Democrats & Liberals Archives

Now And Then A Study In Contrast

The White House goes on the offensive to prosecute those who leak classified and now, unclassified information to the press.

Now:

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
President Bush has called the NSA leak "a shameful act" that was "helping the enemy," and said in December that he was hopeful the Justice Department would conduct a full investigation into the disclosure.
“Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation”

Then:

On July 6, 2003, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV went public with his conclusion that it was highly doubtful that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger for weapons of mass destruction program. That called into question one of the central claims made by the Bush administration prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Eight days later, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that "two senior administration officials" told him that Wilson had been suggested for the trip by his wife. Novak identified her as Valerie Plame, a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction."
In December 2003, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago was named as a special counsel to investigate whether the identification of Plame, who was an undercover CIA officer, was a violation of federal law.
"Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.
Fitzgerald said his investigation will continue. Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor, remains under investigation.
The indictment says Cheney was one of the officials who provided information about Plame to Libby, telling him that she worked in the CIA's counter- proliferation division.

Where was the outrage then?
Which of our enemies was helped by this leak?
"a shameful act" indeed

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at March 6, 2006 12:11 PM
Comments
Comment #131611

Kind of like punishing the person who reported the crime.
Instead of the person who committed the crime.

NSA leak exposed criminal activity.
Plame leak tried to hide truth by outing a CIA person.
In both the Bush Admin is the criminal.

Where is our Ken Starr? I think ours would actually have a few crimes to investagate.
Thats right if you do not sleep with oil companys
you can’t afford one.

Posted by: Honey P at March 6, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #131621

perhaps this is all money in the bank to be withdrawn and spent when a shift in power occurs in both houses of Congress.

One can dream, no?

Posted by: macsonix at March 6, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #131624

An interesting study in comparison as well.

Note that in both situations, Bush wants the matter investigated. With the Plame affair, we got Patrick Fitzgerald as a special counsel.

Andre, are you suggesting that we should get a special counsel in the case of the NSA leaks, or should they be treated differently from the Plame affair?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 6, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #131626

joebagodonuts,

Where was the outrage then?
“Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation”
I don’t recall such a focused effort from this administration when it came to the Plame investigation.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 6, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #131627

in the case of the NSA leaks, there should certainly be a special counsel to investigate - the crimes of this administration. the only security that the NSA leaks compromised was Bush/Cheney’s, and i am quite tired of hearing nonsense to the contrary.

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #131629

or perhaps we should no longer be allowed to discuss “the war on terror” - after all, we are supplying information to the enemy (they might not know that we are at war with them).

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #131640

This excerpted from a recent NYT editorial (3/06/2006)…

“Imagine being stopped for speeding and having the local legislature raise the limit so you won’t have to pay the fine. It sounds absurd, but it’s just what is happening to the 28-year-old law that prohibits the president from spying on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

It’s a familiar pattern. President Bush ignores the Constitution and the laws of the land, and the cowardly, rigidly partisan majority in Congress helps him out by rewriting the laws he’s broken…Now the response of Congress to Mr. Bush’s domestic wiretapping scheme is following the same pattern, only worse.

At first, lawmakers expressed outrage at the warrantless domestic spying, and some Democrats and a few Republicans still want a full investigation. But the Republican leadership has already reverted to form. Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held one investigative hearing, notable primarily for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s refusal to answer questions.

Mr. Specter then loyally produced a bill that actually grants legal cover, retroactively, to the one spying program Mr. Bush has acknowledged. It also covers any other illegal wiretapping we don’t know about — including, it appears, entire “programs” that could cover hundreds, thousands or millions of unknowing people…”.

Say what you want, but not conducting a major investigation into this sordid affair (and yes a special prosecutor should be appointed)is, in my opinion, the real tavesty here.

Posted by: bill06 at March 6, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #131647

It seems to me that this administration is taking pages from the Nixon administration. Bush and co. are utilizing the same tactics of misinformation and smear through ‘friendly’ press advocates (hint: FNC).

Nixon wanted Ellsberg arrested and silenced. And Bush wants all free-press silenced.

Posted by: john trevisani at March 6, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #131662

As Joe says, but I will say too, in the Plame case we had a special procecutor who spent a lot of time and money to go after the source. I advocated that, if proven guilty, the person should be punished. I say exactly the same thing now.

So if you want to be consistent, you should do as I do. We should investigate. IF appropriate, we should prosecute. If convicted, we should punish.

Simple. Works for all the cases. I was not outraged then. I am not outraged now. I believed in the rule of law both times. Do you?

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #131683

“I belived in the rule of law both times. Do you?”

I do—does the Bush administration?

With its signing statements, and telling Congress what he will abide by and what he won’t, by ignoring FISA and wire-tapping without authorization, by torturing and kidnapping and detaining in defiance of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg tribunal rulings, by launching a war against a country that did not (and could not) threaten us in any meaningful way, I’d say the Bush administration’s inability (or refusal) to uphold the laws and the Constitution makes impeachment the only recourse. If that doesn’t happen, I advocate massive civil disobedience—the kind that shuts down the nation until the pols come to their collective senses.

We have an election coming— any evidence of law-breaking, of trashing of votes, of illegally kicking voters off the rolls, or under-serving certain districts to limit voting of certain parties(not enough voting machines)—if there is evidence of wide=spread shennanigans, then I advocate a slow, methodical, no-holds-barred, revolution. If the power is misused or mis-handled, or taken from the people, then it is time to take it back.

If you don’t hear from me again—you can start wondering about who is being wire-tapped, who is being disappeared, and where liberty truly resides.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 6, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #131685

Tim,

So if the elections don’t go how you want and a bunch of unsupported allegations are made, you plan on revolting?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward at March 6, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #131688

Coward:

There had been more than enough indications over the last six years (and beyond) of the dereliction of duty by our government, and the deterioration of rights and freedoms in this country. The last three elections have had serious problems as to legitimacy for millions of people. If we have a fourth federal election that has the kind of problems that we’ve had in 2000, 2002 and 2004—yes, I advocate revolution. After all, it’s only what Jefferson and several others advocated, if the government wasn’t going to act on the will of the people.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 6, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #131700

Let me, let all of you in on a personal experience I went through some years back (2000). I worked in law enforcement at the time and a partner of mine had arrested a subject for possession of less than 1oz of Grass. The subject was also arrested for being drunk in public. As it was shift change, I took the arrest for the original officer. While in route to the jail, the subject gave me some information as to where I might find a large sum of money and drugs. I told the subject I would look into the information he gave me and if true, I would not charge for the possesion.
To try and get to my point I will leave out a lot of other information.
The just of the story is I received the info and found it to be true. I did in law enforcement terms what we call “wind tested” the small amount of grass and never charged him for it.
In the end this all came back to bite me. The court judge ruled that my failure to inform my employer or the court the full turth as to the “wind testing” of the drugs was in effect a “LIE.” So to make this long story shorter, the court has ruled if we do not tell the whole truth, but only what we want to get out, than we are guilty of LYING.
I have always found it interesting that the very judge who heard my case and made the decision I spoke of above, supports GW. It is ok for the president to only give us portions of the truth, but if a cop does it, than it is a lie. Republicans on this issue are trying to have it both ways.

Posted by: Rusty at March 6, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #131706

Tim,

That’s a good idea. Maybe part of the country should secede. God knows the people who support Bush are incapable of amdmitting they’re wrong and would gladly follow him straight to hell. Of course that’s not likely, so the next best thing would be a revolution. The people who started the US knew they had to stand up to tyranny and corruption, when our government becomes like Britain was then, it’s time for another revolt.

Rusty,
The whole system is corrupt. I heard that most people in prison are there for drug possession (correct me if I’m wrong). That’s stupid, if you bought a few ounces or marijuana and don’t hurt anyone you shouldn’t be a criminal. I know this sounds awful, but sometimes it makes me so angry I almost feel like breaking the law just for spite. I don’t mean serious laws, just things that are victimless and don’t hurt anyone in anyway. For example, the government says I can’t play a DVD on a computer running linux because it would break DVD encryption, well f#$k ‘em, if I buy a movie I’ll watch it however I want no matter what some jerk in washington says. If hollywood gets congress to pass a law eroding fair use rights, I’ll be more than happy to pirate my movies. I’m just speaking hypothetically and don’t really mean any of this, but when the system gets so corrupt we need to fight back against it.

Posted by: mark at March 6, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #131710

SOmething I having to say this. Rule of law is rule of law. You guys think you have the result already. You talk about election fraud, but there is no evidence that holds up to scrutiny.

FISA is under some dispute. Congress and the courts can speak on it. They have not yet done it.

So the IF is the important part of your point. So far you have been wrong most of the time.

As for your revolution, you will excuse me if I am not concerned. How many of those who boldly raved and swore they would leave the country if Bush was elected actually decamped?

When I was in college we had lots of revolutionaries. Sometimes the frat boys would toss snowballs at them and they would run off and complain that the state they intended to overthrow by violent means did not defend them from the snowy onslaught.

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #131714

Tim;

Thank you. I wanted to respond in the same manner but you put it so well.

Pat

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #131716

Just had to say something: the rule of law is not a moral absolute. What George Washington did was illegal under the ruling government, as was the underground railroad movement to free slaves. At times it’s ethical to break laws. Besides, as far as I’m concerned Bush is breaking the law when he violates the constitution (which incidentally is supposed to be the supreme law of the land).

Posted by: John at March 6, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #131725

John: precisely my point—thanks for clarifying my own thinking.

Pat—you’re welcome. Sometimes I like to throw a bomb in the proceedings, just to see if anyone is paying attention. I always am sure that Jack is paying attention, though. How’s Virginia tonight, Jack?

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 6, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #131728

Hey! Speaking of throwing bombs—isn’t today the 170th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo?

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 6, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #131748

Jack,

Your right the rule of law is the rule of law. However, it is also in the eye of the people in power. When Clinton was in office the republican controled congress and senate threw all kinds of charges at Clinton; File Gate, Foster Gate, White Water etc. etc. If you will go back and look at your history you will find that the honorable Ken Starr found nothing to support any of those charges.
Wham, however, through investigation he was able to find a lady who worked with another lady who illegally taped a phone call and Starr was able to prove that Clinton lied to the court and to the country about a legal, though unethical and immorale act of adultry.
My point is this. For those of you who think there isn’t anything in the alligations being charged against Bush, then just think back to Clinton. If they keep throwing enough mud, something, someplace and sometime is going to stick.
If the Demos get control of the US congress in November, you may see an impeachment hearing by the end of 2007. After all enough demos believe that Bush lied about a number of issues and would love to see the pay back. Right or Wrong. I don’t think anyone is out of the woods. And believe me, Bush sure doesn’t want to see the demos get control of either house in 2006.

Posted by: Rusty at March 6, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #131762

Tim Crow,What rights have you lost!I haven’t lost any since the Repubs were elected.With a few more years we will get our schools back and other things the Dems westled from the States control.The Dems talk about Bush taking away our rights and that’s all it is TALK!Not one bit of evidence just accusations! Reading an opinion in a newspaper is not evidence, accusing some one by dozens of people is not evidence.Evidence is sworn eyewitness testimony or unforged documents which actually hold up in a court of law.None of this has surfaced and it won’t because is is only TALK!!!!!!If someone has proof give it to the Dems,they are desperately trying to prove ANYTHING to disgrace Bush.So far they have only disgraced the Democratic party I used to belong to but will NEVER belong to again as long as they use HATE to run or I should say RUIN this Government.There is nothing they have accused the Repubs of that they have not already done themselves,and 5 of the 6 congressmen who have been convicted of real crimes are Dems!!!!Both Dems and Repubs are far from perfect but to accuse without evidence is lieing to the Public and people like me can tell the difference even if you can’t!!!!!! Those who employee those tactics do not deserve to be elected!!!!!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at March 6, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #131780

RDAVIDC:

If you are talking about this particular Congress, the only congressman that I know of being convicted (so far), is Duke Cunningham (R-Ca).

If indeed there is turn-over in Congress this fall, there may be all the proof you need, seeing that the Republicans have stone-walled any bi-partisan investigations into the handling of Katrina, the possibility of misrepresenting and manipulating intelligence regarding the runup to Iraq,and the continuing of torture and kidnapping in the American people’s name—not to mention the absolute incompetence we are witnessing in the conduct of the Iraqi war.

The President himself unapologetically announced that he has flounted the FISA law, and has admitted to surveilling American citizens without warrants for over three years.

I have proof that this administration helped to kill over 1300 citizens of the Gulf coast out of sheer incompetence. I have proof that this administration has never found WMD in Iraq (the reason de tre of our war in Iraq). There is very strong evidence that this administration intentionally leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent for political payback. We have strong evidence that this administration is not only condoning torture, but is willfully ignoring the will of Congress (the McCain bill) in this regard.

I have proof via the brave and tenacious investigations of dozens of people of the egregious and criminal manipulation and voiding of votes by American citizens by partisan political hacks, and the bought and paid for Congress and the Supreme Court.

This is only what we know about. I can only imagine the size of the criminal ‘iceberg’ out of our view.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 7, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #131801

Tim Crow:

With its signing statements, and telling Congress what he will abide by and what he won’t, by ignoring FISA and wire-tapping without authorization, by torturing and kidnapping and detaining in defiance of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg tribunal rulings, by launching a war against a country that did not (and could not) threaten us in any meaningful way, I’d say the Bush administration’s inability (or refusal) to uphold the laws and the Constitution makes impeachment the only recourse. If that doesn’t happen, I advocate massive civil disobedience—the kind that shuts down the nation until the pols come to their collective senses.

Tim — you’re absolutely right. There are currently three rock solid reasons that impeachment proceedings might go forward against Bush.

1. Fraudulent reasons intentionally used to justify the Iraq war and going into that war without the approval or a declaration of war from Congress.
2. Warrantless wiretapping of Americans in the U.S. in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which directly prohibits and makes it a criminal offense to wiretap without a warrant. The president has, in no uncertain terms, admitted he has broken this law numerous times, and will continue to do so — UNTIL CONGRESS OR WE THE PEOPLE, STOP HIM.
(I just had to put this one second for historical reasons, since it was also the second article of impeachment for Nixon)
3. Breaking of the Geneva Conventions and instituting the criminal use of torture, arbitrary detentions, disappearances and special trials.

Additionally, as you said, this president and administration has shown complete contempt for the Constitution. These men have also shown the same disregard for the purpose and necessary oversight of the other two branches of government, by refusing to acknowledge that both are fully co-equal to the executive branch.

No matter who wins in November, if our Congress continues to keep refusing to act, We the People must collectively ACT UP, until Congress finds the courage to take these (and other) matters with the seriousness they deserve, and doing what so clearly and obviously needs to be done.

Jack and the other true believers can try to imply that that criminal proof, or indictments are necessary before they’d be able to bring articles of impeachment, but they would be dead wrong. Impeachment is first and foremost a political process, not a criminal one. Congress can select a committee and begin impeachment proceedings against the president whenever they see the need due to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Criminal proceedings may or may not take place afterward, or may run concurrent to that process.
There is more than enough evidence for this to take place.

We have an election coming— any evidence of law-breaking, of trashing of votes, of illegally kicking voters off the rolls, or under-serving certain districts to limit voting of certain parties(not enough voting machines)—if there is evidence of wide=spread shennanigans, then I advocate a slow, methodical, no-holds-barred, revolution. If the power is misused or mis-handled, or taken from the people, then it is time to take it back.

If you don’t hear from me again—you can start wondering about who is being wire-tapped, who is being disappeared, and where liberty truly resides.”

They can’t take all of us, honey. There are simply way too many of us who know that Bush’s Unitary Executive is just another name for Authoritarian Dictator, and that what he’s been doing is totally illegal and undemocratic, and thoroughly anti-American.
And, as you point out there are many of us who are very unhappily aware of all the many problems we’ve been having with our elections. If we see another doubt-filled, highly questionable and suspicious election in November, I believe you are correct — a revolution will be needed.
I say we start by commandeering and smashing up every single Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia electronic voting machine and optical scanner that is in use across this country. They are untrustworthy and full of problems — and so are the men who own those companies.

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies on the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”
— Mario Savio, 1964

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #131844

WOW!
Maybe you should share this “proof” with somebody who will do something about it instead of just whining.
Provide this “proof” and the evil Christian Bush will be gone within the year.
And revolution?
How in the hell do you expect to have an effective revolution when half the country listened to the fear mongering of the previous administration and gave up their 2nd Amendment rights?

Now and then?
So why do you care about your rights now but you didnt care then? The right was pointing this out to you all throughout the 90s and you laughed at them. Now they are laughing at you.
You want something to get done? Try listening to other people before demanding they listen to you.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #131852

kctim…..fear mongering??? Pray tell what ( in your opinion, of course ) took place in the last administration that should have sent us cowering into dark corners.
I don’t see at all where Adrienne is demanding anything….and one could suppose that the people you want us to listen to would be those on the other side of the aisle, for we should know by now that they are totally incapable of untruth………

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 7, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #131856

Sandra
You are mistaken. It is not that it “should” have sent you cowering into dark corners. The left used events such as Columbine to “scare” people into voting to give up their rights.
If it was ok to use scare tactics then, why should it be such a big deal today? Party is the answer.
Crow is advocating revolution. My apologies for not being clear on that.

“and one could suppose that the people you want us to listen to would be those on the other side of the aisle”

Then you would be wrong. The people that should be heard are “The People” themselves. Not a party.

“for we should know by now that they are totally incapable of untruth”

To think Dems in power would be any different is being narrowminded and to think this administration is any more corrupt than the previous is being closedminded and naive.

If people are going to look at “Now and Then,” the first question to ask themselves is “why do I care Now but didn’t care Then.”

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #131859

kctim,

I’m not really sure what you’re point is.
You don’t see the leak by this administration in 03 and their 06 push to end leaks at the very least hypocritical and sadly amusing?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 7, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #131871

Andre
My point is that NOTHING that supports the people will ever get done, until everybody is willing to acknowledge the problem.
Blaming the other side for what one just got finished excusing their own side for, accomplishes nothing.
Now and Then is a GREAT topic. I even posted a story about it a few months ago. But if we really want the problem to be fixed, we need to go back way past 03.
We need to know why the people who were silent during the 90s are only concerned about their rights now that its the “other side” in power and why the people who were yelling Then, are quiet now.
Partisanship is the only answer I see and if that is the case, we as a country, will only become more divided and continue our downward slide.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #131880

kctim,

Tell me what rights you claim were openly stripped from us in the 90’s?
If you look at my posts, you’ll see a trend. I write about the incompetence of this administration and I write about government corruption. I feel that both parties are hurting our country.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 7, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #131885

“Provide this “proof” and the evil Christian Bush will be gone within the year.”

That is exactly what a Select Committee to impeach the president will do. Look at the proof and make a determination. Right now we have a majority in Congress who has been completely unwilling to look at all the proof that this president needs to be impeached.

“And revolution?
How in the hell do you expect to have an effective revolution when half the country listened to the fear mongering of the previous administration and gave up their 2nd Amendment rights?”

First of all, revolutions don’t have to involve a majority of Americans to be very highly effective. The Black Civil Rights Movement, and Free Speech and End the War protest Movements in the 60’s didn’t need a majority to meet their goals.
Secondly, who gave up their 2nd Amendment rights? Nobody. Not in the 90’s and not now. So quit trying to make it sound like your world came to an end and the Second Amendment was abolished during the Clinton years, because it is beyond ridiculous.

“To think Dems in power would be any different is being narrowminded and to think this administration is any more corrupt than the previous is being closedminded and naive.”

This is not about partisanship, kctim, so I’d appreciate it if you’d stop insisting that it is.
This is about demanding accountability from a president who lied us into a war, who ignores and violates the Constitution, who breaks the law(s), and who mistakenly believes that the power of the executive branch is greater than that of Congress and the Judiciary.
It is also about wanting to have elections that aren’t riddled with problems and controlled by private companies, but instead are truly fair, and fully accountable to We the People.
If we (left, right and center) don’t soon deal with both of these issues, our American Democracy is going to disappear — and those that care are going to have to make sure that it doesn’t.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #131892

kctim.. to add to what Adrienne pointed out….should we have feared a balanced budget and being left with a surplus??? Or maybe the fact that we were NOT in an “illegal” war with a skyrocketing death toll ??? We had a pretty decent repoire with most other countries…at least they didn’t despise us and our leadership. Maybe you’re having reference to Clinton, who stated that he “never had sex with that woman”…..all the while the fool in there now is “having sex” with all of us on a regular basis. You better bend over and get ready, ‘cuz if he hasn’t gotten to you yet…he’ll be there soon!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 7, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #131904

Adrienne,

Well said, as usual.

kctim,

What rights were stripped from us in the 90’s?
Look at the illegal list of activities thisa corrupt administration has under it’s belt.
Illegal wiretapping?
Illegal outing of CIA agents?
Back-room sales of our ports to UAE?
Illegal no-bid contracts?
Illegal pre-emptive attack of a soveriegn nation for the purpose of regime change?
kctim, even you, one of Bush’s most rabid fans have to admit that this administration has an ever-growing resume of illegal and questionable policies and activities.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 7, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #131925

Andre
So far, you only write about this “Republican” administration. I guess we will have to wait and see if you truly are non-partisan.

“So quit trying to make it sound like your world came to an end and the Second Amendment was abolished during the Clinton years, because it is beyond ridiculous”

Is it as ridiculous as saying you are losing your 4th Amendment rights today? NO!
Just because you disagree with a right does not mean that it is ok to reduce its strength.
Limiting an individuals 2nd Amendment right is unconstitutional. Creating a system to deter individuals from exercising this right is to. Govt prying into the lives of innocent people to see what they own or do is as equally wrong.
The left doesn’t see it this way, so they feel no harm has been done. Guns are evil.
Well guess what? Due to this little game of yours where only the rights you agree with are worth protecting, many people think its ok to hunt down terrorists and giving up some of their 4th rights is no big deal.
Who’s right? The people who see no problem with limiting rights, as long as they agree with which right is limited? or the crazy people who think all of our rights should be protected?

So I would appreciate it if all of you people who are screaming the end of the world would quit pretending like you would be concerned if it was your side in power right now. Because, as history has shown, you don’t give a damn about the rights you disagree with and you sure as hell won’t do anything to stop a corrupt administration when they represent your side.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #131929

Sandra
“should we have feared a balanced budget and being left with a surplus???”

Sure, surplus, yeah, thats the ticket ain’t it. You can make numbers say whatever you want. You want to believe we had a surplus, go ahead. Somehow I doubt you agree that Bush inherited a recession though.

“Or maybe the fact that we were NOT in an “illegal” war with a skyrocketing death toll???”

Kosovo WAS an illegal war. Sure, far fewer US soldier deaths, but it was still an unjust war that did not concern us.

“We had a pretty decent repoire with most other countries…at least they didn’t despise us and our leadership”

Who cares. I am concerned with my country. You can worry about what others “think” of you if you want. I’ll worry about whats best for Americans.

“Maybe you’re having reference to Clinton, who stated that he “never had sex with that woman”…..”

Not really. In fact, I’m your typical male pig. I applaud the dumbass for getting an early 20 something chick.
But the innocent American deaths at Waco, the taking money from China, clear 2nd Amendment violations and a disdain of the US Military are what pissed me off about him.

“all the while the fool in there now is “having sex” with all of us on a regular basis. You better bend over and get ready, ‘cuz if he hasn’t gotten to you yet…he’ll be there soon”

Yeah, YOU worry about the evil Republican govt getting you and I will worry about how evil ALL of our govt has gotten.
We’ll see who is more accurate.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #131934

Andre
“one of Bush’s most rabid fans have to admit that this administration has an ever-growing resume of illegal and questionable policies and activities”

First, can you name one thing that I have come out and said I support Bush on? Thank you.
Second, this resume you speak of, is an almost exact copy of the one used against clinton. How did that one turn out?
It was/is just as long and just as criminal. Why then, do you guys still refuse to acknowledge it?
Investigations proved otherwise? Then why not WAIT for the crimes you speak of against Bush to be investigated?

Right now, you guys have nothing but YOUR opinions, wishes and assumptions. The exact same thing the right had with clinton. And as with clinton, one little shred of proof that will bring him down, you will use. So quit blaming the Rep controlled congress and show the people all this UNBIASED PROOF BASED ON FACT and get the job done.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #131946

kctim,
Again, you are spewing facts that arn’t true by your own words.
Clinton was accused by the republican congress of many so called crimes, ie: China Gate (as you mentioned above), File Gate, Foster Gate, and White Water. Again go check your histroy books.

Ken Starr, the republican independant counsel found no evidence to bring nor file any charges against Bill Clinton on any of the above named charges. So by your own words after a court and grand jury heard all the evidence he was cleared of any wrong doing. Like it or not THOSE ARE THE FACTS! They did however, find during the investigation of the above mentioned case to find a women who was told by another women that the president has sex with an intern in the ovel office.
I will make no excueses for Clinton nor his lies in regards to this case. He was impeached like it or not and he will have to live with this for the rest of his life.
What gets me is that all of the things Clinton was accused of were investigated by Ken Starr and Clinton was exonerated of any wrong doing in File Gate, China Gate, Foster Gate and White Water. But you keep bringing it up as if Clinton were guility of those charges. HE WASN’T.
Bush and the republican party have stopped any looking into any wrong doing or special investigators (except for Plame). Low and behold the one they have let go forward has brought charges against Scotter Libby and may reach the VP. But this charge is one they most likely will be able to spin and control the damage. As to other offenses by Bush, if they were opened up and charges were filed, they would not be so easy to wash their hands of.
In closing, Clinton’s charges have been looked into and completed. He has paid his price for his mistakes. Bush has not answered the piper yet. His time is coming soon. If the dems can get control of the house (15 seats), Bush will have a special prosocutor looking into all of his alledged crimes. The good thing about that, is he will be like Clinton and no evidence of wrong doing will be found, or he will face impeachment.

Posted by: Rusty at March 7, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #131948

kctim,

Create the list of illegal activities that Clinton amassed.
I created one quite easily for Bush.
I’ll enjoy reading it.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 7, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #131949

kctim,
I just read your last post. I may have miss read your previous post. I will check and reread. If I miss read I apologize.

Posted by: Rusty at March 7, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #131951

kctim,

The Bush administration has attempted to influence Plame investigation: Offering judgeship to lead investigator.
Has manipulated Rep.Congress to retroactively make NSA wiretaps legal.
Has yet to answer to illegal war based on maniputated and doctored intel.
When Cheney, Rove and Libby were slowely exposed as the leak, where was Bush’s outrage? But whistleblowers who expose the illegal usurping of American rights by this administration, you know the ones you’re willing to part with in the name of “The War On Terror”, are labeled criminals.
The Bush administration is corrupt.
Illegal no-bid contracts have been buried by republican controlled government.
Illegal war based on lies and manipulations has been forgiven by a republican controlled government.
NSA wiretaps have been made legal by republican controlled congress.
Outing CIA agent is being investigated despite a republican controlled congress.
Our government is a joke. The Democrats are useless and the Republicans are corrupt. I am against the reality that is our government..Let them continue to screw us or get rid of them. You keep right and lefting the problem. You make sure you stay divided from those of us who are getting screwed right along side you. Hopefully that will make it all go away.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 7, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #131952

If Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, then Bush inherited the military from Clinton. The Iraq war was fought with the Clinton military. It takes four years for a president policy’s to filter down to the military (except for military pay and that sort). But for weaponary, planes, ships etc. it takes years to orginize. I remeber people saying Carter was anti military, but the most popular weapon used in the Gulf War was the patriot missle, a program started unde the Carter admin. I’m tired of people saying so and so is anti military or someone is anti christian, or someone is anti gay people.
People just believe in using what they have in differnt ways. It would be like saying because I believe in the banning of guns like AK-47’s and the like that I am anti gun. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love my S&W 40cal hand gun, my ruger 270cal hunting rifel and my winchester 30-06. I wouldn’t give them up for anything. But I know hunting and as a former law enforcement office I know bad guys. There is no reason for me to own my AK-47 or AR15. These guns are not made for hunting anything but people. They are weapons of mas distruction. I gave mine up 8 years ago and don’t miss either one of them.
I’m pro-choice, but I also don’t believe in late term abortion. I know most people are in this mode of thinking. Statistics still show that better than 67% of americans believe in a womens right to chose an abortion in the first tri-mester. Then the numbers start to drop after that.
We need to stop saying that someone is on one side or the other just because. I don’t believe for a minute that Bush truly means, “you are with us, or you are against us.” I take it as just that, a figure of speech. Actions are what speak the most

Posted by: Rusty at March 7, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #131960

Andre
“Our government is a joke. The Democrats are useless and the Republicans are corrupt. I am against the reality that is our government..Let them continue to screw us or get rid of them.”

Again Andre, please tell me where I have said I support Bush or that I do not support the proper handling of any misdeeds.
Investigations lead to you believing clinton is innocent of all the accusations against him. So why is it so hard to wait for the investigations into what you think Bush has done, before passing judgment?

“You keep right and lefting the problem. You make sure you stay divided from those of us who are getting screwed right along side you. Hopefully that will make it all go away”

Lets see. I was divided from the left during the 90s and today it is the right.
The right thought the people were getting screwed then and the left thinks we are today.
In 08, it will be the left who makes excuses and the right who is whining, again.
I however, will still be trying to figure out how people can think that only some of our rights are worth fighting for.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #131963

“If Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, then Bush inherited the military from Clinton”

Yep.

“The Iraq war was fought with the Clinton military. It takes four years for a president policy’s to filter down to the military (except for military pay and that sort).”

No. The military is the military no matter who is president. How they are equipped and their numbers is what is inherited.

“I’m tired of people saying so and so is anti military or someone is anti christian, or someone is anti gay people.”

So am I. But then again, I’m a gay liking atheist, what do I know.

“It would be like saying because I believe in the banning of guns like AK-47’s and the like that I am anti gun.”

Its also like saying “in order to protect American citizens from terrorists, the govt should be able to listen in on phone calls to catch them.”

“Nothing could be further from the truth. I love my S&W 40cal hand gun, my ruger 270cal hunting rifel and my winchester 30-06. I wouldn’t give them up for anything. But I know hunting and as a former law enforcement office I know bad guys. There is no reason for me to own my AK-47 or AR15.”

That is your individual choice. Who are you to tell another that they should not own one? I don’t like the 270, I think they can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Should you then be guilty until proven innocent and not allowed to own one?

“I’m pro-choice”

So am I.

“Actions are what speak the most”

Absolutely. But until people quit excusing the actions of their own particular party, we will continue to be divided.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #131966

Also Rusty
“In closing, Clinton’s charges have been looked into and completed”

Have the opinions, assumptions or charges concerning Bush been looked into and completed?
No. But the left acts like it all is a matter of FACT.
Should clinton have been impeached when people were merely saying he was involved in illegal monies with China? Or should there have been an investigation so the facts could be seen? I dont know about you, but I am glad they went with the investigation.
I dont need to check my history books.

Posted by: kctim at March 7, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #131988

kctim, pardon the liberal cliche, but you really need to Move On, dude.
The Clinton years are OVER. “They did things too” is NOT in any way an effective argument. Bush has and continues to violate our laws and Constitution NOW.
Seems to me that if you truly believed that all our Constitutional rights need to be defended and upheld at all times and under the leadership of either party, you’d right now be in complete agreement with us. Don’t you think that a Senate committee should investigate those three solid reasons I listed earlier that obviously deserve some serious looking into? And if found to be true and factual, possibly follow up with an impeachment?

Let’s face it, if Bush did nothing wrong and the proof is less solid than it appears, the man has got nothing to worry about, right?
So what can be your problem with that, if not the same kind of partisanship you’re always disdainfully accusing others of displaying in this blog.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #132012

kctim,

I want to move on from Clinton, however earlier today you mentioned his administration and spoke of his illegal actions with taking money from China. My point was, you are wrong. Clinton was found not have taken money in any illegal manner in regards to China but you spoke as if he did. That is why I wrote my post as I did.
Bush has not nor has the republican controled congress opened up hearings on any of the alligations made about Bush. Just that fact alone makes one wonder. I don’t think for a minute if you have split gov’t that a special prosocutor wouldn’t already be working on this case. The republican controled congress makes it seem like they are trying to protect him from something.
I do agree with you though. Until both parties hold everyone to the same standered, we will be in this kind of battle over one side vs. the other.
As for my gun remark. I did willingly give them up, I didn’t have too. As a law enforcement officer I was able to keep them as long as my department knew of them. I did chose to give them up. The limit does have to be made somewhere about what we can own and what we can’t. After all people can’t just go around and own any weapon they chose now can they. The constitution does give the power to congress to legislate some of these issues. After all we arn’t allowed to own a rocket propelled granade now are we? My point is just like gun control and abortion, it depends on which side of the issue you come down on. One side doesn’t want the right to bear arms taken away, and the other doesn’t want a womens right to choose taken away. The list goes on and on. It is the never ending story.

Posted by: Rusty at March 7, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #132068

Adrienne
“The Clinton years are OVER. “They did things too” is NOT in any way an effective argument”

That has nothing to do with my argument.
If people refuse to acknowledge that it is all of govt that is guilty, then nothing will ever be done to correct it.
Each side will continue to praise their side for doing it and will continue to condemn the very same actions when its the other side.
NOTHING will get done until everybody works together and its obvious that is not what the extremes want.

“Bush has and continues to violate our laws and Constitution NOW”

I believe so too. But we both know that I will have to look to the right for support when its a lefty in power.

“Seems to me that if you truly believed that all our Constitutional rights need to be defended and upheld at all times and under the leadership of either party, you’d right now be in complete agreement with us”

As I asked Andre, where have I said I did not agree?
I have a belief in our govt that I am not allowed to discuss on this board and I respect the wishes of Cameron and will not bring them up in detail. But I will tell you that I do not believe there is ONE bit of difference between clinton and Bush and that their two administrations are even par in being corrupt.
That is why my first post on this thread was about the willingness of the left to give up some of their 2nd Amend rights for what they believe is more safety, but are not willing to do so with the 4th.
Not seeing the hypocrisy in that and immediately turning it into a clinton thing is ignoring the problem and nothing but partisanship.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #132081

Rusty
IMO, both are guilty. You believe clinton is innocent because the so-called investigations proved that to you. So why doesn’t Bush deserve the same treatment? You know, innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the left needs Bush to be guilty and it is up to Bush to prove his is innocent.

“After all we arn’t allowed to own a rocket propelled granade now are we?”

I take it that you believe this is for the safety of all, right?
Then you should have no problem with govt violating your 4th Amend rights, if it is for the safety of all either.

“My point is just like gun control and abortion, it depends on which side of the issue you come down on”

And my point is that it does not depend on which side of an issue you come down on. ALL of our rights deserve to be protected. If you are willing to sacrifice one right but not another, then you are a hypocrite.

“Until both parties hold everyone to the same standard, we will be in this kind of battle”

That is a lost cause and I will finally acknowledge it. Today it is clinton that is old news and the lefts inaction during his time is irrelevent, tomorrow it will be Bush and the right.
Fairness and objectivity be damned, party at all cost.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #132565
After all people can’t just go around and own any weapon they chose now can they. The constitution does give the power to congress to legislate some of these issues. After all we aren’t allowed to own a rocket propelled granade now are we?

The problem with gun conrol is that it only penalizes the people who follow the law. Who are the people who no longer will own their AK-47s? Ones who decide to give them up, criminals won’t care and if they have money they’ll probably illegally import them. For this reason I can’t agree with the type of thinking that if we don’t have gun control our society will turn into a war zone. Besides, having powerful weapons won’t stop the police from getting the criminals. They’ll just send in SWAT dudes to get them. (And if the government wants a military-style slaughter like at WACO, the good ol’ FBI will send in their tanks and flamethrowers.)

Posted by: john at March 9, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #132568

“IMO, both are guilty. You believe clinton is innocent because the so-called investigations proved that to you. So why doesn’t Bush deserve the same treatment? You know, innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the left needs Bush to be guilty and it is up to Bush to prove his is innocent.”
This isn’t logical. There hasn’t been an investigation with Bush. That’s the point.
Clinton was investigated and there was no evidence of these crimes.

Besides, even if Clinton was guilty of them, he in no way compares with the current administration. I don’t know much about Kosova, but there wasn’t a full-scale invasion and tens of thousands of dead people as a result. And he didn’t lie about it and persecute people who disagreed with him. Extreme partisanship on both sides is causing a lot of problems, but the cold, unemotional truth is that the current GOP has taken the art of cronyism, dishonesty, and corruption and raised it to an entirely new level.

Posted by: john at March 9, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #132617

John
When Bush is investigated and all this absolute proof the left has is shown to be true, then it is true. Right now, all we have is opinions, assumptions and hopes.

“but the cold, unemotional truth is that the current GOP has taken the art of cronyism, dishonesty, and corruption and raised it to an entirely new level”

That is the exact same thing said during clintons reign.
Investigations, you say, show otherwise. Shouldn’t Bush be afforded the same?

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #132674

kctim,

Of course, your correct Bush should be given the same opportunity that was afforded to Clinton or anyone who has been accused of a crime. They should be considered innocent unless evidence and the courts show other wise.

The problem with Bush is unlike Clinton, Bush’s party is protcting him from being investigated. Just as Bush deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt, so do we Americans deserve to have the accusations investigated. Maybe not all of the accusations, but the ones with real evidence. I agree some of the issues brought up is plan plain political hog-wash.
The current government situation is exactly why I wish we would always have split gov’t. Both parties have shown they can’t be trusted with total power.

Posted by: Rusty at March 10, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #132686

Rusty
The Dems protected clinton in the exact same way. Hell, they still protect him.

Both parties, Dem and Reps, have shown they can’t be trusted with ANY power.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #133063

kctim and Rusty,

They can’t be trusted with power, but as we speak they’re trying to increase that power.
Secrecy, corruption and cronyism have permeated our government. Beg everyone you know to vote out all members of government who have sold their posts to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 13, 2006 8:50 AM
Post a comment