines, then there is almost no way to assure that you are just grabbing conversations from “suspects” or calls coming into this country. If the news reports are correct and the Bush administration monitored calls from central rounting points in the network, then the Bush administration WAS listening to ALL the calls, inbound AND outbound, that went through the routing points. That means that they WERE listening to phone calls from EVERYONE. Furthermore, if the feds were also monitoring VoIP calls then they were also able to look at all IP protocol tranmissions. And that means monitoring everyone’s e-mails, too.

They see you when you’re sleeping
They know when you’re awake
They know if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 27, 2005 2:13 PM
Comment #108035

Elliott,

If what you say is true then that is likely the reason why Bushie went the route he did. He couldn’t possibly get a warrant to listen to everything and everyone so he just did it anyway.

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 2:16 PM
Comment #108037

That’s perfect. The two of you should get a room…

rahdigly 4 liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 2:20 PM
Comment #108041

LOL,
Oh, come on, can’t you do better than that ?

Besides read up… there is more than two of us trying to get you to use your head.

Common sense man…

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 2:25 PM
Comment #108043

gypsyirishgirl,

Don’t bother, unless you’re willing to teach special-ed here…

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 2:26 PM
Comment #108051

I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again, is there anything that Dear Leader could do any line he could cross that his supporters would say, “You know that might be going to far.” Outing a CIA agent is just politics. Torture is okie dokie. Katrina’s failed response? Katrina who? Spying on Americans without a warrant is just fine. I’m sure that if he declared Martial Law in the blue states we’d get, “Well Lincoln declared martial law!” I have a sneaking suspicion that said line does not exist.

Chantico 29 Pi 3.14159265 a Mole 6.022 x 1023
(posting random numbers makes me feel macho!)

Posted by: chantico at December 27, 2005 2:39 PM
Comment #108055

Both Bush and Clinton have abused the power of their office. In the current matter, it smells very bad because Bush is on record himself indicating that to do the wiretapping, you “first must get a court order”. He’s said this several times and many news outlets and shows have the tape of him speaking the words. Now, he reverses course and says he has the power to do this without going to the FISA court for a warrant. Why? Of the 10+ thousand requests for warrants only about 5 have been denied. The warrants have a 72 hours cycle on them whereby the administration can initiate the tap and then take 3 days to get to the FISA court. Please don’t tell me that it is a burden to get your facts together and appear before the FISA court within 3 days. Besides this fact, everyone including the judges on the FISA court know we are at war. They probably read the papers as well, and would give all haste to considering a request for a warrant.

To say that the administration doesn’t need to go to the FISA court because of inherent constitutional powers is a debatable discussion. There are good arguments that support his claim. To say on the other hand that they bypassed the court because of the undue burden and timing issues is a red herring.

This needs to be investigated with congressional hearings. It borders on a serious abuse of constitutional powers. Implicit powers do not give the President of the United States carte blanche to do what he wants, in particular when it comes to violating constitutional law and statutory law.

Posted by: dennis at December 27, 2005 2:48 PM
Comment #108057

rahdigly, your penchant for taking the discussion to the personal with comments like: “That’s perfect. The two of you should get a room…” are not in keeping with our policy. Please comply with our policy.

gypsyirishgirl, you comment deserves the same warning. Please comply with our policy or posting privileges here will be revoked.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at December 27, 2005 2:52 PM
Comment #108063

That’s it. Just like typical liberals to name call (without backing up the topics) and dodge debates; directly out of the liberal playbook. Nice. That’s ok though, just keep doing what liberals do best, b/c all that is doing is just showing everyone who you really are. Keep it up!

rahdigly 5 liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 2:57 PM
Comment #108066

Watchblog,

Sorry about that Watchblog; won’t happen again.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #108072

rahdigly,

That’s it. Just like typical liberals to name call (without backing up the topics) and dodge debates; directly out of the liberal playbook. Nice. That’s ok though, just keep doing what liberals do best, b/c all that is doing is just showing everyone who you really are. Keep it up!
Just who was that hate-filled diatribe aimed at?

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 27, 2005 3:08 PM
Comment #108074

Jay Jay, great posts!

Article recommendation for you, Lawnboy, Dave, Dennis and all the other level-headed folks posting here:
The Freewheeling Executive

Posted by: Adrienne at December 27, 2005 3:15 PM
Comment #108078

Elliott,

He can’t say, because that would be against “a messenger”, not against “the message”.

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #108086

Adrienne,

Thanks for link… As usual, a good site. I should get a copy of your bookmarks :-)

Apologies to all for the low road I’ve been taking today. I was feeling a bit upity after this weekend’s first ski trip of the season and no body damage too! (kind of a wierd mix of terminology?)

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 3:25 PM
Comment #108109

rahdigly, yes, I hate bush! I admit it. I dont hide it at all. I want him gone he’s a murderer as far as I’m concerned, and this isnt his first impeachable offense, and i wish the bush lovers would relize that. He’s an idiot!

Posted by: ? at December 27, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #108124

clinton lied about personal matters! bush lied and people have died!!

Posted by: jamie at December 27, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #108127

Do you guys remember the story about them wiretapping and monitoring the e-mails of people at the UN before the Iraq war? You may not actually, because I remember being frustrated (once again) at the time that papers in the UK were fully covering this story, while our press simply decided to totally ignore it.
Anyway, it’s being brought up frequently again in light of what they’ve been doing by wiretapping US citizens, so I thought I’d post a link to the story: Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war

Here is the text of the memo — check the date on this — it was sent out just four days after Hans Blix filed the Iraq weapons report with the U.N.:
Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members

By the way, the leaker of this memo to the media in both the UK and the US (even thought no one here reported on it) was arrested and charged with violating the UK Official Secrets Act. Her name is Katharine Tersea Gun, and she was a former translator for British intelligence. At the time of her arrest she claimed she leaked this memo because (in her own words):
“Any disclosures that may have been made were justified on the following grounds: because they exposed serious illegality and wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. Government who attempted to subvert our own security services and, to prevent wide-scale death and casualties among ordinary Iraqi people and UK forces in the course of an illegal war”.

What they were doing at that time was of course a precursor to what they are now doing to our own citizens. What they are doing now is a violation of the 4th Amendment and Article II of the Constitution, while this previous wiretapping was in direct violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which states:
“The receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes”
And:
“The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable.”

It seems perfectly clear that the Bush administration has NO LAWS they feel bound by — not international law, nor the laws of the United States of America. The rightwingers for some reason think this lawlessness makes the Neocons bold and fearless leaders, while to the rest of us this makes them a bunch of crooks who are behaving like dictators.
I believe that the hearings into this manner are going to prove that we are right and they are wrong. Until then, we’d better get used to hearing them say the same damn things they’ve been saying about us, and about everything highly questionable this administration has done thus far — that we are traitors and cowards to question anything they do, and that because these men hold the reins of power, they can and should be able do whatever they want, all in the name of “security”.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 27, 2005 4:20 PM
Comment #108128

I would rather have Bill lie about sex and under the table head than have George lie about WMD, wiretaps, his military service time, etc.

Posted by: roger at December 27, 2005 4:22 PM
Comment #108137

Roger,

So I have you on record as saying you don’t think Sexual Harassment is something we should be concerned about?

And the democratic party still convinces women that it cares about them and their causes. Amazing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #108139

Hmmmm:

I would rather have Bill lie about sex and under the table head than have George lie about WMD, wiretaps, his military service time, etc. Posted by roger at December 27, 2005 04:22 PM
Equals:
Roger, So I have you on record as saying you don’t think Sexual Harassment is something we should be concerned about? Posted by Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 04:32 PM
Welcome to neocon math 101. Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #108141

Rhinehold, does the word “consensual” not have meaning in this case?

As for Flowers, nothing was evidenced or provable. And a great many public officials are accused of a host of things which could potentially result in a windfall law suit. Without evidence, they can and should be dismissed. We do have a presumption of innocence at play still, for the most part, but, I admit, it is erording fast under this administration.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 27, 2005 4:42 PM
Comment #108143

Hmmm,

So, are you saying that you DO think that Sexual Harassment is a serious thing and that it was right that we went after Bill Clinton for violating Paula Jone’s right to a fair trial in her Sexual Harassment lawsuit against him?

Or are you just calling me a neocon (which I’m not, if you read what is being said by me you would see that I agree with much of what you said on the subject) because that’s the way you combat people who question your inane argument that this Bush issue is more important than the Clinton issue?

Because, they are both wrong and they both suck. And your defending Clinton while attacking Bush is IMO disgustingly partisan.

I’m genuinely curious of your answer. (unlike you who seem to want to make political points with straw man statements).

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 4:44 PM
Comment #108144

Roger,
“I would rather have Bill lie about sex and under the table head than have George lie about WMD, wiretaps, his military service time, etc.”

Well, we already know (for a fact) that Clinton lied about sex; we do not (I repeat DO NOT) have any facts that Bush lied about WMD. Show some proof.

Jamie,
“clinton lied about personal matters! bush lied and people have died!!”


The first WTC bombing, Mogadishu, Cobalt towers, Oklahoma bombings, US Embassy bombings, USS Cole; people died in all of those situations under Clinton’s watch. Clinton lied and people died as well. And, I’m not talking about personal matters either.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #108146

Sorry, David, but Clinton denied a woman her right to a fair trial by lying under oath about his sexual history. The fact that the court COULD bring into question his sexual history is because of a law that HE signed into effect, because he was the man elected into office to defend women’s issues…

I don’t see how anyone can defend that in any way. And yes, it was serious and I think put the cause of combatting sexual harassment back a few years. I also believe that it is part of the reason that teenage oral sex is on the rise in an alarming rate…

But, don’t mind me, go back to bashing Bush while defending Clinton, it’s the way things work…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 4:49 PM
Comment #108152

So, are you saying that you DO think that Sexual Harassment is a serious thing yes and that it was right that we went after Bill Clinton for violating Paula Jone’s right to a fair trial in her Sexual Harassment lawsuit against him? only partially (1)it could and should have waited until after his terms were over, there’s no legal requirement for him to have let it procede and (2)it did not meet the “high crimes” level the repubs whined about

Or are you just calling me a neocon no, but you exampled their vacuous logic in your post (which I’m not, if you read what is being said by me you would see that I agree with much of what you said on the subject) because that’s the way you combat people who question your inane argument that this Bush issue is more important than the Clinton issue?it was not to combat your argument, it was to highlight the empty foolishness of your post.

Because, they are both wrong and they both suck. And your defending Clinton while attacking Bush is IMO disgustingly partisan.I wasn’t defending Clinton’s libido or infidelity.

I’m genuinely curious of your answer. (unlike you who seem to want to make political points with straw man statements).Again, I was deriding your rhetoric, I have no interest in a debate on churlish excuses for Bush

Posted by Rhinehold at December 27, 2005 04:44 PM

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #108157

The “Clinmton did it” analogy has been so thoroughly debunked and those who continue to bring it up are nothing more than willing targets of another merchandise sale in the great Republican marketing scam!

Ignorance is easily overcome, it begins with one self constructive thought in a head full of Rush Limbaugh and a belly full of corporately manipulated televised horseshit!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at December 27, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #108161
rahdigly, yes, I hate bush! I admit it. I don’t hide it at all. I want him gone he’s a murderer as far as I’m concerned, and this isn’t his first impeachable offense, and i wish the bush lovers would relize that. He’s an idiot!

Well, let me just say that I want to thank you for being honest and having the fortitude to come forward and admit it; many make arguements against him, but they’re only doing it b/c the hate him and try to cover it up under the auspices of a comment, quip, or a belief.

With that said, I disagree with you 110%. I don’t think he’s an idiot nor do I believe he’s a murder. And, I wouldn’t consider myself a “Bush lover”, I just stick up for him when people say outlandish things about him. So, I’m a Bush lover. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 5:13 PM
Comment #108173

The “Clinton did it” analogy has been so thoroughly debunked and those who continue to bring it up are nothing more than willing targets of another merchandise sale in the great Republican marketing scam!

Really? Can you supply me a link to a site that “thoroughly debunked” it please?

I don’t suppose that both Echelon’s and Carnivore’s inceptions, 93 and 98 respectively, mean anything to you other than coincidence.

Posted by: Ynot at December 27, 2005 5:39 PM
Comment #108174

expatUSA_Indonesia,
Careful, when you make a valid point, this one (rahdigly) comes back with an unrelated, boring insult or one liner to throw everyone off…

Sound familar ?

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 5:41 PM
Comment #108175

If you want to talk about the past Regan committed outright Treason, in Iran Contra, a fact that History has now absolutely certified as accurate.

Bush, could and can get a secret domestic wiretap virtually carte blanc uner the law for anyone as long as he goes through the proper court. By deliberately and secretly bypassing that court and the law that created it, which by the way is not outdated and provides an avenue for all curent contingencies, he put himself above both Congress and the Courts in a clear violation of the Seperation of Powers. The only reasonable and credible explanation for his premeditated and unneccessary secrecy is that he knew what he was doing from the beginning was wrong and in violation of the Constitution and Law. If Bush is allowed to get by with this crime then every President after will be embolden to become more independent of the other governmental branches and the checks and balances of and liberty and freedom will be eliminated and there will be an Emperor of America thereby justifing Franklin’s fear that men who are not willing to die for freedom don’t deserve to be free. When a ranking US Senator, Trent Lott who says that he would rather be secure first then sort out the details later and the kind of posts on these discusions are accurate then America is already completely dead.

Are there no more Nathan Hales or are there only Benedict Arnolds or those other mopst insideous collaborators whose excuse is: “I was just following orders”. Every American’s from the higest in government to the least citizen first and most sacred obligation is to be true and loyal to the freedoms and liberties of the Constitution above all else. If that is not so then America will not and should not survive.

Posted by: RDM at December 27, 2005 5:43 PM
Comment #108177
Careful, when you make a valid point, this one (rahdigly) comes back with an unrelated, boring insult or one liner to throw everyone off…

gypsyirishgirl, you have been warned. If you do not stop the personal attacks and insults, your posting priveleges will be revoked.

rahdigly, the same goes for you.

This is your last warning. I did not build WatchBlog to be a place where uncilized debate and stupid partisan pissing matches and name-calling run rampant. If you want that kind of online community, you are welcome to go elsewhere.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at December 27, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #108178

Watchblog publisher:
It was never my intent to get into “stupid partisan pissing matches”. Nor, have I ever called anyone a name. I do apoligize if my manner is not befitting of the other nice people voicing their opinions.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 27, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #108179

rahdigly,
what outlandish thing are you referrring to? Bush is already well defended by the way.
?

Posted by: ? at December 27, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #108181
Show some proof.

We already provided what we have. You rejected it without “proving” that you’re right. When you let us know that you’re willing to accept evidence that you haven’t already rejected, we’ll give you more.

rahdigly 4 liberals 7
(A touchdown with an extra point passes up two safties)

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2005 6:47 PM
Comment #108182
there’s also a time when Clinton used satellites to spy on white supremacist (american citizens in the US) after the Oklahoma bombings

Do you have a source for this? I’d like to research it a bit more.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2005 6:53 PM
Comment #108186

So, Diogenies is still wandering about aimlessly.

And he has no chance at all in Washington.

Posted by: Rocky at December 27, 2005 7:26 PM
Comment #108196

Lawnboy,
“Do you have a source for this? I’d like to research it a bit more.”


Normally, I’d have you look it up yourself; however, this one is on me:


http://www.al.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-56/113466775732330.xml&storylist=national

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #108198

First off, it’s rahdigly 5 liberals 0; and it’s not a football game :O)


?,
“what outlandish thing are you referrring to? Bush is already well defended by the way.”


Oh, let me see, let’s try these for starters:
“Bush is a Nazi”; “Bush is a Tyrannt”; “He went to war for Oil”, “He went to war to avenge his daddies’ assassination attempt”; “Bush is Hitler” etc., ect.

Those to me are outlandish; and, I don’t hear the conservatives using those quotes, it’s mostly liberals that say that stuff.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 8:03 PM
Comment #108206

i see so you get offended and defend bush when coments like that are made.
hmmm
then heres a thought why dont you try restraining yourself from making outlandish comments twords liberals?

you: -1,000,000 liberals:100,000,000

Posted by: ? at December 27, 2005 8:58 PM
Comment #108207

rahdigly,

Actually, I found a reference right after I asked for it; I just had to do a very precise Google search.

So, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point it of bringing this up.

  • Are you saying that it’s ok for Bush to wiretap without warrants because Clinton authorizedthese photographs (perhaps with a warrant, perhaps not)?
  • Do you know if a warrant is required for such activity?
  • Are you saying that this proves Bush didn’t break the law?
  • Are you trying to say that we should be as upset about a 10-year old action (which might have been legal - nothing is claimed either way) by someone no longer in power and that we just learned about as we are about ongoing surveillance?
  • Are you trying to draw equivalence between wiretapping laws and spy satellite laws (I don’t know of any, do you)?
  • Are you trying to say that FISA applies to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (it doesn’t)?

In fact,

According to Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, members of the U.S. intelligence community can collect, retain and pass along information about U.S. companies or people only in certain cases.

Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the individual is fair game, as is information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific people or companies.

Incidentally, Wikipedia cites other recent “events” for which we use photo reconnassaince from classified space programs:

  • 9/11 aftermath - “After the September 11, 2001 attacks, NIMA partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey to survey the World Trade Center site and determine the extent of the destruction”
  • Olympic support - “In 2002, NIMA partnered with Federal organizations to provide geospatial assistance to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah”. They also helped shape the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece
  • Space Shuttle Columbia disaster - While the Space Shuttle Columbia was in orbit during STS-107, NIMA purportedly offered to image the shuttle and its suspected damage from falling debris during takeoff. NASA declined this offer, but has since forged an interagency agreement with NGA to collect imagery for all future space shuttle flights.
  • Hurricane Katrina - NGA is supporting Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. It “is providing geospatial information about the affected areas based on imagery from commercial and U.S. government satellites, and from airborne platforms, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government agencies”

I’m not saying I’m entirely comfortable with this use of satellites, but I can’t fathom the logic by which you bring it up. It doesn’t help Bush at all in the case of warrantless-wiretaps, to which completely different laws apply.

With two days left in the test match, Liberals lead rahdigly 355 to 169 with 58 overs.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2005 9:02 PM
Comment #108211

rahdigly, lawnboy and ?, knock it off! This kind of petty crap needs to stop. If you cannot have a civil debate with each other about the post’s topic, then please go elsewhere. Continuing to try and push each others’ hot buttons will not be tolerated.

No more “scoring” or “scores” or trying to label who is winning or not using some made-up numbers. This is not a game. No one wins.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at December 27, 2005 9:14 PM
Comment #108212

Clinton comparisons? I cannot just sit by and read these without responding. Clinton was the best president of my adult lifetime. There was plenty of work. Real wages actually went up. The budget was running a surplus. Because he had the courage to raise taxes on the wealthy marginally and cut an extremely bloated defense budget he was savagely attacked.

The first WTC bombers were caught, terrorists on their way to blow up LAX were caught. When he ordered the bombing of Al Queada camps, nearly killing Bin Laden, what was the response from the right? Wag the dog. Ha Ha we have a blue dress. Instead of supporting the president they spent all their time weakening him. Shame on them. And now they try to excuse Bush by saying Clinton did the same thing! Bush is not even in the same league.

Posted by: Bill at December 27, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #108216

Well said Bill!

Posted by: Dave at December 27, 2005 9:29 PM
Comment #108218

i apoligize, i let my temper get the better of me, and i will discontinue my coments.

Posted by: ? at December 27, 2005 9:50 PM
Comment #108219

I think this gets to the point of both major political parties. NO ethics, NO intigerity, NO honor.

Posted by: dave at December 27, 2005 9:52 PM
Comment #108222

Lawnboy,
“I’m not saying I’m entirely comfortable with this use of satellites, but I can’t fathom the logic by which you bring it up. It doesn’t help Bush at all in the case of warrantless-wiretaps, to which completely different laws apply.”


Here’s one of the quotes from the source I gave you:

“In the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma, according to a published report…U.S. officials typically rely on photo-reconnaissance satellites to gather intelligence from space on hostile governments and foreign terrorists. It would be unusual to use such a satellite domestically.”


If Bush couldn’t spy on US citizens, then Clinton couldn’t either. However, I’ve always made the case that both have the Authority to do it and the duty as a President they are responsible for foreign policy. They both used those means to go after terrorists and I have (absolutely) no problem with that.

If you want to cite law, here you go:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

“Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”“

“The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an “agent of a foreign power,” which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law’s procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, “FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.”“

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 10:05 PM
Comment #108227

The “well, Clinton did it too” argument is bogus. I stopped letting my kid get away with it when he was six years old. You right-wingers need to try arguments that work with adults, not children.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 27, 2005 11:14 PM
Comment #108228

rahdigly,

A quote from someone saying that the behavior is unusual is far from evidence that the behavior was illegal. It might have been (neither of us know and I haven’t seen expert analysis), but you haven’t proven it as you expect us to prove the concerns about Bush.

If Bush couldn’t spy on US citizens, then Clinton couldn’t either.

Completely different laws. Completely different legal situations.

As for the rest, you are presenting opinions on a completely unrelated issue. I’ll address those, but I’ll hope you’ll stop pounding the Clinton Spy history without some further basis, because it’s absolutely irrelevant.

Onto your other points, he joint resolution does not apply. First, in FISA §1811, Congress expressly contemplated warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared. The statute reads: “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”

So, a non-declaration Resolution is not sufficient to overrule FISA. The bottom line is that the language of the resolution, as passed by Congress, was broad enough to accommodate the gathering of militarily useful intelligence; to argue otherwise, would rob the term “all necessary means” of any meaningful content. (from constitutional scholar Robert Levy of the Federalist Society - see previous link)

Second, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review was reviewing cases involving foreign-only correspondence. Since we are discussing surveillance on U.S. citizens within the U.S., the decision of that court does not apply.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 27, 2005 11:19 PM
Comment #108232

Lawnboy,

You’re missing the point here. The white supremicists were American citizens and their civil liberties were violated when those satellites spied on them. I personally don’t care about white supremicist’s/terrorist’s rights and don’t think they should have any; whether they’re American born citizens or not. IMO, if you try to do harm to America, you’re finished and so are your liberties.

Now, I’ve read the posts where people say “the Clinton did it too” arguement. All I’m saying is that they both have the right to do it. And, they are not that different; they both involve domestic spying. In both cases, not only did the President have the Authority, they were both correct to put National Security first over terrorists rights.

You said I was citing “opinions”, well I used direct quotes from legal cases that proved my point. The Federal Appeals Courts (four of them) said the Prez has the (legal) Authority for warrantless searches.


It’s scary that after 9/11 any US President should have to defend their reasons for taking extreme measures on Al Qaeda and other “known” terrorists. People shouldn’t politicize issues like this; National Security is a serious issue.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 27, 2005 11:38 PM
Comment #108240

rah,

Your input:

>>All I’m saying is that they both have the right to do it.

Dubbya’s input:

>>Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
President Bush, April 20, 2004

Do you or don’t you agree with your President?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 28, 2005 12:16 AM
Comment #108244
The first WTC bombers were caught,

Mmm, some of the people who did the attack were, others were not (and successfully got away to live in Iraq until recently). It’s a perfect example of how those who did the planning and funding for the attack were not gone after and left free to continue plotting further attacks.

terrorists on their way to blow up LAX were caught.

Thankfully, by an alert airport worker. Not by any grand scheme or edict from Clinton, not by law enforcement tactics or even changes to an airport program. I will give Clinton credit when he deserves it but he deserves none of this event, it falls squarely on the shoulders of an alert individual.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2005 12:36 AM
Comment #108250

Bush has lied to the American people . He has us in debt so far we will never get it paid off. And it is China buying the U.S. a billion dollars,at a time Who do you think is loaning us the money and all the time building up their
armies.
Bush didn’t do his informatiom collecting the way it is set up by the United States Constition.
He didn’t do any of it legal.There for he should be impeached.And made to tell what he has been doing listening to me talking, to my daughter or you talking to your husband or your wife. He and Cheney got contracts in every place they had something mess up in their line of business of Haliburton and Co. That was illegal also.
You people that think he is so great have your heads in the sand ,and can’t see for fear, he is not our Savior, he is heading us into a dictatorship that won’t stop. he should never be allowed to change the laws of the United States Constition. Wake up out there people.This man is dangerious. It doesn’t matter if we get another Republicatian or a democrat for a new president, as long as they do they job of working for America, but when they start working for the oil companies they need to go.
Sue
Sue

Posted by: Suzieq at December 28, 2005 12:55 AM
Comment #108264
My point has been that Clinton, and every other President before and after, didn’t “violate” civil liberties; what they did was constitutional and is their duty as executive branch for being responsible for foreign policy.

rahdigly,

I disagree, warrantless survaillance on American citizens is a violation of the fourth amendment. I do not believe that the Constitution gives the duty of foriegn policy or national security to the Executive branch. Those duties are given expressly to the Legislative branch. It is the duty of the Executive branch to carry out the policies and laws enacted by Congress while upholding the Constitution.

Article I section 8. enumerates the responsibilities of Congress in matters of foreign policy and national security. These include:

The Congress shall have Power To… provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The foreign policy and national security duties of the Executive branch are defined in Article II and include:

…faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

…he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In other words, it is the responsibility of the Congress to set foreign policy, and the responsibility of the President to execute those policies. He is commander in chief of the armed forces but only when called into service, and only to execute the military goals of the Congress.

Are you telling me that you would be defending Bush had he not did what he did and the Brooklyn Bridge were attacked and it happened b/c Bush didn’t order wire tapping (in order not to infringe on civil liberties) or that he did get a warrant and it took to long.

The NSA should have been able to pick up on this plot from surveillance of foreign terrorists. Iyman Faris had contact with al Qaeda, those conversations should have been picked up through foreign surveillance, domestic surveillance should not have been needed, but if it was then enough reasonable cause would have been created to obtain a warrant. The FISA law allows the NSA to conduct emergency surveillance for 72 hours until they must either end the surveillance or obtain a warrant. Those first 72 hours should have provided enough reasonable cause to be issued a warrant. So why then was one not sought?

Domestic Spying: Moussaoui Case No Justification

If that were the case, would you be defending the President, even though there was another attack and more Americans die, that at least he didn’t violate civil liberties. Would you defend him then? Be honest, Jay

Honestly, no I would not defend him, but not because he did or didn’t conduct domestic spying, but because he has not worked with the Congress to secure or country, and in the case of border security he has actually worked against them. Most of the intel gathered from foreign sources should have been enough to show reasonable cause to obtain warrants against a U.S. citizen. If it is not, then yes, there is a problem that needs to be properly addressed. National security is more than just spying. We have a President that has fought tooth and nail on behalf of his corporate buddies to provide cheap labor, by keeping our borders wide open. As long as there are enough jobs available to justify allowing our borders to remain open over the threat to national security, then there should be zero people in this country on the welfare rolls.

Thankfully, by an alert airport worker. Not by any grand scheme or edict from Clinton, not by law enforcement tactics or even changes to an airport program. I will give Clinton credit when he deserves it but he deserves none of this event, it falls squarely on the shoulders of an alert individual.

Rhinehold,

This is a perfect example of the failing of the Bush administration on national security. A big piece of the national security puzzle rests with local authorities and the people on the frontline, Local law enforcement, airport security, etc., yet this administration has done little to give local officials the information or the tools to recognize and stop future terrorist attacks.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 28, 2005 1:51 AM
Comment #108268

Regardless of whether Clinton, and I believe he did, broke any laws, I still do not understand what that has to do with what Bush did. They both have broken the law.

Clinton may have even broken laws that we don’t and won’t know about. However as he is no LONGER President, and unless he is arrested and charged with breaking the law, it would appear arguing about what Clinton did is useless. It simply no longer matters what Clinton did or did not do.

It is now 2005 almost 2006. I find I am more concerned about today than what may\may not have happened 5-6 years ago.

We are, as a NATION, however are at a MAJOR cross-road regarding our current President. Do we allow more laws and rights to be threaten or broken , in order to keep our so-called freedoms,(which appears to me seems to be quickly disappearing) or do we stand up and express how we feel and do something about it?

It is entirely possible that Bush figured that since no one came down hard on Clinton, he thought he too could get away with crossing the line.

It is this reasoning that has me frightened. What’s to stop Bush or our next President (regardless of political leanings) from repeating or even adding to the violations of of the rights of the people. Between the Patriot ACT, the unfound WMD,wiretapping ,etc it would.

That was one of the MAIN REASONS for having checks and balances form of government. Our forefathers were concerned that if one side of the branch attempted to use powers that go over the other 2 branches, so they created some -one way is the impeachment. All of the branches are supposed to follow some type of control Both They both have broken the laws.

Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 28, 2005 1:59 AM
Comment #108278

>>Regardless of whether Clinton, and I believe he did, broke any laws>

He did not have the time to break laws…he was too busy trying to defend himself against zipper watchers.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 28, 2005 2:21 AM
Comment #108290

Rhinehold
As I recall it was an alert Bordor Patrol agent that made the arrest. The alert agent certainly deserves a great deal of credit, as does his boss at the time,President Clinton. The Border Patrol was placed on high alert and trained in what to look for by an administration with its eyes open.If your claim to be fair is true then Clinton deserves some credit from you.

Posted by: Bill at December 28, 2005 3:01 AM
Comment #108304

I’m going to make my point and run the risk of being “Politically Incorrect.” For those who say that the government wouldn’t waste their time “spying” on us based on our Bush-Bashing comments…you might be half right…it depends on your skin color. I consider myself to be a fearless individual but wouldn’t have the nerve to post anything negative about the Bush administration if I was not Caucasian. Fortunately, I’m lucky enough to be able to express that Bush is the most idiotic, arrogant, asshole we’ve EVER had in office. He’s too stupid to “know” the rules so he makes them up as he goes along. This wire-tapping BS has hurt more innocent people than it has helped…my heart goes out to those who are now “guilty until proven innocent.”

Posted by: FTL Lefty at December 28, 2005 3:47 AM
Comment #108306

I’m going to make my point and run the risk of being “Politically Incorrect.” For those who say that the government wouldn’t waste their time “spying” on us based on our Bush-Bashing comments…you might be half right…it depends on your skin color. I consider myself to be a fearless individual but wouldn’t have the nerve to post anything negative about the Bush administration if I was not Caucasian. Fortunately, I’m lucky enough to be able to express that Bush is the most idiotic, arrogant, asshole we’ve EVER had in office. He’s too stupid to “know” the rules so he makes them up as he goes along. This wire-tapping BS has hurt more innocent people than it has helped…my heart goes out to those who are now “guilty until proven innocent.”

Posted by: Stacie at December 28, 2005 3:48 AM
Comment #108333

The pres and ag’s arguments for the right to warrantless searches include :
That the AUMF provided statutory authority to warrantless search
that searches under AUMF by the CIC are are not criminal acts
that FISA limits CIC ART II authority
That FISA and Article II authority as CIC are in conflict
that FISA therefore is unconstitutional
That the pres as CIC therefore has plenary powers in time of war
But is FISA unconstitutional???
FISA limits CIC powers
AG cites HAmdi v Rumsfield which acknowledges that pres has CIC powers but the AG ignores the Fact that Hamdi says that the Pres cannot suspend Habeaus Corpus so has no plenary powers, and MUST OBEY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
and that pres acting as CIC is subject to congressional and judicial review.
Therefore the pres even acting as CIC must obey Federal and constitutional laws, which makes wiretapping and data-mining of US citizens without a warrant ILLEGAL

Posted by: synecdoche at December 28, 2005 5:24 AM
Comment #108353

I would advise all of you to use the following test when considering core issues that are so important to all of us: What if I’m wrong?
The Iraq war is a good and noble use of American power. But, what if I’m wrong?
The present leadership has the best interest of the American people at heart. But, what if I’m wrong?
We need to fight terrorists in Iraq or we will fight them here. But….
Deficits are good. But…..
Globalization is good. But….
The use of broad Presidential powers in the area of domestic spying is in the best interest of the American people. But…
The President is an idiot. But…
When the issues at hand are so monumental, the only way to determine if you are wrong is to study the issue by accessing the now incredibly available resources. But, I beg you to do it with my best interests in mind and that of my children, and my friends, and your friends…We have started down a road that has radically changed the way we act as a nation.
When I read and re-read the “Project for a New American Century” and watch the script unfold I have to ask, But what if they’re wrong?!
My conclusion is that they are not only wrong, but they are not following their own script competently. The ruthlessness and casual disregard for human suffering necessary to carry out a global pax americana is not within the framework of either our Constitution or the fabric of the American collective consciousness. The ‘good’ that we desperately seek to glean from the actions of our representatives both at home and abroad is being trumped by a new cold pragmatism that disguises a coldhearted vision that is not, I believe, shared by the vast majority of Americans. So, the motives are wrapped in the flag, national security, the global war on terror, mushroom clouds and a cascade of conflicting data, and muddled by a fourth estate that is so inundated by special interests that any report is suspect.
So, if you think a persistent, aggressive global military presence is a good thing; if you think that off-shoring, out-sourcing, free trade and gloabalization are good for all of us; and, if you think that staggering deficits are a good thing based on your level headed, independent research, all I ask you to do is ask yourself: but what if I’m wrong…
Your thoughts…and happy new year!

Posted by: John at December 28, 2005 9:00 AM
Comment #108354
You’re missing the point here. The white supremicists were American citizens and their civil liberties were violated when those satellites spied on them.

I know you want me to be missing the point, but your point is a distraction. You’re making an equivalence that doesn’t exist. Different laws applys to the the activities of wiretaps and satellite surveillance. A moral equivalence can be made, but a legal equivalence cannot.

I personally don’t care about white supremicist’s/terrorist’s rights and don’t think they should have any; whether they’re American born citizens or not. IMO, if you try to do harm to America, you’re finished and so are your liberties.

That may be your opinion, but it’s not the law.

Now, I’ve read the posts where people say “the Clinton did it too” arguement. All I’m saying is that they both have the right to do it.

And you are saying that based on faulty reasoning and moral equivalences that do not have legal merit.

And, they are not that different; they both involve domestic spying.

Just because two actions can be described similarly does not mean that the same law applies to both.

For example, it’s legal for me to pump my own gas. It’s illegal for my friend Melissa to pump her own gas. Why? Because she lives in Oregon, where all gas is full-service, by law.

Your argument is the same as saying that if it’s legal for me to pump gas, it’s legal for her to do it. It’s wrong because different laws apply.

In both cases, not only did the President have the Authority, they were both correct to put National Security first over terrorists rights.

It’s not just terrorist’s rights, it’s everyone’s rights.

You said I was citing “opinions”, well I used direct quotes from legal cases that proved my point. The Federal Appeals Courts (four of them) said the Prez has the (legal) Authority for warrantless searches.

The decision does not apply. It said that the President has such authority for foreign citizens outside the U.S. That’s what the case was about. It’s possible that a court would find it a suitable precedent for this situation, but it’s doubtful. Treating them as equivalent when the distinction has been pointed out is deceitful.

It’s scary that after 9/11 any US President should have to defend their reasons for taking extreme measures on Al Qaeda and other “known” terrorists. People shouldn’t politicize issues like this; National Security is a serious issue.

It’s scary that after Watergate any American citizen should have to defend their reasons for expecting the President not to break the law; civil liberties are a serious issue.

It’s not scary that the President has to defend himself; it’s the law. And the defense isn’t that hard; within 72 hours of the start of the wiretapping, get a warrant (only 5 of over 10,000 such requests have ever been denied, so it’s not even that hard to do).

Further, there’s no evidence that the President’s decision not to get warrants (in possible violation of the law) improved national security in the slightest. Since there are 72 hours to get the warrant, there’s nothing to stop the investigation if there’s an immediate need. The only thig that Bush’s choice did was reduce his accountability to the American people.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 28, 2005 9:01 AM
Comment #108359
.you might be half right…it depends on your skin color. I consider myself to be a fearless individual but wouldn’t have the nerve to post anything negative about the Bush administration if I was not Caucasian

This is one of the most ignorant and stupid comments I’ve ever seen. Unless you can provide a single shred of evidence to back up this claim I can only conclude that you are a racist idiot bent on driving a wedge between the races for political gain. Just like Charlie Manson or many current politicians.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 28, 2005 9:34 AM
Comment #108374

The President of the United States is spying on you. So? September the 11th. Do you have anything to hide? What are you really downloading on the Internet? Why did you check that treasonous liberal book out of the library? Why did you buy that immoral, lustful present? As a business owner, how could you sell your services to a person who knew a person, who knew a person, who may have contributed money to an Islamic foundation that may or may not send funds to an organization that may or may not be terrorist related? How could you? Thank God the President of the United States authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept all of your phone calls and Internet activity. I feel safer. September the 11th.

I certainly don’t have anything to hide. September the 11th. I’ve never done anything wrong, immoral, embarrassing, or even slightly sinful. So I have nothing to worry about. September the 11th. I feel privileged that the President is spying on me. It’s like he’s taken an interest in me, he’s watching over me. It makes me feel safe knowing that no matter what I do, wherever I go, no matter how private the setting, the President is watching me. September the 11th.

I have written to my congressmen, Republican Mike Oxley, to suggest that we expand this spying program to include all domestic activity as well. I asked him to propose a bill that will place video cameras or web cam in every bedroom in America. This way we can be sure that Terrorists aren’t hiding there. September the 11th. Eventually this program can be expanded to provide cameras in every part of our homes. Especially bathrooms, terrorist love to hide in bathrooms.

Next, every phone call made by every American should be recorded and analyzed for any potential terrorist activity. September the 11th. The bonus is, that since we already have the information, it would be criminal not to scrutinize these phone calls for possible murders, robberies, tax evasion, adultery, dissenting political views, or any crime at all. If you are a law (September the 11th) abiding, god fearing, moral, upstanding citizen you should support these laws and especially the President. To criticize the President in a time of war is treasonous. September the 11th.

Even if the war on terror is predicted to last a minimum of 100 years, what is a century of surrendering and forfeiting our namby-pamby bleeding heart liberal civil liberties compared with the patriotic, valiant, true American conservative vision of the future? September the 11th. No Taxes for corporations, no regulation, no pensions, no welfare, no social security, no Medicaid, a camera in every bedroom, a listener on every phone call, a national religion, and an indictment of treason, punishable by death for any dissenting opinion, accusation, or question. Especially liberals. Liberals will be guilty until proven innocent. We do not torture. September the 11th. Mission Accomplished. We’re doing a Heckuva job. We’re turning the corner, they’re in their last throes. Freedom is on the march. September the 11th. Osama Bin Ladin? I don’t really think about him, he doesn’t really concern me.
In conclusion: September the 11th. And God Bless America.

Posted by: Ofao at December 28, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #108393

The color of ones skin ?

Lets be real here, I do not like Bush or his politics. As for Katrina, were do I start, lets start with the fact that it was a catagory FIVE storm. All the levys were broke, the roads washed away, there was no way In !!! White, Black or Purple help arrived as quikly as it could !! Now maybe we can stick to REAL issues and not make some up as we go…

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at December 28, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #108434

—-
With Bill it wasn’t about the BJ or that he lied, it was about the fact Bill lied under oath.
—-

Wow. I want Bush’s job. Screw up - lie - doesn’t matter. 40% of the population will let you slide - even make arguments to help excuse your actions simply because they are from your party. Proof positive that we no longer see things as American, only politics.

These colors never run… what a bunch of crap!

Posted by: tony at December 28, 2005 12:24 PM
Comment #108456

Errr ahhhh ummmm Rut-row….!!!!

Oh ahh ah…Hi W!

How’s it going? Didn’t expect to see you here….I I I…came across this Evil Liberal blog thing by accident while I was looking for some a a a good Neo-Con sites to ah ah ahhhhh indoctrinate my small children. You know how idle minds can go to waste.
What? No, I certainly did not mean you, I was talking about MY dim wit kids!!!!

Keep up the GREAT work! You are the greatest President ever!!!!!!!! Everything you are doing is perfect and the whole world loves you.

Gotta run now!!!!

Did I say you were the greatest?!!!

Bye

Posted by: Spacefly at December 28, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #108600

Rhinehold

I just can’t let that Paula Jones red herring go without snuffing it out. Well before Clinton’s persecution by the Starr Chamber,
the judge in the Paula Jones case had ruled that his testimony regarding Monica Lewinsky was not relevant to the case. Therefore, his lying about it had no (as in zero) impact on Paula Jones’s or anyone elses rights as a citizen. So just shut up, will ya.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 28, 2005 5:08 PM
Comment #108657

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Just like all of the other big news worthy items to come out of this war on terror.
I will wait to see the out come, however, Abu
Grab when the story broke we heard the administration say it wasn’t happening. Then, well it is a very small group and only in Abu Grab. Then it was well it is happening more than we thought at other locations too, but we are on top of it and will punish anyone who was involved.
Abu Grab wound up being much bigger than oringinally known by us or admitted by the president.

My guess is here, that over the next few months, this will get much bigger in scope than we currently think or know. We know he didn’t obtain the warrants. I think we will find out that he also authorized spying on US citizens. I will bet we will find out he spied a number of groups that aren’t any part of a foriegn terrorist group.

As my old college football coach used to say after every game, win or lose. “Things are never quite as bad as they seem, but things are never quite as good as they seem either.”

Posted by: Rusty at December 28, 2005 7:15 PM
Comment #108663

Hi all,

Sorry I haven’t had time to reply to comments. I’m glad that people care enough to argue about it. A few thoughts:

-I really wish I hadn’t mentioned Bill Clinton. Whether Bush is worse than Clinton is really beside that point. As your mother told you, two wrongs don’t make a right. It is sort of like someone gets beat up by a Democrat and raped by a Republican and says, “That wasn’t so bad…”

-At least one person (Jack) said it is not a big deal that the President lied (even about a serious national security issue in this case). The problem is how do you know when the lies stop? For example, Bush says that he hasn’t been tapping domestic calls without a warrant. How do we knew this is true? If it came out that this was another lie, would his apologists argue that it was an another acceptable lie because it kept the terrorists in the dark? Once you fall down the rabbit hole it is hard to get back out.

-The defense of the action bothers me more than the act itself. The logic seems to be that once we are “at war” the president can basically do whatever he sees fit to fight the war. This is the logic of tyranny. The fact that the present war is vague and apparently destined to go on for my natural lifetime makes it all the worse.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 28, 2005 8:14 PM
Comment #108754
the judge in the Paula Jones case had ruled that his testimony regarding Monica Lewinsky was not relevant to the case. Therefore, his lying about it had no (as in zero) impact on Paula Jones’s or anyone elses rights as a citizen

Woah…

It was not ruled as irrelevant until AFTER he lied. When he lied he was attempting to circumvent her rights to a fair trial. And he stil lied under oath.

Your agrument is like saying that even though you were drunk and driving and got into an accident that wasn’t your fault, you weren’t guilty of a DUI.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 29, 2005 12:17 AM
Comment #108788

Bush did this Clinton did that.Big friggen deal.You know what, all of you, we’re in trouble. Every one of us. The world does not respect us anymore. We have no credability, no respect. We don’t have anything that can’t be obtained from somewhere else. We have no money. Our whole economy is on credit. If our debt is called, we’re done. We use 3/4 more of the worlds resources than population dictates. Does anyone here……..does anyone here….think that we can sustain that? Comeon, we cannot keep any of this up. And to all of the neysayers and rightwing neocons, let me tell you that all of the money in the world will not protect u from polluted water and air. Tainted fruit and vegetables. Sick poultry, beef and farmed fish. Just do the math. You have to know that global warming is here to stay, weather it is our fault or not. You can run, but there will be nowhere to hide. You can’t buy your way out of this one. So, Bush/Cheney supporters, drill it all, dig it out, and flush it into your ‘bottled water’ supply. As long as you enjoy it now.I’m sure your your kids and grand children will be fine.

Posted by: Del at December 29, 2005 1:53 AM
Comment #108877

Everyone here continues to focus in the wiretap issue. If we have another 9-11 in this country, will you blame Bush for not knowing about it if he discontinues his wiretap policy? If we do not do surveillance, how do we know what are threats are? What would you do?

Posted by: tbone at December 29, 2005 9:09 AM
Comment #108959
will you blame Bush for not knowing about it if he discontinues his wiretap policy? If we do not do surveillance, how do we know what are threats are?

This is a straw man. No one is saying that the government shouldn’t be able to continue surveillance. What we are saying is that he should work within the law and get warrants for the wiretaps. Since only 5 of more than 10,000 warrants have been denied, and since the warrant can be requested after the wiretaps start, it’s not an undue burden.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 29, 2005 1:41 PM
Comment #108985

The key issue at stake here is the blatant disregard for the law and the US Constitution by this President. The words are that he has up to 72 hours to apply for a warrant to wiretap, he chose not to do so. That is in direct violation of the law which specifically calls for a warrnt to be issued even up to 72 hours after the fact. The whole basis of this country is supposed to be the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Those documents are where the rights that our politicians have emante from, and they are documents about our rights as enumerated within their passages. Among the most basic is the right to life, liberty and the pursiuit of happiness. Just because a warlike atmosphere surrounds our country is still no justification for suspending or dispensing with this rights. Our forefathers fought and died to ensure that we would have personal freedom and individual rights. Who cares if you are Republican or Democrat-this is a matter of National Pride and Integrity that transcends political barriers.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Posted by: John at December 29, 2005 3:44 PM
Comment #109041

the verdict is still out on whether the administration wiretapped on american citizens. i have been told, tho i can not verify it at this time tho, that illegal wiretaps were ordered on domestic groups. if that is true there would be every reason to beleive that individuals had been wiretapped. this will play out and we’ll see.

as far as wiretapping is concerned, the administration can start wiretaps immediately and have 72 hours to obtain a court order. the court orders have been rubber stamped, so why bypass the courts unless, perhaps, you are doing wiretaps that are blantantly against the law, in which case they wouldn’t be rubber stamped. the i ordered it, i did it on numerous occasions and i’m going to continue to do it sounds like imperial hubris to me.

why do some of you keep bringing clinton up? what has he to do with what bush is doing? that clinton did it so bush can do it is nonsense. that is not a valid argument. cain slew able therefore…..


Posted by: ec at December 29, 2005 8:56 PM
Comment #109652


10/29/2005 - The American Hero

“Working Class Hero”

“As soon as you’re born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be”

“They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you’re clever and they despise a fool
Till you’re so ———- crazy you can’t follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be”

When they’ve tortured and scared you for twenty odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can’t really function you’re so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be”

“Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you’re still ———- peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be”

“There’s room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me”

Lyrics by “John Lennon”

Please don’t forget about us!
posted by Howard at 10:08 AM

0 Comments:
Post a Comment

About Me
Name:Howard
Location:Deerfield, Illinois, United States
Laid Off 7/30/2004 @ 5:00 pm on a Friday after 22 years. Boss lied at EEOC hearing. No surprise! Still looking! It’s the same old story. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

View my complete profile

Previous Posts
Update on former blog! It’s scary!
Getting Right On It, Republicans!
Lesson 1: Always Read What You Sign
The Nerve!
Just Who Do These Politicians Think They Are!
Just So Everyone KNOWS!
Why Americans Will Not Have Jobs!
What Economy White House? (Where are the Dems)
So, H-P announces yesterday they are laying off 14…
Bush, Time to Shit or Get off The Pot!


————————————————————————————————————————


Posted by: H Rubenstein at January 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Post a comment