Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush: Democracy, Democracy Everywhere

President George W. Bush wants to spread democracy in the Middle East and everywhere. In order to do this he asks that we be belligerent everywhere, use torture everywhere and spy everywhere - even on you in your home, without a warrant. To increase democracy everywhere, Bush wants to decrease democracy here at home. He wants to boost his executive power to the point where he is not a president but a king. To become King George Bush, he has nominated Alito, who believes in a stronger executive, to the Supreme Court.

While tearing up treaties, thoroughly disregarding allies and calling liberals and others who disagree with him traitors, Bush has declared war on Iraq. While searching for weapons of mass destruction there he found an inkling of democracy that he is nourishing. Of course, we in the U.S. must pay for this nourishment by a reduction of freedoms via the Patriot Act.

We must win this war, Bush says. But how can you win a war against terrorists without torture? Torture in the hands of dictators is terrible. However, torture in the hands of the president of a great democracy is an important instrument for achieving victory and peace.

Senator John McCain, somebody who knows about torture, introduced an amendment to essentially make torture illegal. Bush fought this amendment to the bitter end. The amendment passed the Senate 99 - 9. Even when placing his signature on this amendment, Bush made a written statement, full of legalese, which effectively states that if he deems it necessary, he will authorize torture. No need to worry about what the Senate does.

Another way to win the "war on terror," according to Bush, is through spying. Not merely spying on foreigners, but on Americans. Not spying after getting a court order, but with no court order at all. So it looks as though you, I or any American can be wiretapped at an executive whim.

Last year, President Bush stated:

"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."

Today, after it has been determined that he had authorized domestic wiretapping without warrent at least a year ago, Bush says lamely:

"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited."

Thank you very much, your highness.

Now it comes out that Bush had gone to Comey, who was in charge of the Attorney General's office because Ashcroft was in the hospital undergoing a gall bladder operation. Comey did not want to sign off on warrantless domestic wiretaps. So Ashcroft was visited in the hospital and even he was reluctant to sign off on this. Several prominent Senate Republicans are against warrantless wiretaps, among them Specter (Pa.), Graham (S.C.), Hagel (Neb.), Snowe (Maine), and Lugar (IN).

Conservative pundit William Sapphire said on Meet the Press:

"So I have this thing about personal privacy. And I think what's happening now is that the--as a result of that scandal back in the '70s, we got this electronic eavesdropping act stopping it, or requiring the president to go before this court. Now, this court's a rubber-stamp court, let's face it. They give five noes and 20,000 yeses."

Sapphire is talking about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA.

Even Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute is aghast:

"President Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed, such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers."

Bush feels he is above the law. He is protecting us by reducing some of our liberties. After all, he is commander-in-chief in the "war on terror." He's got a reason to disregard Congress and to rule by fiat. Too bad the judiciary does not agree with him. He'll remedy that by nominating to the Supreme Court judges who agree that the presidency is too weak and needs to be more powerful. One such judge is Samuel Alito. Armando on Daily KOS expressed it this way:

"The February 1986 memo where Samuel Alito suggested that the President adopt the practice of issuing 'interpretative signing statements' became more than just a bizarre proposal when the Bush Administration's penchant for disregarding duly enacted federal law became brazen -- through Bush's illegal program of warrantless domestic surveillance."

"Interpretive signing statements" are presidential statements defining the meaning - as the president sees it - of bills they sign into laws. Alito, for one, would give these statements more prominence in Court decisions. Why shouldn't the president be more like a king?

President Bush wants to spread democracy everywhere, but here at home. In the U.S., Bush is pushing for a monarchy. To protect us, of course. Instead of president, we should call him King George Bush. KGB, for short.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 3, 2006 5:44 PM
Comments
Comment #109977

Your first paragraph sums it up neatly in a nutshell, Paul. I would recommend however, changing King to Authoritarian, since he seems to love authoring his own laws and rules to govern by.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 3, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #110000

Does Democracy have anything to do with making $million$ off of peddling influence and political bribes? Cause I can def. see where this Administration and Congress have seen that everywhere…

Posted by: tony at January 3, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #110009

Do I not get it ? It seems in presidental policies Republican seems to mean Regressive, repungent, and reckless.

Posted by: dave at January 3, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #110012

For too long now, the Democratic party has been unwilling to hold itself to a higher standard. Until that changes, the rest of us will have to do it for them.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Mr. Bush has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the NSA independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with Cheney, Rove and others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For ignoring our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all defense cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection, waging war against us and calling us names.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A president, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, in General Concensis, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT PEOPLES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the Cheney/Bush crown and that all political connection between them and the state of confusion is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent peoples, they have full power to decry war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent peoples may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

David Stevens [President]

Co-signees:

Posted by: Marysdude at January 3, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #110014

What part of “It’s hard work defending America” don’t you understand? Gawd!

If W wants to read your email and listen in on your phone calls he can. He says it isn’t against the law so me have to believe him.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at January 3, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #110020

Marysdude -

“For too long now, the Democratic party has been unwilling to hold itself to a higher standard. Until that changes, the rest of us will have to do it for them.”

How does the Democratic party fit into your post above?

Posted by: tony at January 3, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #110024

Tony, don’t ask Marysdude to explain it. Ask whoever she cutted and pasted that from.

Posted by: sanger at January 3, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #110042

Okay, what are “Interpretive signing statements”, and how can they have any affect on the laws that are passed?

Where can I get more information about this?

Even when placing his signature on this amendment, Bush made a written statement, full of legalese, which effectively states that if he deems it necessary, he will authorize torture. No need to worry about what the Senate does.

How can this possibly affect the law as written?

I sure seem to be missing a lot of news.

Another great post Paul.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 4, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #110067

Excellent post Paul.

Okay, what are “Interpretive signing statements”, and how can they have any affect on the laws that are passed?

womanmarine, I had to look that up myself. Here’s what I found:

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress’s reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.

In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.

Such “interpretive signing statements” would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are “often little more than a press release,” Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president’s take on a law as to “legislative intent.”

The executive branch doesn’t have any say in the interpretation of law. I’m not sure if — or even why — the judicial branch would be interested in the President’s interpretation of the law.

I mean, like every American, the President’s entitled to his opinion on a law, but I don’t understand why the judiciary would give any more weight to his interpretation (or mine) over the interpretation of the guys who wrote the law.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 4, 2006 5:09 AM
Comment #110073

What is a President? I see a president as Commander and Chief of the Military and administrater of the nation…. Congress granted this president special authority to ‘Declare War’, in other words to make him Commander and Chief of the entire USA, and to entitle him to take over the world at his personal whim.

The Congress and Senate need to revoke any special authorities and do the job they’re supposed to.

Posted by: Steve at January 4, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #110100

Yea what is Bush doing!! Where does he get off taking on Dictators that are killing 100’s of thousands of people and networks that are determined to destroy democracy! He should stay in the whitehouse getting Lewinsky’s and droppng a few bombs on pharmaceutical factories. Look at Clinton - he made much more difficult decisions such as “If you dont show me yours I wont show you mine” - (Unless you are a chubby lil intern)- whereas Bush - hah! he’s just trying to save the Western World - but why??? WOuldn’t gays, minorities and women be so much better off elsewhere in the world. Afterall Bush and the rest of these horrible intolerant Christians have made the US a living hell. The US should be like the rest of the world - afterall they have so much more wisdom then us - obviously, because they are not Christian based - you know like INdia where they burn wives and Afghanistan where you can half time beheadings and CHina where Gays can be tortured - this is the world we want so why are fighting in Iraq or anywhere else?? What is Bush doing?? We need to be tolerant of these other points of view ! How can we be so close minded!

Terrorism is not the answer!

Posted by: MIke at January 4, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #110102

Wow - Mike. Thanks for the ??? Tirade ??? You’ve really got me thinking. Now, if you can just explain what you wrote has to do with anything being discussed here, maybe we can get somewhere.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #110103

Paul:

Senator John McCain, somebody who knows about torture, introduced an amendment to essentially make torture illegal. Bush fought this amendment to the bitter end. The amendment passed the Senate 99 - 9. Even when placing his signature on this amendment, Bush made a written statement, full of legalese, which effectively states that if he deems it necessary, he will authorize torture. No need to worry about what the Senate does.
Not to quibble with you, but even McCain holds that there are instances when torture is acceptable, as evidenced by his comments to Don Imus below. He certainly states that these instances are far and few between, but he does find them acceptable. He also suggests that psychological techniques such as used by the Israeli’s would be acceptable.

The main thing on torture is to define it clearly, and then define when it is acceptable to use as a technique. McCain says its acceptable in one in a million instances, which leaves the door open to interpretation. Even to him, its not a clear cut issue. But I tend to agree with his thoughts on its effectiveness in general. And with his experience in Viet Nam, which was truly a definition of torture, he should know.

IMUS: … I believe you’re suggesting that if we, say, we have a suspect who we suspected, had reliably suspect, has some information about some sort of imminent nuclear attack, then you think it might be all right to torture? Maybe that would work?
MCCAIN: That’s a million to one chance. I love watching “24.” I’m a great Bauer, Jack Bauer fan.
IMUS: That would work.
MCCAIN: That ain’t the way it works! That isn’t the way it works. The way it works is you catch people, and you use psychological — which is what the Israelis do — techniques. And you can get information from them.
But if it’s a one in a million situation, yes,go ahead and do it, and you can justify it. But right now, apparently, we have prisons set up in different places in the world where we’re keeping people for years.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 4, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #110106

Hi TOny:

Yea were talking bout bashin Bush - just hoppin on

Sincerely,

Mike

President of Democrats for Osama

Posted by: MIke at January 4, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #110108

OK - sounded a lot more like bashing Clinton to help justify Bush. IMO - we should all demand the highest level of performance from our elected officials. Excusing present day actions by ‘others did it in past’ argument only allows people in the past to set the bar as low as they are willing to go. Allowing people today to make excuses for faulty performances only allows them to set the bar as low as they are willing to go.

Enough is enough. I do not care whose fault it is, I do not care what others have done in similar situation, I do not care what others have told you. If you are the boss - do you job at the exceptional level we have the right to expect or get the hell out of the way and allow others to give it go.

Our country did not become great by allowing mediocrity to lead us. Excuses and justifications for poor performance are not part of the American way either. Make me proud to be an American - make me proud to be represented by you - or go home, you are not qualified for the job. That’s the message we should be sending to DC… And if anyone feels that excusing anything based solely on who brought you the ‘message’ (DEMs or REPs) that’s even more pathetic of us.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #110111

Right on TONY!! That’s y Bush has done so well!! He’s a man that gets the job done!! There was a madman loose in the neighborhood - he was walking from house to house shooting and torturing people - most people simply hid awaiting there turn - Bush took action. Thats a leader whether you agree or not. If you dont agree then just get in line for the madman - jsut because Sadam is gone doesnt mean that there are no more - try North Korea they will be glad to accomodate you - Hey whatever happened to those human shields that were going to Iraq?? Funny how the pampered citizens of the US only like to Bash the US when they can live under its protection - why don’t the libs go to North Korea and protest that their people are starving?? What about some Gays protesting in China? How about protesting in Muslim Countries for freedomw of the press - ie you can’t bring a bible in those countries - Y do all of these morally righteous people who seek to preserve human rights only protest in the comfort of the protection of the uS?

Posted by: MIke at January 4, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #110114

Sorry - but I seem to be at complete odds with your stance. Bush has completely underperformed in everyway conceivable. No one can say that he lied (except on public statements that he changed to avoid making tough decisions - Rove/Plame & illegal wiretaps.) He failed in assessing the intelligence going into Iraq, he failed the people during Katrina, he failed to reform Social Security, he failed to ever gain UN support in Iraq, he failed to work with Congress to initiate true protections for the ‘Homeland’, he failed to work with Congress to solve any issues he with the FISA court.

As far as all the ‘protest issues you have - you are missing the true picture. There are people protesting in these lands you mention (Bibles or not.)

Say what you want to about ‘our side’ or ‘their side’ - but when it comes right down to it, no one is really on ‘our side.’ Both sides preach understanding and commitment, but neither side is willing to give up the ‘way things are done in DC’ to make meaningful change happen. So for now, screw them all - and as far as ethics go for elected officials - they ARE NOT innocent until proven guilty. Their jobs come up for renewal every 2 or 4 years, and I say we either hold their feet to the fire and make them perform… or we sit back in the comfort of our homes and let them have whatever they feel is theirs for the taking.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #110118

“Excusing present day actions by ‘others did it in past’ argument only allows people in the past to set the bar as low as they are willing to go”

Actually Tony, the reason clinton is brought up so often isn’t to say “others did it.”
He is brought up because people can’t understand how those who defended and excused his actions, can expect the people to take them serious now.
The left sat back, looked the other way and did nothing while our rights and freedoms were stripped away and NOW they want everybody to listen to them when they say it is happening today.
For every article about Bush, like this one from Paul S., there was ten about clinton. Why are todays concerns more important than yesterdays?
So tell us, if the left didn’t care about our rights under clinton, why should we think they care about our rights under Bush?

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #110121

kctim,

“The left sat back, looked the other way and did nothing while our rights and freedoms were stripped away and NOW they want everybody to listen to them when they say it is happening today.”

Could you please give us some specifics? It is really difficult to respond to generalizations such as that.

I do not know if I would agree that our country is so great because it is Christian based. I believe that it is so great because it is secular. (this is being argued in another topic on this site).

Protecting gays was never something that the Republicans, and especially the Conservative-Christian Republicans wished to do. These protections were a liberal idea. You seem to be implying that it was because of the Republicans that gays can now freely live in our society (versus China). I am not sure about that being the case.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 4, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #110122

—-
The left sat back, looked the other way and did nothing while our rights and freedoms were stripped away and NOW they want everybody to listen to them when they say it is happening today.
For every article about Bush, like this one from Paul S., there was ten about clinton. Why are todays concerns more important than yesterdays?
—-

Please - explain how our rights under Clinton were compromised? He got a blow job in the oval office and lied under oath. Pathetic and unacceptable - but nothing to do with rights or freedoms, just poor excution of his job.

Also - please so me an example of someone here who supported Clinton.

Please prove your 10x theory.

(Btw - I consider my self to be ‘left’ - so please do not tell me what I did or didn’t do.)

As far as Bush vs Clinton: What Bush is doing now is more of a concern? because it is happening now. End of story. To focus any differently is simply allowing others to set our expectations for us.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #110125

The greatest weapon we could have had in this war was our ideals and the moral high ground. Reagan used this to great effect during the cold war. Bush spat on it and threw it away immediately for seemingly no reason at all.

Posted by: Max at January 4, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #110128

kctim,

“The left sat back, looked the other way and did nothing while our rights and freedoms were stripped away”
I don’t remember Clinton stripping my rights and freedoms away.

How?
When?
Where?
What?
Your vague and pointless response is unbelievable.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 4, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #110129

Tony:

Just weighing in on your last comment.

What kind of examples are you looking for as proof? I for one don’t archive every comment and thread made, and I doubt others do either, so the examples you are looking for are not available.

But its clear that people did support Clinton—-that is obvious based on the fact that his standing in the polls actually rose during that time. Its easy to stand back NOW and say that he was terrible immoral etc because there is nothing to lose. But at the time, no one was saying that. They were talking about the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’.

I think kctim’s point was that politics allows people to take sides, but then change their reasons over time. Example: in ‘92 and ‘96, Repubs hammered Clinton for avoiding military service, but in ‘00 and ‘04 gave Bush a pass for having maneuvered his way into the TANG to avoid combat. Meanwhile, the Dems who said that military service didn’t matter with Clinton made a big deal about Kerry’s ‘war hero’ status vs. Bush’s lack thereof. (Had Dems truly felt that a ‘war hero’ deserved the vote on that basis, they should have been falling all over themselves to vote Bob Dole into the presidency.)

Kctim’s point, as I read it, is that both sides do this, and its equally wrong. We need to have standards, and those standards should be met by either party. Too many people are holding the OTHER party accountable while giving their own party a pass.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 4, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #110130

Great article.
Only one solution: Impeach Bush and every single one of the officials in this administration. Never in our history have those in charge of American government deserved impeachment more than now.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 4, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #110143

Darren
“Could you please give us some specifics?”

No knock laws, Brady Bill, lying about Bosnia, bombing as a distraction and Waco are the most popular examples. IRS targeting of the administrations critics is also another one.
Now, I know the left does not care about our 2nd Amendment or about the rights the “loonies” down in Waco were denied, but come on, no knock?
Wouldn’t the police smashing down your door without a warrant be considered a warrantless search?

Tony
“What Bush is doing now is more of a concern? because it is happening now”

IMO, what is happening now is a concern, but I was also concerned with what was going on in the 90s.
Heaven forbid I suggest, in any way, what you did or didn’t do. I’m sure you attended pro-2nd Amendment rallies and that you were writing your reps about the Waco fiasco and the police breaking down doors without a warrant. The left cares about ALL of our rights don’t they.

Andre
“Your vague and pointless response is unbelievable”

Thanks. Now you know why so many people think YOUR vague and pointless responses are unbelievable.
Our concerns then, meant nothing to you, but we are supposed to jump right in and support your concerns today huh?
You don’t worry about 2nd Amendment violations because it makes you feel safer. Well, many don’t worry so much about 4th Amendment violations because these actions make them feel safer.
So you keep downgrading violations that you don’t worry about and they will keep doing it also. That way we can allow the mess to continue.

JBOD
Well said. ANYONE who thinks this started with Bush, is in total denial and oblivious to the facts.

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #110149

—-
The left cares about ALL of our rights don’t they.
—-

Well - if I’m a ‘lefty’ then yes I do care. I’m a bit of a Constitutional Purest - in the sense that what’s on paper should be interpreted in very fundamental ways. I do not think the present government has the same intentions I do. People in our past have fought and died (and not always in the military) for freedoms, not political power.

Also - no one here is saying that this started with Bush - it’s the nature of the beast if left uncontrolled. What people are saying is that Bush has had many failings in his duties, and that we should focus on fixing these shortcomings. IMO that means removal of those who allowed these shortcomings to exist and/or those who might continue them in the future.

I love the Abramoff scandle for just this reason - it speaks to the lowest sort of political power grab - and it crosses party lines. It will continue to grow - or will resurface in other ways if we allow it to.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #110153

“No knock laws” The only ones I have heard of are the ones from down south where they were hoping to catch someone having sex.

“Brady Bill,” There are limitations on all of the rights… You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Nor can you slander or libel a person freely. The 2nd Amendment was written when we still really need a militia and before such items as “cop killing” rounds and automatic weapons, but some people still pretend they need a .50 cal for hunting. I have a gun in my home. Waiting periods, background checks to prevent felons from getting ahold of a gun…

I agree that the Bradly bill did nothing more than all the other gun laws already on the books were supposed to do. I would much rather go after the criminal than the gun.

“lying about Bosnia,” I am not sure what the lie about Bosnia concerns. There were 3 groups all looking to ethnically cleasnse the country? Really, “Lying about Bosnia” is just to general.

“bombing as a distraction” would be considered an opinion (and a movie) as to why the bombing was done. It does not relate to fact.

“Waco” was a fanatic group of people that were possibly stockpiling and modifying automatic weapons. Now, as some have presnted, cops should chase people into crowded highways for a person not paying $20 in gas, or shoot into crowds at a fleeing jaywalker (if he is a good shot).

Am I allowed to get into a shoot out with the police if I feel they are violating my rights? Or, do I let the police arrest me, book me, arraign me and then let my lawyer go to town on them?

Are you saying that ATF and FBI agents (those jack-booted people in the words of the conservative NRA members) serving a legal search warrant is justification for the people at Waco to open fire?

This is why I have such problems with the Republican party trying to pass themselves off as the only patriotic and tough on crime party.

Soldiers are only heros when they agree with you, otherwise they are cowards…

Police are heros unless they enforce a law that you disagree with… then they get characterized by the right-wing conservatives as jack-booted thugs… Not your words kctim, just those of people back in those days.

“IRS targeting of the administrations critics is also another one.”

The only instances of people trying to use the IRS to tardet administration critics was during the Nixon administration. I do recall that some of Clinton’s people did look at records and they got slapped down pretty hard.

“Now, I know the left does not care about our 2nd Amendment or about the rights the “loonies” down in Waco were denied, but come on, no knock?
Wouldn’t the police smashing down your door without a warrant be considered a warrantless search?”

The police smashing down a door without a warrant is by definition a warantless search.

That is not the same thing as a “no knock” warrant… there is a warrant so it would not be a warrantless search.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 4, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #110156

Tony
“IMO that means removal of those who allowed these shortcomings to exist and/or those who might continue them in the future”

That is the point of my post Tony.
WE THE PEOPLE are the ones responsible for these shortcomings and only WE THE PEOPLE can fix it.
But until BOTH sides are willing to hold their “guy” to the same standards and respect ALL of our rights, we will continue to be divided and we will lose.
With some exceptions, we, as a people, are now dependent on our govt for survival. Our govt should be dependent on us for its survival.

I’m somewhat of a Constitutionalist. Those who prey on peoples fears and “interpret” the Constitution to support their agenda do our once great nation a huge disservice.

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #110164

Warning: Satirical work of fiction

After Bush made his interpretatives statement about the law, he performed an interpretative dance number to John Ashcroft’s “Let the Eagle Soar”, where he explained in an intricate set of moves how he would deal with cases in which America’s security was threatened. This was closed out by a piece of performance art where Bush and Attorney General Gonzaleds urinated on a copy of the constitution, attached it to some wires above the stage and passed it over the audience. Conservative critics watching the performance hailed it as daring, bold, brilliant,and good for the country…

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #110173
Congress granted this president special authority to ‘Declare War’

This “war” is no different than the cold war, the war on poverty or the war on drugs. We misuse “war” and it gets greatly confused with the war that ONLY congress can declare.

This is not war as I understand it. Calling Bush a “war president” is not applicable and untrue.

Lets see what that gets me :)

Posted by: womanmarine at January 4, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #110174

You don’t need to be much of an interpreter to figure out that the fourth amendment is supposed to protect Americans from what bush is doing.

If it’s true that we, the people are dependent on the government, I say that we are well and truly fucked. If on the other hand, the government is dedicated to defending our freedoms AND our lives, that would be a different story.

There’s a lot more fear coming from the right side of the street- ” if we don’t curtail freedoms, there’ll be another 9/11!!!!”I personally feel that the best way for us to work together in this country IS by sticking by the laws, not going around them when following them is an inconvenience.

Posted by: Steve Miller at January 4, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #110175

And, so true about the “war president” issue. What if we hadn’t (tragically, stupidly) invaded Iraq? Would bush still be a “war president”? I don’t think soooooo…..

Posted by: Steve Miller at January 4, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #110180

““No knock laws” The only ones I have heard of are the ones from down south where they were hoping to catch someone having sex.”

Its part of the “war on drugs.” IF police believe activity warrants immediate action, they may search a dwelling without a warrant. Innocent people and pets have been shot during these raids and alot of them are due to it being the wrong residence, which btw, could have been verified with a warrant.

““Brady Bill,” There are limitations on all of the rights…”

So what limitations would be considered acceptable for you to throw away your 4th Amendment rights?
Afterall, the 4th was written when all they had to worry about was soldiers breaking down their doors.

“Waiting periods, background checks to prevent felons from getting ahold of a gun…”

It could also be said that secret data mining could prevent terrorists from killing more Americans.
Why is it ok to stop or deter Americans from owning a gun but yet wrong to stop or deter terrorists, who could be an American, from killing?

““Lying about Bosnia” is just to general”

BOSNIA, 1995: Clinton said he would deploy troops to Bosnia for only 18 months, and then they would come home.
BOSNIA, 1998: The Clinton administration confirmed plans to maintain thousands of troops on an open-ended peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina with no exit strategy.`The policy is to remain there. It’s open-ended.’

“Millions” dead in mass graves line he used to sell the war to the public was also a lie.
Why was it ok for him to saying its open ended until the mission is done but wrong for Bush to say that now?

““bombing as a distraction” would be considered an opinion (and a movie) as to why the bombing was done. It does not relate to fact.”

Yea, I know, just another crackpot theory shared by millions and General Zinni.

-In an interview with National Review Online, retired general Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region at the time, described the 1998 cruise-missile raid as a “million-to-one-shot.”

“There was a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there,” Zinni recalls. “My intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that….As I was given this mission to do, I did not see that anyone had any degree of assurance or reliability that that was going to happen-

He fired on a soverign nation, contrary to what the intel said. Nothing wrong with that is there.

-on NBC, Clinton said, “We had quite good intelligence that he and his top lieutenants would be in his training camp. So I ordered the cruise-missile attacks, and we didn’t tell anybody, including the Pakistanis, whose airspace we had to travel over, until the last minute. And unfortunately we missed them, apparently not by very long….We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action.”-

So he lied to justify his actions. Sounds alot like the hype we hear about Bush doesn’t it.

““Waco” was a fanatic group of people that were possibly stockpiling and modifying automatic weapons.”

I know. Believing you have a right to excercise your 2nd Amendment right makes you a “fanatic.” Heard it all before.

“Are you saying that ATF and FBI agents (those jack-booted people in the words of the conservative NRA members) serving a legal search warrant is justification for the people at Waco to open fire?”

A warrant was served? Any idea what they thought when they read it? Did they read it? Hmmm?
But your right, how dare a group of people, who had done no wrong, stand up to a group of armed individuals attacking them. That totally justifies killing and burning innocent men, women and children doesn’t it.
If masked, armed gunmen attacking you doesn’t alarm you, then why does a computer data mining scare you so much? They are both the govt and the govt has no ill intentions, right?

I get it all. You are willing to twist or ignore certain rights that you believe make you or society safer. That is exactly what many believe about current events.
So if making excuses to defend govt actions in order to feel safer is good for you, why isn’t it good for others with a different opinion?
You feel safer.
They feel safer.
We all lose.


Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #110182

—-
I’m somewhat of a Constitutionalist. Those who prey on peoples fears and “interpret” the Constitution to support their agenda do our once great nation a huge disservice.
—-

I agree completely with this. It’s worked for the - up until now - maybe people will start seeing things clearer (yea right) and hold elected officials to the standard that they would be at, not get away with ‘well, everyone in DC does it.’

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #110200

>>Tony, don’t ask Marysdude to explain it. Ask whoever she cutted and pasted that from.

Posted by: sanger at January 3, 2006 10:38 PM

Sanger,

The cut/paste was from our Declaration of Independence. The reference to the Democratic Party not setting a high enough standard was about the party’s lack of initiative in getting rid of this farciful administration.

It may be time for another revolution. Demos are wimps and Repubs are unfeeling thugs. I don’t like those choices

Posted by: Marysdude at January 4, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #110215

OK - maybe I’m wrong - wasn’t the whole Waco thing about illegal arms and forged checks? I know the reaction to this all by the Feds was wrong, but if you pick a fight with someone, then you’d better be prepared for the consequences - right or wrong. The Feds created their part of the issue - but the actions from within the compound equally set things up for disaster. Rule #1 - never start a potential armed conflict with children in the building… Send them out - take them away… Rule #2 - never rely on pity or self control from heavily armed people.

I’m suspecting that this issue might be where you feel people’s rights were taken away, but I don’t immediately see that.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #110216

Police are authorized to enter without a warrant for a number of reasons but to get into all the different possibly scenerios is pointless.

There are limitations on all our Amendments.

There are limitations on the 4th Amendment. These are the warrants that are supposed to be availabe to law enforcement to do a seach based upon probable cause that a crime has been committed. They get it from a judge. Are you saying that the police never have, and never will have cause to search a suspects home?

There can also be limitations on the 2nd. Do we need fully automatic weapons? Do we need cop killer bullets?

There are limitations on the 1st Amendment that I have already mentioned.

There are limitations on the 5th Amendment. Expectations of privacy, Miranda warnings…

We can decide, as a socity, if and what limitations there are on our rights… pornography, limits on weapons, protecting from libel and slander, probable cause, etc. Or, we can say that there are absolutely no limitations at all. These don’t get decided by shooting at law enforcement officers.

With the President, it isn’t the fact that government may have a vaild reason for wire tapping… it is that there was not a due process used, such as the FISA courts.

“BOSNIA, 1995: Clinton said he would deploy troops to Bosnia for only 18 months, and then they would come home.”

Was this a lie or was this just being wrong about how soon they would return?

“”Millions” dead in mass graves line he used to sell the war to the public was also a lie.
Why was it ok for him to saying its open ended until the mission is done but wrong for Bush to say that now?”

The way I am reading it the millions you quote are the millions suffering, he is not saying that there were millions in mass graves:

“… Two million people, half of the population, were forced from their homes and into a miserable life as refugees, and these faceless numbers have millions of real, personal tragedies, for each of the war’s victims was a mother or daughter, father or son, a brother or sister. Now the war is over. American leadership created the chance to build a peace and stop the suffering. “
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.html


““bombing as a distraction” would be considered an opinion (and a movie) as to why the bombing was done. It does not relate to fact.”

Yea, I know, just another crackpot theory shared by millions and General Zinni.

We can each bring out Generals who disagree with Presidents and their war efforts… MacArthur and Truman, Clinton and Zinni, Bush and Schwartzchoff (ending hostilities too soon), Bush and Clark.


-In an interview with National Review Online, retired general Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region at the time, described the 1998 cruise-missile raid as a “million-to-one-shot.”

Is he saying that the probability of hitting the target is high? Ok.

“There was a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there,” Zinni recalls. “My intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that….As I was given this mission to do, I did not see that anyone had any degree of assurance or reliability that that was going to happen-

He fired on a soverign nation, contrary to what the intel said. Nothing wrong with that is there.”

You forgot Reagan and the bombing of Lybia… One of my favorite night spots in Athens (Glyfada actually, Bobby’s 2 was bombed at this time and I missed it because I was to tired after a movie to go to the bar).


-on NBC, Clinton said, “We had quite good intelligence that he and his top lieutenants would be in his training camp. So I ordered the cruise-missile attacks, and we didn’t tell anybody, including the Pakistanis, whose airspace we had to travel over, until the last minute. And unfortunately we missed them, apparently not by very long….We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action.”

Again, the way I read it, Zinni wasn’t confident that it would work… not that it was based on lies.

“So he lied to justify his actions. Sounds alot like the hype we hear about Bush doesn’t it.”

Where are you saying that he lied? That he didn’t tell them until the last minute? That the intelligence was good? Is this equivalent to months of selectively gathering “good” intelliegence and discarding “bad” intel that justified the war in Iraq?

““Waco” was a fanatic group of people that were possibly stockpiling and modifying automatic weapons.”

I know. Believing you have a right to excercise your 2nd Amendment right makes you a “fanatic.” Heard it all before.

Do you really think that Koresch believed this was a 2nd Amendment issue? Even if it was, do you consider his repsonse to appropriate? Do we all get to choose? Or, do we let the courts choose? If the courts have chosen then do you still shoot at federal agents because you disagree with the decision?

You see, there are 3 branches. The legislature can pass a gun control law. The President may sign it or veto it. If vetoed the Congress can over ride the veto. The Constitutionality of the law can be challenged in court.

Instead, you believe that someone can just decided to disregard all lawfull avenues he doesn’t believe are justified and shoot at agents when the come? Okay.

I knew we were a nation of laws, I just didn’t know it was the “Law of the ol’West”

A warrant was served? Any idea what they thought when they read it? Did they read it? Hmmm?

Absolutely… it was not read. Gunfire from the Waco compound made it a little difficult. (This could also be because one of the Korescg people knew about the raid and called ahead?)

As far as carrying out responsibilities, Law Enforcement Agents are not paid to stand there and get shot at first. They all want to go home. If there are questions of legalities then the courts and lawyers sort it out. If an officer is going into a dangerous situation then he must go in with every advantage he can to protect himself and others. To not do this is even more irresponsible.

Korsech had the right to surrender, ask for a lawyer (who would have had one provided), not incriminate himself, and then gone to court to determine the validity of the search warrant and the arrest. He chose not to.

“But you’re right, how dare a group of people, who had done no wrong, stand up to a group of armed individuals attacking them. That totally justifies killing and burning innocent men, women and children doesn’t it.”

Armed law inforcement individuals in their ATF windbeakers.

Who have done no wrong? Again, the validity of the search warrant can be questioned but their response to the serving of the warrant? Any warrant? Do we let the bank robber determine if the cops have sufficient evidence to serve the warrant in their home?

Please… in legal terms, there is a fictional character called a “reasonable person”… this is a standard of what a reasonable person may infer, or do in situations. In no way, shape or form did Koresch act as a reasonable person.

“If masked, armed gunmen attacking you doesn’t alarm you, then why does a computer data mining scare you so much? They are both the govt and the govt has no ill intentions, right?”

The masked gunmen were serving a legally signed warrant.

Data minining without a warrant is not the same thing.

“I get it all. You are willing to twist or ignore certain rights that you believe make you or society safer. That is exactly what many believe about current events.”

I am not twisting certain rights. I am insisting that legal means be used if rights are violated. All laws, by their very nature, are discriminatory and stop people from doing what they might want to do.

We have a system set up that allows the government to present their evidence and the defendant to challenge it. Through the courts… not through shooting at the officers.

Sir, I will turn it back… do YOU think that those men serving the warrants really had evil intent in their hearts and wanted to kill Koresch? Base on the number of people arrested for much worse crimes than Koresch was facing… and the number that survived their arrest… I would have to say that it would be silly to assume each and every officer was wanting to kill Koresch.

So if making excuses to defend govt actions in order to feel safer is good for you, why isn’t it good for others with a different opinion?
You feel safer.
They feel safer.
We all lose.

No sir, I am not making excuses or defending the unwarranted wire taps. What I am discussing is trying to make the actions equivalent. This confuses the current issue and creates a tit-for-tat, your guy did this which clouds the issue.

A quick browse through my postings on this and other topics shows that I am very upset that there is a possibility that the President went outside the law and justified this “war” as his reason.

I do believe that we need to have investigations, charges brought if evidence warrants it and trials.

I do not, however, believe that the President should shoot anyone serving him papers and barracade himself in the White House.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 4, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #110229

I’m not sure who the real enemy is…

Republicans?
Bush?
Christians?
Democrats?
Clinton?
Atheists?
Terrorists?

Posted by: Discerner at January 4, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #110232

—-
I’m not sure who the real enemy is…

Republicans?
Bush?
Christians?
Democrats?
Clinton?
Atheists?
Terrorists?
—-

Assholes…??? They come in 32 flavors - and there’s more of them than you could shoot in a lifetime. They don’t steal your wallet or out-and-out attack you. They pat you on the back as they take away your freedom and power - which they sell to the highest bidder.

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #110247

BRAVO darren. As always, your arguments were well-aimed, piercing, and overall quite thorough. Anyone who thinks a little civil right infringement here and there won’t hurt in the name of truth, justice, and the American way is stuck in the Boy Scouts and needs to finally pass high school history.

Posted by: macsonix at January 4, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #110250

There are limitations on all our Amendments.

There are limitations on the 4th Amendment.
“Are you saying that the police never have, and never will have cause to search a suspects home?”

Not without a warrrant.

“There can also be limitations on the 2nd. Do we need fully automatic weapons? Do we need cop killer bullets?”

Sigh! It should be of no concern of yours if I want an automatic weapon or not. Does someone need one? That is up to the individual to determine and not those who are afraid of guns or the govt.
One could also say we NEED them to protect ourselves from govt couldnt they.
“Cop killer bullets?” Overhyped, political talking points. They are easy to make and a .22 has a better chance at penetrating.

“There are limitations on the 5th Amendment. Expectations of privacy, Miranda warnings…”

“We can decide, as a socity, if and what limitations there are on our rights…”

Yes we can, that is why we are in this mess. One side is willing to give up rights they dont agree with and the other is willing to do the same.

“Or, we can say that there are absolutely no limitations at all. These don’t get decided by shooting at law enforcement officers.”

Again, why are the limitations you support more valid than the ones others support?

“With the President, it isn’t the fact that government may have a vaild reason for wire tapping… it is that there was not a due process used, such as the FISA courts.”

Are there limitations on due process? If not, maybe we need some to make us feel safer in our fight against terrorism.

“Was this a lie or was this just being wrong about how soon they would return?”

I dont know. Was Bush lying or was his info wrong?

“The way I am reading it the millions you quote are the millions suffering, he is not saying that there were millions in mass graves”

Mass graves and WMD’s. Neither have been proven to the extent in which they were sold to us.
You can also find speeches where WMD’s were not the sole reason. Why fish for excuses for one but condemn the other?

“We can each bring out Generals who disagree with Presidents and their war efforts… MacArthur and Truman, Clinton and Zinni, Bush and Schwartzchoff (ending hostilities too soon), Bush and Clark”

So why is Clark acceptable but Zinni is not?

“Is he saying that the probability of hitting the target is high? Ok.”

LOL! Yeah, read it until it supports you.
If he was saying high, then why did he also say:

“There was a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there,” Zinni recalls. “My intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that….As I was given this mission to do, I did not see that anyone had any degree of assurance or reliability that that was going to happen-

But I do understand, making excuses is hard.

“Again, the way I read it, Zinni wasn’t confident that it would work… not that it was based on lies.”

Of course you dont read it that way, clinton was a dem.

“Where are you saying that he lied? That he didn’t tell them until the last minute? That the intelligence was good? Is this equivalent to months of selectively gathering “good” intelliegence and discarding “bad” intel that justified the war in Iraq?”

Lets see. Zinni says one thing but clinton goes around saying the opposite in order to get support. clinton selected the intel that supported his decision but disregarded intel that did not.

“Do you really think that Koresch believed this was a 2nd Amendment issue?”

Uh, no. His home was being assaulted by armed personel and he felt he needed to defend himself.
Your lack of knowledge concerning this is very telling.

“Even if it was, do you consider his repsonse to appropriate? Do we all get to choose? Or, do we let the courts choose? If the courts have chosen then do you still shoot at federal agents because you disagree with the decision?”

Yeah, fighting for your rights is a terrible thing to do. Its much better to just sit back and let the govt tell you whats best for you.

“Absolutely… it was not read. Gunfire from the Waco compound made it a little difficult. (This could also be because one of the Korescg people knew about the raid and called ahead?)”

Really? They couldnt have given it to him when he left the compound for supplies? Ok. Then why not present it in a manner such as not to spark hostilities? You do know they spoke to him numerous times prior to the end.

“As far as carrying out responsibilities, Law Enforcement Agents are not paid to stand there and get shot at first. They all want to go home.”

I know. I spent 10 years in Law enforcement.

“Please… in legal terms, there is a fictional character called a “reasonable person”… this is a standard of what a reasonable person may infer, or do in situations. In no way, shape or form did Koresch act as a reasonable person.”

Funny how your secondhand info and guesses differs so much from the people who were actually there.

“The masked gunmen were serving a legally signed warrant.”

No, they were attempting to defuse the situation with force. They had plenty of opportunities to serve the warrant in a peaceful manner.

“We have a system set up that allows the government to present their evidence and the defendant to challenge it. Through the courts… not through shooting at the officers.”

I did not say I agreed with what the BD’s did. I said they were murdered for their beliefs.

“Sir, I will turn it back… do YOU think that those men serving the warrants really had evil intent in their hearts and wanted to kill Koresch?”

Of course not. The govt wanted to make a statement, dissention will not be tolerated, the agents were patsy’s.
However, from experience, probably 1 in 4 agents were happy with the outcome.

“This confuses the current issue and creates a tit-for-tat, your guy did this which clouds the issue.”

Then you miss the point.

“A quick browse through my postings on this and other topics shows that I am very upset that there is a possibility that the President went outside the law and justified this “war” as his reason.”

Which comes back to my point. Some rights are more important to you than others. I cannot go that route. ALL of our rights are sacred.

“I do believe that we need to have investigations, charges brought if evidence warrants it and trials.”

Everybody does.

“I do not, however, believe that the President should shoot anyone serving him papers and barracade himself in the White House.”

Yep. You all keep viewing people who believe in the 2nd Amendment as loonies all you want. Its worked out so well for you in recent elections hasnt it.

I know what the rule of law is and isnt. I also know that sometimes, enough is enough and people cant be pushed any further. Were you aware that militias grew by around a 100% during clintons reign? Maybe you guys should have listened to them some instead of discounting them. They were saying much of what you guys preach about now.

You just spent alot of time making excuses for clinton, your guy, to justify his actions. Is it any surprise then that the right makes excuses for their guy? Why?
They represent the same govt, not its people.

Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #110256

kctim,
You want to determine whether the difference of opinion as to the reliability of the intelligence was based on one person lying and the other telling the truth instead of a difference of interpretation? Fine.

For someone who believes in all the rights, your sensitivity to the 2nd seems predominant.

My example of the President and the White House had absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment… It was a question as to whether or not the President (or a person) has the right to shoot (a .22, .25, .38, .45, .50 cal. it doesn’t matter… he can do it with a crossbow for all I care) a person with a search warrant and barracade themselves in a house.

I believe you turned it into a gun nut issue.

The question was related to whether or not a person is right to use deadly force when approached by a law enforcement officer.

I do not believe that David Koresch, myself or just about anyone else, is qualified to determine the validity of a court warrant and open fire.

You disagree with the methods used by the ATF? That is an operations decision based on the use of force and standard operating procedures. The Presidents are pretty powerfull people, but the do not have time to go through all agencies SOP’s.

I understand. You wish there to be no infringement on any of the Bill of Rights. That is a perfectly valid position.

We shall then go back to the law of the gun. He who is most willing to kill is the one that is right. Isn’t that kinda like the old “Gods Law” where two people battle and the one that lives is considered by God to be the teller of the truth? Cooool. I can understand why you might want the maximum firepower if this is the logical conclusion to absolutely no limitations on the Bill of Rights.

Anyone can say anything about anyone they choose… sure, we will keep the civil restrictions because that will be between individuals and not an individual and the government… but won’t it be a government enforcing the ruling of the civil court?

If you, as a law enforcement officer, goes with the defendant to enforce the judgement against the plantiff cannot the plantiff shoot at you because regardless of what the court said, he was just exercising his freedom of speech when he wrote all those lies?

He doesn’t have to care about the validity of the warrant. You didn’t call him up and ask him when it would be convenient to come and serve the papers… that failure of proper ettiquete justifies his trying to kill you.

Or, maybe you were supposed to wait until he was somewhere else before you served the papers… because you should know that doing your duty of serving court papers entitles anyone who disagrees with them to shoot you.

Religions should be able to allow sacrafices because the government shall make no laws infringing on religions. If they wish to hold inqusitiions and torture and burn people who are heretics than that is okay, because it is a religous issue.

Again, I know that the 2nd is near and dear to your heart… I SAID I DO OWN A GUN.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 4, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #110260

At the risk of posting too often…

To say that any of my above examples is silly means that there might need to be restrictions.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 4, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #110262

OK - quick question for anyone posting tonight…

What are the top 5 illegal/unethical issues do you feel are at the top of National Priority?

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #110263

(I’ll go first)

1 - Abramoff scandle

2 - NSA warrantless spying

3 - failure to implement 9/11 comm. reforms/suggestions

4 - CIA/Plame leak

5 - the idea that elected officals feel that they can get around illegal/unethical behaviors by returning money or refilling travel details (kind of tied in with the Abramoff scandle - but directled at officials

Posted by: tony at January 4, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #110286

5- Homeland secuirty mis-management. Katrina showed just how flat-footed we would have been caught if it had been a terriorist attack

4- NSA domestic spy program. I have a feeling this went really deep, much more than we had first been told.

3- Libby iniditment/Plame case- Again there is at least one more person to be nailed yet. Fitzgerald always squeezes a middle guy to nail the higher ups.

2- Coalition Provisional Authority- It’s our tax money and by the way we have no idea where that 8 billion went, I’m sure congress will get around to looking into some year, after Shivo and steroids in baseball

1- Abermoff scandal- This will be far reaching and help take some of the garbage out of congress on both sides.

Just my cents

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at January 4, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #110292

King George and his Merry Band of NeoCon Zionists adhere to the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to representative democratic government. He borrowed from earlier philosophers to show that, since they couldn’t agree on the definition of “natural right”—in reference to “rights” as being “self-evident”—there was no “RIGHT” anymore…leaving him to apply his own rhetoric and twisted logic to create a new definition of “natural right”. He thought that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior”. Essentially, the wealthy and powerful have every right to do whatever is necessary—including using perpetual deception—to keep the masses believing that their leaders know what’s good for them. “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,” he once wrote. “Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people.”
“In Strauss’ view, you have to fight all the time [to survive],” said Drury. “Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in.” Such views naturally lead to an “aggressive, belligerent foreign policy”, she added. (Read this excellent article for the rest of your NeoCon 101 course. Also, the BBC did a series of documentaries about the rise of the Neocon movement out of Straussian Philosophy—“The Power of Nightmares”—and concluded that the War On Terror is a complete fraud and Al Qaeda is a largely manufactured threat as part of the agenda to scare people into accepting the Neocon vision of the New World Order. You can watch here.)

With the PNAC adherents firmly ensconced in Washington DC, we have nothing but a string of endless wars to look forward to. And don’t get too optimistic about another 1994 happening…with the electronic voting machines that have become mandatory, enabling Bush and others needed for the task of “spreading democracy” to slip undetected into their elected offices, we don’t stand much of a chance “throwing out the bums”!

When King George spouts off about the need to spread democracy, he isn’t referring to American-style representative democracy—he’s referring to the Zionist vision of Executive Power (notice how Bush acts like the Executive Branch operates exclusive of the others—and they will continue to concentrate even more power to the Executive Branch) and Majority Rule….and the end of representative U.S.-style government as we know it!

Posted by: Gnostic Guru at January 4, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #110297

A while back, I blasted someone about complianing about the slow response to Katrina. I was wrong.
Jeff G made me think. What if… lets say Katrina wasn’t a catagory five storm that we had day’s and day’s notice.
Let’s say it was a planned terrorist attack, and Bush and Co. had knowlage of this days and days in advance(because of the illegal wire-taping).
My point being that the People up in washington knew of the storm and could have at least gotten closer, with fuel, water, food etc… as to be able to help with more haste, when the waters did receed.
How in the world could they reasonably expect to stop an attack and how would they get aid to the injured, lost and hungry.
This wire-taping garbage is just that, MAYBE A TRILIAN TO ONE CHANCE OF COMING ACCROSS ANY INFO. More like Zero chance of actualy getting any real Good INFO. Homeland secuirity is clearly not equiped to handle anything. Not even a storm that we knew, the when and the where.
I say more than flat footed. We are missing the limbs all together. And how much of our tax dollars fund this program ?
I just learn more and more each day from all of you.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 4, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #110314

I’m making the assumption that this is OK. If not scold me soundly. We’re down to the wire letting our congress know what we think of Samuel Alito. Please if you’ve not already done so let the Senate know:

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/rejectalito

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at January 5, 2006 3:11 AM
Comment #110316

Tony,

Mine are (Note, these are alleged illegal or unethical activities):

#1 The secret Cheney energy policy task force of 2001. (This, I believe, will be the “smoking gun” to so many questions we have had over the past 5 years.)
#2 Abramoff scandal.
#3 NSA warrantless wiretaps.
#4 FEMA response and the filling of key positions with political hacks.
#5 Secret European prisons run by the CIA and the number of innocents they have kidnapped in the past.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 5, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #110322

It’s a good thing that we don’t have to win WWII now. By the time our politically correct citizenry would have worked out the appropriate response to enemy aggression, all of Europe would have fallen and we would still be making ridiculous statements about putting soldiers in harm’s way and protecting the rights of collaboraters.

Posted by: good king ned at January 5, 2006 6:01 AM
Comment #110327

In reference to the TOP 5 lists above:

I had an idea last night. I think these issues represent some very bad patterns. 1 - they are getting more extreme and more blatant. 2 - these officials seemed very unconcerned about the consequences of their actions (oh well, just return the money and all’s forgiven.) AGHHH!

Here’s my suggestion: Let’s clean house. Let’s determine who within these scandles listed above are involved, and let’s pressure to have them removed. Here’s the trick - I’m from the left, so I don’t think the NRC will listen to me much. I have donated around $1000 to DNC (and others) so they might listen to me there. So, let’s clean our own houses. If you are on the left - you pressure people on the left. Same goes for people on the right.

I will trust people on both sides (here at least) to bring up names of representatives that need attention. No mater if you think are reasons or technicalities for them to avoid legal actions - the simple fact that they are facing issues means they have not lived up to our expectations. It’s not about legal convictions, it’s about derelection of duties - and it’s obviously on both sides.

Let’s work together by focusing our energies where they will be best accepted - in our own parties. Let’s peddle some of our own influence. Let’s make sure that our parties know that we expect the most from those who directly represent us.

Thoughts?

Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 6:52 AM
Comment #110329

Tony,

It sounds like your own ‘Declaration of Independence’ to me. Okay, I’m game. But, without a little help on the Right, it’ll be like pissin’ into the wind.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 5, 2006 7:20 AM
Comment #110330

I’m inspired by Tony’s reasonable stance regarding corruption (although I suspect that firm guidelines and appeals to decency have been unsuccessfully applied to government since the advent of city states) so I wish to offer a voice of reason about the governments response (local, state and federal) to Katrina.

I was in New Orleans during the storm and evacuated to Miss. the next day in front of the rising water and the looters. If you weren’t there and haven’t seen the scope of the destruction, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the governmental response. Three states were hit consecutively over a 12 hour period by a wall of water. The water stood in place in LA for up to a month with flooding to the second stories of buildings. The water in MS crashed through miles of inhabited areas reaching heights in excess of 40 feet. No government plan could have been prepared to deal with these situations. Granted, FEMA sucks, but this is old news.

If we were to put enough infrastructure in place to deal with a disaster of this scale, the government would be unable to do little else. It would a take a prohibitive amount of resources to have materials on hand with a functional distribution system. Similiarly, in order for personnel to be experienced enough to facilitate disaster relief under the aftermath conditions of Katrina, they would have to hold their posts with a Strom Thurmond-like tenure. This type of longevity in office doesn’t do much to reduce corruption in government.

There are things that can be done to improve disaster response and preparedness, but they are limited. The main problem with Katrina was that we got hit with a big ass hurricane.

Posted by: good king ned at January 5, 2006 7:43 AM
Comment #110336

I agree that things don’t go so well when we try to make government work ethically - but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we come at it from the wrong direction. We always try to make the other side act better while accepting similar behavior from ‘our side.’ Enough is enough. I am happy to put pressure on the DEM side because if I can going to represented by them and fund them, then I require that they act appropriately for me. If we make this happen, and it remains one-sided, then i think it will show and the other side will be forced to comply or loose ‘market share.’

I can not go to the REPs and ask for change, because they expect me to dislike their actions and ways - so they can easily dismis my concerns and requests. I spend a good bit of money within the DEM party… so I think that will def. worked better.

Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #110337

I agree that things don’t go so well when we try to make government work ethically - but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we come at it from the wrong direction. We always try to make the other side act better while accepting similar behavior from ‘our side.’ Enough is enough. I am happy to put pressure on the DEM side because if I can going to represented by them and fund them, then I require that they act appropriately for me. If we make this happen, and it remains one-sided, then i think it will show and the other side will be forced to comply or loose ‘market share.’

I can not go to the REPs and ask for change, because they expect me to dislike their actions and ways - so they can easily dismis my concerns and requests. I spend a good bit of money within the DEM party… so I think that will def. worked better.

Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #110338

good king ned,

Poor analogy of WWII actually. If you look at the history you will see American’s majority wanting to stay out of Europe and let them do whatever they want. America was standing on the side lines watching England battle as the last free democracy in Europe.

It was only after Pearl Harbor did Americans react and then it was towards the Janpanese whom we declared war on… it is highly possible we never would have gone to Europe if Hitler did not declare war on us.

Insteresting expression politically correct… to what were you refering?
1) Instance on adhering to the 4th Amendment?
2) The proper roles of the different branches of the government and the inherient oversight of one over the other?

I always thought of “politically correct” being simply people no longer putting up with boorish behavior, rudeness, sexist or racist remarks.

I guess that it has expanded to anyone that believes in the rule of law.

Oh, wait!!! Now I get it… “good king ned”
Any king would believe that citizens participating in their government were obstructionists. Darn that Magna Catra


Posted by: Darren7160 at January 5, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #110340

Nothings done in the dark in this country. The Repugs and the Demo’s both understand that they have a two-headed snake war and both watch as the vultures venture into the new markets of China and South-East Asia and leave America far behind.
The point being is McCain the only American voice left?
Will the president ever learn American history, or at least a sense of it?
Finally, are we as American’s willing to give up liberties in a fight that can never be won?

Posted by: Demo-Repo man at January 5, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #110342

My point with the Katrina comment was, not that we got hit with a BIG ASS hurricane. I know we did, and as a reasonable person I did assume, we got there as quikly as possible. My point is this … We knew it was coming…
In comparison to the wire-taping. Bush says it is a matter of national security. I ask this, Even if he(BUSH)did eavsdrop and come accross vital information conserning an attack. Would this knowledge, arm him in a manner to which he could stop it or have his poeple as close as possible to aid the poeple after.
He knew the hurricane was coming… was it worse than he thought, probably. BUT, he knew it was coming. Why then didn’t he have FEMA closer to the areas hit. (not in the middle of, For Gods sake.) Would the realization of an attack, aid in any way, the response to that attack, from this ADMIN.?
I think that after the towers of the World Trade Center have come crashing down, and hurricanes of level Five have accured, Our responses to such events would no longer be one of just pure shock. But one of readiness to action. Isn’t that an aspect what Homeland Security was supposed to be. AND, does eavsdroping have a rational expectation of helping anyone. The Katrina response (In this relaton) tells me, NO.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 5, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #110369

gypsyirishgirl,

Your points are valid. No matter who is in charge, they must react much faster and with more caring than has happened lately. Wiretapping cannot help America against terrorism unless those who can respond do so. This administration has not shown its willingness nor aptitude for adequate response to any event.

You don’t have to list catastrophic events. Check out how it reacts to being found out regarding missing WMDs, lost terrorist training camps, CIA outing, NSA wiretapping, and officials being bribed…I wonder just how difficult it would be to prepare for some of these things in advance…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 5, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #110442

If you are commmunicating with individuals who have financial and orgainizational links with terrorist groups, you should expect to be under surveillance. Planning and executing terrorist acts is a criminal activity and it is the job of the government to pursue, capture, and punish persons engaged in these activities.

Does anyone remember the hue and cry that arose after 9/11 because the administration did not foresee the attack? Does anyone remember that the government’s inability to gain legal access to private computers owned by terrorist suspects prevented the capture of the hijackers?

The number of taps in question is miniscule. If you are not communicating with agents of terrorist organizations, the government is not going to monitor your communication. The taps were targeted on persons who have known ties with terrorist groups.

I see from the previous postings, disbelief that these methods can be effective, yet there have been no further attacks in the United States and several terrorist cells in the US have been apprehended. I reject the view that this war is unwinnable. You might as well say that street crime will never be eradicated, so why bother. The rule of law requires continued vigilance against terrorism.

Posted by: good king ned at January 5, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #110445

Note to gypsyirich girl,

Your absolutely right. EVERYONE knew the hurricane was coming and it WAS worse than we thought it would be. The meterological services are predicting that next year’s hurricane season could be as bad or even worse, perhaps we should evacuate the coastal regions now and avoid the seasonal rush.

If you really want to improve the response to hurricanes, the answer is not is more federal assistance, but in allocating more relief resources to the local governments who know and area and understand the needs better.

Posted by: good king ned at January 5, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #110449

—-
If you are communicating with individuals who have financial and organizational links with terrorist groups, you should expect to be under surveillance. Planning and executing terrorist acts is a criminal activity and it is the job of the government to pursue, capture, and punish persons engaged in these activities.
—-

OK - and so how was this ‘classified information’?

Also, Bush broke the law, so what does his intent have to do with it? He had all of the available resources and support to do what he needed to gather information (either by retroactive warrants or by collaborating with Congress to alter laws governing these types of needs.) He did neither and had no interest in involving the people who should legally be involved. That’s his issue - no one else’s. Had he approached this in the proper fashion, then this would not be an issue.

I have no problem with Bush presenting his case to Congress and making this happen the proper way. The fact that he had such simple methods to make these wiretaps happen and he did not use them (instead going about this secretly) tells me that he has motives I would not agree with.

Posted by: tony at January 5, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #110459

Given the fact that Congress is still trying to work out the legality of events that occurred in 2001, I suspect that the phone conversations would be over by the time that a decision was reached.

Posted by: good king ned at January 5, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #110470

With a Republican controlled congress… yep, they might not get around to investigating until after 2006 elections. Bad timing, don’t yah know?

And then, like the oil executives, will they be invited to lie to congress when they are told that they do not need to take an oath? (nod, nod, wink, wink)

“If you are communicating with individuals who have financial and organizational links with terrorist groups, you should expect to be under surveillance.”

I do not think any of us have a problem with that. Get a warrant (even 72 hours after the tap starts) and monitor and hunt them down.

There is the assumption that if you haven’t communicated with terrorists you have nothing to worry about. Is this in actuality fact?

We don’t know. We may never know. Innocent people who’s name is placed into a database because the net is cast so wide may never know that they are considered an “enemy of the state.” There is a very good liklihood that it will effect their life.

Where is the oversight from a branch other than the executive (I do not mean seceret briefings of select congressmen sworn to not divulge what is told to them).

Do we have judges assessing the “probable casuse” for warrants?

Is there an Inspector General monitoring information to assess its validity?

From my understanding, when the info is dumped into the database it is made available to other law enforcement agencies and all source references are stripped out. How do you refute bad data if it is there?

This is not paranoia. I have had ownership of a house listed on my credit report I never even hear of… Oooops…

We are presuming that only information of the “bad” people is being collected…

However, when the policy is to be better safe than sorry, do you think they will willingly take a chance of being caught with any information that wasn’t put in? Nope. Better to dump it all in and let the dust settle where it may. If a few innocent people get hurt, there is always collateral damage in war.

To all that disagree with us fuzzy headed liberals… this war will not end soon… the Republican party will NOT always be in control… those are just 2 facts. You can wish and hope and argue until you are blue in the face, but it is true.

Are you willing, in complete honesty, to give a Democrat President the same benefit of a doubt? I am no naming a particular person as President because it really doesn’t matter.

The extremists on both sides have driven a wedge into the American public to the point where there is a complete mistrust between Americans that the opposition is capable of doing what is right for America as a nation.

The problem with extremists? They are usually a one or two issue person. And, they feel so strongly about those one or two issues that they are willing to do WHATEVER it takes. Even if it means tearing our country apart so they can rebuild it in their image.. so much the better… get rid of those “fence sitters”.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 5, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #110500

Darren,

>>The problem with extremists?

Ummmm…They are extremists? Is this a trick question?

Posted by: Marysdude at January 5, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #110515

Good king ned,
if you would read with an open mind, you would see that, what I was saying, was the same as you. get the help to were it is needed. Just because you used differant words does not change the message.

About the evacuations:
Great idea. lets start with you.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 5, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #110522

Jeez gypsyirishgirl!

You and yours chased me off the blog and now you want me to leave the continent. Are you lefties claiming the southern coastline as well as the east and west
now?

I’m surprized that you care about damage to the south. I seldom hear a liberal say anything about the south that doesn’t include a derisive comment about incest or NAScar.

Posted by: good king ned at January 5, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #110538

good king ned,

I care about a great deal of things, including the southern coast,(were I live)!

I have never mentioned (god forbid) Nascar.

You and yours are to quik to judgement.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at January 5, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #110747

Bush claims he has the power to disregard laws becaues he is Commander in Chief and we are at war.
The problem is that the “War on Terror” will be neverending. There have always been terrorists in some part of the world, and no doubt always will be.
We have then gone from living in a free country to living in a dictatorship.

Posted by: Warren Dace at January 6, 2006 5:11 PM
Post a comment