Reason # 18,435 to hate Bush

[TrailBate]

Apparently, Bush has decided to side with the terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/20/fbi.reform/index.html

[kernel crash]

"I cut the deficit by $51.66 billion. "

Well there goes those $600 dollar toilet bowls. Damn, I wanted to get me one of those.

[fvh420]

I watched as Sean Hannity interviewed some codefendant in the Delay saga last night. It was painful, mr fair and balanced tossed up softballs and leading questions that allowed the codefendant to spew innuendo and very misleading crap back. Hannity kept "clarifying" the innuendo to make it sound like facts. He was walking the guest through questions that make it appear that the whole Delay issue is a plot by George Soros to take down the republican party. It was brutal and so far from responsible journalism. The only thing I can give Hannity credit for is that he actually can do this stuff with a straight face. Although, he did seem to have the Bush smirk through most of the interview.

As for the Deficit - Bush has never vetoed a spending bill, adjusted for inflation he has spent more money than any President. This tells me that he is a puppet controlled by a handful business groups/lobbyist.

9/11 is not the cause of the budget deficit. Bush's medical spending bill and no child left behind act are huge drains on the budget, They are big government at its worst. But the largest is Iraq - a war he decided to start. Every person in the US today is in debt to the tune of aprox $29,000 as a result of the deficit.

Bush claims to be a conservative, but he is the furthest thing from it. The only thing "conservative" about him is his pandering to the religious right in order to keep his job. Bush is completely irresponsible, borrowing from our countries future to keep the pockets lined of a handful of supporters.

[GeepNutt]

Maybe this is why he wants a new judge....

AUSTIN, Texas -- U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay made his first court appearance Friday on money laundering and conspiracy charges stemming from an alleged campaign financing scheme.

The judge who has been assigned to the case case said he'll let another judge decide if he should be removed from the case.

The judge, Bob Perkins, has been a contributor to Democratic causes. DeLay's attorney pointed out Friday that those causes include MoveOn.org, which is now selling a T-shirt with DeLay's picture on it.

[TrailBate]

I think it's great that we Americans can pick and choose our own judges. I hereby declare that no Federal or Supreme Court judge appointed by a republican president, and no judge who has ever had anything to do with anything conservative, may make any decisions for me.

[TrailBate]

DeLay's attorney pointed out Friday that those causes include MoveOn.org, which is now selling a T-shirt with DeLay's picture on it.


I read this T-shirt thing is not true. Anyone got a link?

[TrailBate]

Former FEMA head, Brown, is still on the payroll, and just had his contract extended another month, while he "pulls papers together for the investigation."

you know, the same guy who was to busy eating dinner to respond to Katrina requests....

[TrailBate]

Going back to the Budget argument....:


From Chris Edwards’ new book, Downsizing the Federal Government (which cited CAGW):

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

Using 2005 numbers, by voting down the “Bridges” amendment, the Senate let the country know that it was unwilling to defund 2 out of 13,997 pork projects today. That’s 0.0142887762 percent.

[MTBME]

"I read this T-shirt thing is not true. Anyone got a link? "

http://www.cafepress.com/shop/delay/browse/delay@10010

http://www.cafepress.com/bigtyrone/521920

[BG]

Yeh, damn that Delay. If it wasn't for him I could probably still legally purchase and light up a Cuban while traveling abroad.

BG

[TrailBate]

"I read this T-shirt thing is not true. Anyone got a link? "

http://www.cafepress.com/shop/delay/browse/delay@10010

http://www.cafepress.com/bigtyrone/521920




That is not moveon.org

[Slider]

CNN has the best recap I've read. Sounds like a fun few minutes in court.

"MoveOn.org denied it was selling any such shirts, and issued a statement that said, "DeGuerin has either bad information or lied in court."

Slider

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/21/delay.court.ap/index.html

[TrailBate]

Freedom on the March in Afghanistan:

"The editor of Haqooq-i-Zan (Women's Rights), Ali Mohaqiq Nasab (left) was arrested on Oct. 1 after he published articles denouncing the law making stoning to death for leaving the Islamic religion a crime, criticized the practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes, and argued that men and women should be considered by Islamic law to be equals," reports Doug Ireland.

As Ireland points out, the arrest was ordered by our friend Hamid Karzai's top advisor on religion. And it complies with the constitution drawn up with the "help" of the US; the one so highly touted by the Bush administration.

So we were attacked by Osama bin Laden, sent Americans to kill and be killed in Afghanistan, didn't capture bin Laden, and helped write a constitution that codifies repressive religious fundamentalism?

I've no doubt that pressure to maintain a conservative form of Islam is great; that a fragile coalition had to be formed to ensure some kind of peace, but I also doubt that this is what young men and women would've signed up for, nor what voters would've voted for...



In Other News:

Did you guys see the news story about how Al-Zarqawi (whatever the F his name is), is now MORE dangerous then Bin Laden? Anyone believe that crap? So I guess now, the main reason we are in Iraq, is to get this guy.

[Slider]

I don’t really know what I think about this one.

We should be handing Afghanistan back to the locals as quickly as possible, but I don’t have any suggestions about how to sort through what, exactly, that means, other than non-Taliban. Though it is easy for me to say that I think oppression of humans based on gender is wrong, I don’t believe it means that I have the right to inflict my values on another culture. I have no idea where to draw the line between us and them, or where we overlap.

To me, it is one more reason we should avoid the nation-building thing as much as possible. Way too messy to see where our interests lie.

Slider

[Rych]

Anyone else hear Miers withdrew? I heard a blip on the radio,but it wasn't a newsflash...can anyone confirm? Never mind its confirmed on boston.com

[MTBME]

Appears to be true. Not totally unexpected.

[TrailBate]

According to Ann Coulter, who was asked by Matt this morning on the Today show what Bush had to do to save his Presidency, this was all Bush had to do.

[kernel crash]

Well it's a start, but I think its gonna take a lot more that that. I don't think he's up to the task.

[TrailBate]

you never know. If Fitz comes back with no indictments, gas prices keep dropping, the insurgents surrender, he opens up a few more national parks, and the Bush twins win a few wet t-shirt contests, everything will turn out fine.


Maybe we should have a Boston Tea Party with oil? Dump a few barrels into Boston Hahbah?

[TrailBate]

Hmmm, this is not going to help Bush any....


http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/BREAKINGNEWS/51027023

[kernel crash]

"authorities believe Mr. Noe gave money to several people who then contributed to the Bush-Cheney campaign."

And how is this gonna hurt Bush ??? ??? ???

I think your reaching on this one TB.

[TrailBate]

"authorities believe Mr. Noe gave money to several people who then contributed to the Bush-Cheney campaign."

And how is this gonna hurt Bush ??? ??? ???

I think your reaching on this one TB.




It's called "money laundering". (well, it might be called that. It might not)

Am I reaching? Perhaps......


I just read about some former Alabama governor, a democrat, being indicted on 30 charges from conspiracy, fraud, racketeering (sp?)......etc.....But, I'm sure we'll find out it's because of an overzealous partisan hack of a prosecutor.

[TrailBate]

How about this?


WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts.

More politically difficult votes -- to cut Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies -- are on tap Thursday as more panels weigh in on the bill.

It was originally intended to cut $35 billion in spending over five years, but after pressure from conservatives, GOP leaders directed committees to cut another $15 billion to help pay the cost of hurricane recovery.



Reminds me of the movie Gung Ho.

"We're going to have to cut some corners to save time. Just small things......like engines."

[catbbq]

Federal money goes to child support enforcement? Shouldn't that be a local item? I say cut it.

Cut the farm subsidies too. I know too many rich farmers taking advantage of that one.

I can't think of any federal program that shouldn't be cut 10% or 15% or more.

[TrailBate]

Federal money goes to child support enforcement? Shouldn't that be a local item? I say cut it.

Cut the farm subsidies too. I know too many rich farmers taking advantage of that one.

I can't think of any federal program that shouldn't be cut 10% or 15% or more.




Yeah, like FEMA and Homeland Security. How about that new Intelligence Agency Bush created?

[Rych]

Well that brings us to the question, why have we not been hit again since 9/11? Is it because of Bush's strong/expensive anti-terrorism stance, or is it because the terrorist just don't feel like hitting us again?

[TrailBate]

Well that brings us to the question, why have we not been hit again since 9/11? Is it because of Bush's strong/expensive anti-terrorism stance, or is it because the terrorist just don't feel like hitting us again?


According to Repubs, Terrorists are hitting us everyday in Iraq. So how many Americans have died from Terrorist attacks since 9/11? Over 2,000

Terrorists have not struck inside the US since 9/11. Could this have been accomplished without so many American and foreign civilian deaths? I'd say yes.

[Rych]

How? Economic sanctions don't work; there are too many parties (French, Russian, British Labor party members) who are willing to circumvent the system for personal profit.

Partnership with Muslim countries? Ok this can work with countries like Turkey, but what about a country like Pakistan that won’t even accept aid from Israel after the worst natural disaster in their countries history.

Partnership with Muslims within our own country? I’ve never seen this poll run in the US, but 80% of Muslim men living in Britain, between 18 and 27(I think this is the right age) responded after 9/11 given the opportunity they would fight for Usama Bin Laden.

[TrailBate]

How about tightening our borders and working aggressively to get off of oil, for starters?

[Rych]

How about tightening our borders and working aggressively to get off of oil, for starters?


"tightening our borders"...Come on Trailbait, that's hate speech.

"Aggressively to get off of oil"...Ok. But what would this really do? Suppose magically we no longer bought middle east oil. Now their economic interest is threatened by a lack of demand for their only product. This is suppose to endear us to the terrorist?

[catbbq]

How about tightening our borders and working aggressively to get off of oil, for starters?


I understand tightening the borders, though I think it will be really really hard to do. We got big borders.

But I don't understand how getting off oil will help eliminate terrorism within the our country.

[TrailBate]

The biggest reason these terrorists hate us is because they dont' want us meddling in the region. The main reason we are meddling in the region is because of oil. Get off oil, and the Middle East will bother us about as much as Rwanda or Darfur does.

[kernel crash]

"The biggest reason these terrorists hate us is because they dont' want us meddling in the region"

That's only one of many reasons including our support for Israel. Maybe you subscribe to this man's solution.

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

William Blum 2002

And he should be...

[catbbq]

The biggest reason these terrorists hate us is because they dont' want us meddling in the region. The main reason we are meddling in the region is because of oil. Get off oil, and the Middle East will bother us about as much as Rwanda or Darfur does.


I disagree. I am not exactly sure why they hate us, but it isn't just because we are meddling in that region. It may have started with that, but I think it more cultural in nature. Maybe jealousy because we are rich. Maybe hatred because we don't believe the way they do. Maybe something else.

If it were just us meddling in their affairs, then only those countries like the US and Britian would be targets. But there are lots of countries that have terrorist problems that aren't messing around in the middle east. Spain pops to mind.

[TrailBate]

They may also hate us because we're rich, but only because we're rich by keeping them poor and keeping their oppressive regimes in power.

But no, I don't agree with that guy posted above. Well, not all of it anyway.....

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think they find a reason to hate us, regardless of any stated reason of the day. It's simply a part of their culture, now. They are poor, and their extreme religious fanatics brainwash the people into believing that we are the real evil. It's mostly because we are the biggest world power with the most influence and the most money. It is totally unrealistic to say that we should just get off the oil, so forget about it. I think a good start would be to cut aid to Israel, because we simply give them too much of it. However, to leave the region is just asking for big, big trouble. As those muslim countries would love nothing better than to organize into eradicating the Jewish altogether. I don't think we could ever morally allow that to happen.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way espousing or defending being in Iraq. That's a whole other thing. But we do need a presence where there is oil... for our sake and the sake of the stability of the entire region.

[TrailBate]

I think they find a reason to hate us, regardless of any stated reason of the day. It's simply a part of their culture, now. They are poor, and their extreme religious fanatics brainwash the people into believing that we are the real evil. It's mostly because we are the biggest world power with the most influence and the most money. It is totally unrealistic to say that we should just get off the oil, so forget about it. I think a good start would be to cut aid to Israel, because we simply give them too much of it. However, to leave the region is just asking for big, big trouble. As those muslim countries would love nothing better than to organize into eradicating the Jewish altogether. I don't think we could ever morally allow that to happen.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way espousing or defending being in Iraq. That's a whole other thing. But we do need a presence where there is oil... for our sake and the sake of the stability of the entire region.


So, you say it's unrealistic to get off of oil, then you say we need a presence where the oil is? That's just admitting oil is most of the problem.

And I don't buy any of this "they hate us because we're free" crap. That's just BS propaganda. It doesn't make any sense.

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's just admitting oil is most of the problem.


Firstly, I am not admitting anything of the such. I am merely recognizing what is realistic. Many of you lefties like to say silly things like, "Hey, we should just get off the oil" as if that was a real option. It isn't, and to suggest it is narrowminded.


And I don't buy any of this "they hate us because we're free" crap.

Second, I didn't say that either; neither do I agree with the sentiment. This is the kind of crap that Hannity likes to spew, and it is bullshiat, and also narrowminded.

[truckboy]

The poor muslims' fanatic leaders teach them that we are the real evil and point to our permissive society, things like gay marriage, abortion, unmarried women choosing their partners, plus gun murders and especially our unwelcome presence in the region and its attendant support of Israel to the detriment of the "poster boy" for oppressed Arabs, the Palestinians. They are taught that martyrdom is the way to heaven and is more than honorable. Their families worship them. They are distracted from the closer evil of their oppressors, just like our politicians give us a song-and dance routine and point the finger at "the evildoers" while pandering to big business.

They don't hate us because we're rich. They are just poor, miserable, and angry at the injustices they see and misinformed by their "leaders".

I don't have the answer to that, but I do know that the US govt. could be spending a lot more money on alternative fuel research and infrastructure instead of spending it on trying to maintain control of the middle east.

[TrailBate]

That's just admitting oil is most of the problem.


Firstly, I am not admitting anything of the such. I am merely recognizing what is realistic. Many of you lefties like to say silly things like, "Hey, we should just get off the oil" as if that was a real option. It isn't, and to suggest it is narrowminded.



How is this narrowminded? I wish I had a link, but there is an entire community in Californis that uses solar panels and windmills to generate almost all of their own electricity. If they make more than they use, it gets bought by the electric company, and enters the grid for others to use.

THere is NO excuse why, with modern technology, we can't get off of oil. None. To claim we can't get off of oil, is the same as plugging your ears and going, "la la la la la!"

[MTBME]

I think the whole hate America thing is conviently used by the religious fanatics to stir up their people and give them something else to focus their miserable lives on rather than the total misery and poverty that gets handed down from generation to generation by the same system that keeps those religious fanatics in power. Keep them busy hating America, they won't have time to hate their miserable masters.

[catbbq]

I think they find a reason to hate us, regardless of any stated reason of the day. It's simply a part of their culture, now. They are poor, and their extreme religious fanatics brainwash the people into believing that we are the real evil. It's mostly because we are the biggest world power with the most influence and the most money. It is totally unrealistic to say that we should just get off the oil, so forget about it. I think a good start would be to cut aid to Israel, because we simply give them too much of it. However, to leave the region is just asking for big, big trouble. As those muslim countries would love nothing better than to organize into eradicating the Jewish altogether. I don't think we could ever morally allow that to happen.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way espousing or defending being in Iraq. That's a whole other thing. But we do need a presence where there is oil... for our sake and the sake of the stability of the entire region.


So, you say it's unrealistic to get off of oil, then you say we need a presence where the oil is? That's just admitting oil is most of the problem.

And I don't buy any of this "they hate us because we're free" crap. That's just BS propaganda. It doesn't make any sense.


Maybe not because we are free, but because we are very different. Being propaganda doesn't change that its a fact.

Terrorist attacks aren't lead by world leaders. They are lead and carried out by a very small group of people. I suspect there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them short of killing them. The problem with killing them is finding them.

[Slider]

So Libby has bailed. Now, we all know he was not acting on his own. Minimally, Cheney is dirty here. And the Rove investigation continues. I suspect he would not act on something like this without Bush's knowledge.

So my question is this: If Rove resigns, will Bush be promoted to President?

Slider

[TrailBate]

I think the whole hate America thing is conviently used by the religious fanatics to stir up their people and give them something else to focus their miserable lives on rather than the total misery and poverty that gets handed down from generation to generation by the same system that keeps those religious fanatics in power. Keep them busy hating America, they won't have time to hate their miserable masters.



Hate is used by everyone to keep power, even our current administration is using this tactic

[TrailBate]

Terrorist attacks aren't lead by world leaders. They are lead and carried out by a very small group of people. I suspect there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them short of killing them. The problem with killing them is finding them.


no, but they are heavily financed by world leaders. And terrorists are given lots of protection by them as well.

[off piste]

I think they find a reason to hate us, regardless of any stated reason of the day. It's simply a part of their culture, now. They are poor, and their extreme religious fanatics brainwash the people into believing that we are the real evil. It's mostly because we are the biggest world power with the most influence and the most money. It is totally unrealistic to say that we should just get off the oil, so forget about it. I think a good start would be to cut aid to Israel, because we simply give them too much of it. However, to leave the region is just asking for big, big trouble. As those muslim countries would love nothing better than to organize into eradicating the Jewish altogether. I don't think we could ever morally allow that to happen.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way espousing or defending being in Iraq. That's a whole other thing. But we do need a presence where there is oil... for our sake and the sake of the stability of the entire region.


So, you say it's unrealistic to get off of oil, then you say we need a presence where the oil is? That's just admitting oil is most of the problem.

And I don't buy any of this "they hate us because we're free" crap. That's just BS propaganda. It doesn't make any sense.


Maybe not because we are free, but because we are very different. Being propaganda doesn't change that its a fact.

Terrorist attacks aren't lead by world leaders. They are lead and carried out by a very small group of people. I suspect there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them short of killing them. The problem with killing them is finding them.


Your new avatar is quite a source of embarressment in the workplace.......

[kernel crash]

"So my question is this: If Rove resigns, will Bush be promoted to President?"

Why would Rove resign? A 2 year investigation and they still don't have enough on him to pull the trigger. Who ever heard of Libby before any of this? Now they got him for not being truthful to the grand jury. Kinda like what happened to Martha.

[catbbq]

"So my question is this: If Rove resigns, will Bush be promoted to President?"

Why would Rove resign? A 2 year investigation and they still don't have enough on him to pull the trigger. Who ever heard of Libby before any of this? Now they got him for not being truthful to the grand jury. Kinda like what happened to Martha.


And Clinton.

[Slider]

"So my question is this: If Rove resigns, will Bush be promoted to President?"

Why would Rove resign? A 2 year investigation and they still don't have enough on him to pull the trigger. Who ever heard of Libby before any of this? Now they got him for not being truthful to the grand jury. Kinda like what happened to Martha.


You think it is because they have nothing, or are simply tying up lots of loose ends that are made more complicated due to an ongoing conspiracy? Remember, even though everyone know Clinton lied about his Oval Office Lewinsky session, he was not convicted. Since the current issue is one involving national security, it is more important to get it all correct. And it will be resolved.

My prediction: Rove takes a fall. The Libby trial will bring out all kinds of stuff that Bush wants forgotten, and he'll need another sacrifice to appease some really pissed off voters. Rove is the man, eventually.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I dont' think anything will come of this. It will be a bunch of "I don't know" and " I don't remember".

[truckboy]

I dunno...

It's pretty easy to get caught up in an "inconsistency".

[Mr_Cheeze]

even though everyone know Clinton lied about his Oval Office Lewinsky session, he was not convicted

Except that his impeachment trial was not about Lewinski, but how he obstructed justice from Paula Jones's sexual harrassment charges. Everybody seems to forget that that whole affair was not really about Monica and a blowjob, even though most everybody remembers that part first.

So I ask you, how is Clinton obstructing justice any different than Scooter Libby obstructing justice? You can't think one is ok and the other not.

[TrailBate]

even though everyone know Clinton lied about his Oval Office Lewinsky session, he was not convicted

Except that his impeachment trial was not about Lewinski, but how he obstructed justice from Paula Jones's sexual harrassment charges. Everybody seems to forget that that whole affair was not really about Monica and a blowjob, even though most everybody remembers that part first.

So I ask you, how is Clinton obstructing justice any different than Scooter Libby obstructing justice? You can't think one is ok and the other not.


Clintons lies were about a blowjob. The Bushies lies are about treason, and over 2,000 dead Americans.

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's not an answer. That's just more of your same tired ********. Obstructing justice is obstructing justice. The difference is, Libby was an aide to the Vice President. Clinton was President. But I guess it's ok for a President to commit a felony if it's only about something so minor as sexual harrassment.

[Slider]

The real point is that Clinton faced an impeachment trail and was found innocent. Rove, Libby, Cheney and the main Treasonator are not innocent. The only question is whether we all get to hear all the evidence.

I'm looking forward to it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

That's not an answer. That's just more of your same tired ********. Obstructing justice is obstructing justice. The difference is, Libby was an aide to the Vice President. Clinton was President. But I guess it's ok for a President to commit a felony if it's only about something so minor as sexual harrassment.


Clinton's impeachment was brought up by pathetic republicans desperate to get Clinton out of office. Meanwhile the Bushies (in their promise to bring honesty accountability and integrity to the White House) have committed treason on multiple leves. This administration is full of traitors. Clinton got laid. yippee. Lying about getting laid IS different than lying about treasonous activities. And public sentiment has proven that.

[Rych]

Where is is safer to be a french soldier today, Paris or Baghdad?

[catbbq]

Where is is safer to be a french soldier today, Paris or Baghdad?


"French Soldier"... that's funny.

Oh wait! They do have an army, don't they?

[GeepNutt]

Where is is safer to be a french soldier today, Paris or Baghdad?


"French Soldier"... that's funny.

Oh wait! They do have an army, don't they?


They have an army but this time there is no one to surrender to......

[FriedRys]

The real point is that Clinton faced an impeachment trail and was found innocent. Rove, Libby, Cheney and the main Treasonator are not innocent. .
The real point is that Clinton faced an impeachment trail and was found innocent. True, I remember that.


Rove, Libby, Cheney and the main Treasonator are not innocent.When did this trial take place?

[Slider]

[quoteauthor=FriedRyslink=board=37;threadid=5136;st art=795#59821 date=1131408504]
When did this trial take place?


It hasn't, and may never. That was my point.

But I still think Rove gets offered up. America is on to the Treasonator's bullsh!t, and Rove the Amoral will be the fall guy. For all his professions about loyalty, Bush is just another slimeball who'll try to pass the buck when his ass is on the line.

He's into loyalty in the same way he pledged to "restore honor and dignity to the White House." From appearances, that would mean lie to start a war, commit treason to limit dissent, and backtrack on pledges to fire anyone found complicit.

Slider

[catbbq]

The real point is that Clinton faced an impeachment trail and was found innocent.


No, Clinton was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. There is a difference.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I am disturbed by two things... that this entire thread seems to be backward; and that anyone would use Lyle Lovett for an avatar.

[truckboy]

I'm so confused. I started reading from page 55 or so, and it was all about high oil prices and SUVs. Then I noticed that the posts were in Nov. 2004. How far we've come!

[TrailBate]

I love how this administration is handling torture. Bush insists we don't do it, but he's against a law banning torture. Cheney wants an exception so the CIA CAN use torture.

Gotta love those Christian Values.

[slapheadmofo]

I love how this administration is handling torture. Bush insists we don't do it, but he's against a law banning torture. Cheney wants an exception so the CIA CAN use torture.

Gotta love those Christian Values.


:) Not like Christians don't have any history of torture...

[Slider]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!

Slider

[GeepNutt]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111300319_pf.html

[catbbq]

Damn... I had hoped this thread had died.

[Slider]

Here's an interesting commentary on the Treasonator's desperation speech on Veteran's Day.

I can't quite get why any veteran would back a war-mongering sellout who scacrificed thousands of US lives to back a lie. I'm sure some of you righties will contort yourselves trying to explain that to me.

http://www.truemajority.org/bushspeechlg.asx

Slider

[TrailBate]

I enjoyed Cheney's little rant about how questioning the reasons for going to war, and accusing the administration of fabricating evidence, is "irresponsible."

C'mon! The Democrats had the same evidence Bush had! after he tweaked it a little!

[Mr_Cheeze]

So finally the high up Democrats are showing gumption, now that the polls show a clear public downturn against the war. Even the mainstream media is jumping on the bandwagon, acting like the recent comments by Congressman John Murtha http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/murtha.iraq/ are new. Give Murtha credit for being one of the very few who have been vocally against the war for some time. Now, however, you have Johns Edwards and Kerry and a host of other leading Democrats finding their balls and joining the fray.

Of course, all of this talk of war resolution is only happening now as a matter of timing for next years mid term elections. Even Republicans are calling for serious consideration of a timetable for withdrawal knowing that their head are foremost on the chopping blocks if public disfavor continues. Look for one or more of the serious, early contenders for the 2008 GOP for President to soon join in as well. McCain maybe? Well, he's been sort of critical... sort kinda but obviously careful to remain tempered with his remarks. Many believe he will run in 2007. I don't believe for a minute, though, that he is for withdrawal; so it will be interesting to see where he publicly stands.

And what's with Howard Dean? He is a surprising embarrassment for a DNC supposed leader refusing to spar with his GOP counterpart on Meet The Press. Scott McLelland (sp?) never had a problem with it. Will Dean be ousted before things get serious in 2007? He should be if the Dems have any hope for proving to the American people that they have more than just harsh words to offer. I have yet to hear a leading Democrat offer any feasable solutions to the Iraq mess. It's easy to just say, "Pull out." Pull out how, Congressman? What are your contingency plans when violence erupts in Iraq after we leave and the security forces in place cannot handle it?

These politicians had better be prepared to answer all of these questions and soon. We aren't leaving Iraq by 2008, and it's going to be their issue to deal with directly.

[TrailBate]

Even Republicans are calling for serious consideration of a timetable for withdrawal

I wouldn't go that far. The republicans approved a non-binding plan on withdrawal. Perfect example of Republicans saying one thing, but meaning another.



Look for one or more of the serious, early contenders for the 2008 GOP for President to soon join in as well. McCain maybe? Well, he's been sort of critical... sort kinda but obviously careful to remain tempered with his remarks. Many believe he will run in 2007. I don't believe for a minute, though, that he is for withdrawal; so it will be interesting to see where he publicly stands.

I used to like Mccain. But he's since become a proponent to this Intelligent Design crap, among other things. He's leaning more right just to try to drum up support.

[/quote]

[Mr_Cheeze]

I wouldn't go that far. The republicans approved a non-binding plan on withdrawal. Perfect example of Republicans saying one thing, but meaning another.

I used to like Mccain. But he's since become a proponent to this Intelligent Design crap, among other things. He's leaning more right just to try to drum up support.



Why should any of this surprise you, it's what politicians do! Do you honestly believe that Democrats don't do the exact same thing? They're doing it now, now that they have the polls to buttress their antiwar positions. Politics these days has become more about what can or has to be done to get reelected rather than showing some mettle and taking an unpopular stand, polls and public opinion be damned.

[TrailBate]

Why should any of this surprise you, it's what politicians do! Do you honestly believe that Democrats don't do the exact same thing? They're doing it now, now that they have the polls to buttress their antiwar positions. Politics these days has become more about what can or has to be done to get reelected rather than showing some mettle and taking an unpopular stand, polls and public opinion be damned.




Then why to the Repubs keep insisting that they don't pay any attention to polls? Most democrats have been against the war all along, they've just been to chicken **** to admit it...until now.

[Slider]

Since Bush has entered the arena, the Republicans have been far better at marketing their ideas than the Democrats. Pick any issue, and they got their message out and enlisted support more effectively. Thank Rove the Amoral for that. His direct-mail background has provided in-depth demographics upon which Bush and company have based policy. "They'll go for intelligent design? Well let's make 'em happy and undermine the educational process. That'll get us re-elected."

In general, peoople don't know what they want, and are easily swayed by things like fear-mongering to enable a war, or the suspension of civil liberties in an unfounded attempt to lessen the danger of a terrorist threat. Good marketing makes it all possible, and even the Democrats were cowed into submission by the Rove-led Bush juggernaut.

We're seeing the dowside of that number-based approach to policy now. When there's no moral grounding, no commitment to the greater good, what you end up with is very bad policy. But in the end, when it all goes to hell, as it is now, the folly of making policy based on lies and rumor is apparent to everyone.

I will definitely celebrate once the Rove indictment is handed down. Looks now like it may happen sooner rather than later. Wahooo!

Slider

[TrailBate]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/16/phosphorus-fallujah051116.html

So, the US is now a country that lies to invade countries, uses chemical weapons, uses torture, imprisons people indefinately without any charges or ability to defend themselves.

Why did we invade Iraq, again?

[GeepNutt]

I will definitely celebrate once the Rove indictment is handed down. Looks now like it may happen sooner rather than later. Wahooo!

Slider


Looks like Woodward might have thrown a wrench into those gears......

[Slider]

Looks like Woodward might have thrown a wrench into those gears......


Unless Rove's the one who spilled the beans to him. Woodward's not talking at this point, but I'd bet on Rove.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Most democrats have been against the war all along, they've just been to chicken **** to admit it...until now."

Really! Where were they two years ago? Kennedy comes to mind but not much else. Sounds like a bad case of poll watching to me. I'm just waiting for Hillary to figure out a way to come out looking like she was against this thing right from the beginning. Cindy's got her pinned to the wall pretty good. She'll probably show up dead somewhere and get herself on Clintons dead list.

[GeepNutt]

Looks like Woodward might have thrown a wrench into those gears......


Unless Rove's the one who spilled the beans to him. Woodward's not talking at this point, but I'd bet on Rove.

Slider


Speculation is now on former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage.... At least that is what Newsweek and some other's are reporting.

[Slider]

The conspiracy widens. Not too surprising.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I like how Bush and Co. keep saying we should assume innocence until they're proven guilty, because "that's how we do it in America." Yet we have people in Gitmo and who knows where else being held indefinately without charges or ability to defend their innocence.....

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.conference.ap/index.html

Looks like the only people that want us to stay are the Right Wing nutjobs. What does this mean to Bush and Co when the new Iraqi government agrees with the democrats?

[kernel crash]

What makes you think Bush and company aren't the ones "suggesting" to the Iraquies that they take this position to allow for a "graceful" exit. Remember we said we would leave when they are able to stand on their own. This kind of talk seems to appear that they are preparing to shoulder more of the load.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Does anybody really believe the Iraqis are ready to shoulder more of the burden? We leave and all hell breaks loose. Then what? Are you lefties prepared to shrug your shoulders when the Iraqi's start calling for our help because they can't control the insurgents?

For the record, I am.

[TrailBate]

Yes, I am ready to let Iraqis die for Iraq.

I keep hearing about how much things are improving, and how so many new security forces keep getting trained. If things are as good as the Repubs say it is, there shouldn't be any trouble....

[kernel crash]

"Does anybody really believe the Iraqis are ready to shoulder more of the burden?"

Ask that question a year from now which fits into their timeframe. And notice some of the talk of withdrawal really refers to pulling back to maybe Kuwait and taking a look from there. We should have split the country into 3 parts.

[GeepNutt]

Maybe George ain't so bad afterall...... ;D

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937%26method=full%26siteid=94762% 26headline=exclusive%2d%2dbush%2dplot%2dto%2dbomb% 2dhis%2darab%2dally-name_page.html

Cut and paste it into browser....

[stich]

I mean c'mon, he even has his own talking action figure. :-*

http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2650739/ctid/17/INstock/Y/D/

[Slider]

Talk about irony, and suck-up at the same time. From the action figure promo:

"President Bush has earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative"

Apparently, that allows for bombing journalists that don't happen to promote your own ******** propaganda. I can't wait until the Bushies start trying to defend this one. But they've been pretty quiet lately. I'm not exactly wondering why. Must have fallen out of the 37% with their heads stuck up their asses.

Slider

[off piste]

I mean c'mon, he even has his own talking action figure. :-*

http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2650739/ctid/17/INstock/Y/D/


Pull the string, and it says "Nukuler!"

[TrailBate]

yet another crooked Republican.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html

[stich]

Keep searching for em Trailbait.

You'll need at least a dozen more to even come close to amount of crooked Democrats that've been caught & prosecuted during Bush's presidency. ;)

[narlus]

Keep searching for em Trailbait.

You'll need at least a dozen more to even come close to amount of crooked Democrats that've been caught & prosecuted during Bush's presidency. ;)



list 'em.

[TrailBate]

Keep searching for em Trailbait.

You'll need at least a dozen more to even come close to amount of crooked Democrats that've been caught & prosecuted during Bush's presidency. ;)



I'm sure there have been many democrat crooks. But the difference is the Republican crooks have all been major party leaders.

[stich]

RONNIE EARLE (A democrat) HAS PROSECUTED FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS”

And that's only because Democrats are five times as crooked. ;)

http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=571

[Mr_Cheeze]

This is an exercise in futility, guys. At the risk of sounding like my mother, they are all crooked! Ok... 90 percent of them. That's why I have to roll my eyes everytime Slider or one of these guys gets all worked up over Carl Rove or somebody. It is ridiculus to suggest that Democrats or Republicans play more or less dirty politics than the other. The two party system makes for this kind of stuff. Big business and special interests all add up to quiet payoffs and quiet promises.

Gloating only adds gas to this ever continuing flame war.

[stich]

Amen! But I could argue all day long & still be happy.

[Slider]

Tax evasion, no biggie. Insider trading, so what. Money laundering, who cares.

Treason in the Oval Office pretty much trumps anything else. Well, except maybe sacrificing 2,000 (and growing) Americans to fill Halliburton's coffers with a few hundred billion of our money.

Slider

[TrailBate]

C'mon Slider, I'm sure you could find 10 times as many Democrats that have lied to start illegal wars, killing thousands of Americans and ruining anyone who gets in the way! I mean, look at Clinton! He got a BJ!!!! At least now we have Christian Morality in the White House....

[Jhoana]

I hate Bush (http://gohate.com/_view/part_directory/section_B/id_9)

[TrailBate]

So, Bush is about to start another vacation. He has spent 320 days on vacation in his 5 years of presidency. That's nearly a whole year off and 4 years of work.

Clinton spent 152 days on vacation during his entire 8 years in office. Maybe because all his tail was in the White House?

[Mr_Cheeze]

December 9, 2005
Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.

A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.

A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.

At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.

Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.

While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.

Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.

The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.

Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials. He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004, and his current location is not known. A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case. The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified.

During his time in Egyptian custody, Mr. Libi was among a group of what American officials have described as about 150 prisoners sent by the United States from one foreign country to another since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks for the purposes of interrogation. American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.

Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he had no specific knowledge of Mr. Libi's case. Mr. Fahmy acknowledged that some prisoners had been sent to Egypt by mutual agreement between the United States and Egypt. "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture," Mr. Fahmy said. "We're not in the business of torturing anyone."

In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons. Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.

Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.



Talk amongst yourselves. Let the revelling begin.

[Slider]

Yet Rummy and Rice are still stumping for more of the same.

I'll pat myself on the back here, and quote a post I made in another thread here:

"As for whether it is effective, NFW. The people we are chasing are attaching bombs to themselves. You think torture would get something out of them that any other method would not get? Get real. Any info that is retrieved would have to be so suspect as to be worthless, anway."

Slider

[kernel crash]

"The people we are chasing are attaching bombs to themselves. You think torture would get something out of them that any other method would not get?"

Yes I do. Absolutely. Basically they are cowards who would go into a crowed marketplace and take out 30 people with them. You think there going to feel any pain? Of course not. Once they hit that trigger its all over. No pain and a direct ride to heaven. Now tip them upside down in a bucket of water and see how tough they are.

[Slider]

Did you happen to read Cheeze's post in this thread?

Slider

[TrailBate]

"The people we are chasing are attaching bombs to themselves. You think torture would get something out of them that any other method would not get?"

Yes I do. Absolutely. Basically they are cowards who would go into a crowed marketplace and take out 30 people with them. You think there going to feel any pain? Of course not. Once they hit that trigger its all over. No pain and a direct ride to heaven. Now tip them upside down in a bucket of water and see how tough they are.


Ah, that must be why we've caught Bin Laden, and the insurgency has ended.

[kernel crash]

No that's because we haven't dunked enough of em.

[Slider]

Or not. It doesn't work, and the false statements by Libi prove it. He lied to get out of the torture, and we made massive mistakes in policy as a result. Torture was far more than ineffective, it was counter-productive and was at least partially responsible for more than 2,000 US deaths and a couple of hundred billion dollars in expense.

But damn, it feels good to do it, right? ::)

Slider

[TrailBate]

I see Bush is now comparing the war in Iraq with America's struggle for independence. This guy is a total loon.

I guess I missed that day in History class when we discussed how America was invaded by Spain to free us from England, then had a puppet government put in place for us.

[BG]

No, i think that was the French and the Indians (native americans) who invaded to try and "save" us from the English.


BG

[TrailBate]

Word around the Liberal Blogosphere Campfire is that Rove and Diebold (they of the faulty voting machines) are about to go down.....

one can hope!

[TrailBate]

Hey, not only are those South Park guys funny, they are also visionaries! prophets! Eat it, Nostradamus!

[Slider]

This Bush fascism push is getting outright scary. He has the balls to point a finger at the New York Times since they uncovered his blatantly illegal authorization for the NSA to spy on us, the citizens of the USA. He illegally uses a federal agency to repress us, and blames the Times for exposing it. And I am guessing the 38% that still has yet to remove their heads from their asses will spout some BS about how important it is to protect ourselves from this shadowy boogie man called "the terrorist", and that even the laws of the land no longer apply. And the idiots will believe it, too. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Congress never gave consent for the change in the law to allow Bush to sidestep the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush simply ignored the law, and said he has a right to simply because he says he has a right to. This is fascism by definition. If we let him get away with it, then there are no laws preventing him from doing anything he damn well pleases.

I guess that he's noticed that, since treason seems to OK, there's no reason to stop there. Our country is being stolen from us, no lie, no exaggeration.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Congress never gave consent for the change in the law to allow Bush to sidestep the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush simply ignored the law, and said he has a right to simply because he says he has a right to. This is fascism by definition. If we let him get away with it, then there are no laws preventing him from doing anything he damn well pleases.

I guess that he's noticed that, since treason seems to OK, there's no reason to stop there. Our country is being stolen from us, no lie, no exaggeration.

Slider


Actually, according to Alberto Gonzalez, Congress gave Bush permission for the wiretaps when they authorized the use of force. Then he gave some kind of meaningless excuse which basically boiled down to “he can do whatever he thinks is necessary.”

[BG]

"Our country is being stolen from us, no lie, no exaggeration."

Personally, i prefer to think of it as being "given" away.

BG

[Slider]

Good point.

Regarding Gonzalez, I'd see no reason to expect an objection of a move toward fascism from a fellow who make his mark with the Treasonator's administration by crafting a rationale for torture of prisoners. For him, the party is just getting started.

And, it seems, reps from both parties, in both houses, seem to disagree that dodging the FISA court was legal. If the threat that this move poses is not incredibly obvious to all other elected federal officials, they're not paying attention.

Slider

[TrailBate]

C'mon Slider, stop siding with the terrorists! (or, terrists, in Bush-speak)

[kernel crash]

Funny about the timing on all of this isn't it. This information was out there over a year ago. Some senators were informed of this practice behind closed doors. The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues. Now the times decides to release it on the eve of the elections in Iraq. You think they were trying to take the headlines away from Bush on the elections?

Actually there is a book on the subject about to be released by Simon & Schuster with a tour of 60 minutes to follow. Ironically the parent company of the times Viacom, also is the parent company of the book publisher, who is also the parent company of the CBS (60 minutes). I guess they were hoping people wouln't notice the connection.

[Slider]

Talking to a few Senators does not make the process legal. Bush would have you think otherwise, but even fellow Republican Arlen Specter, who happens to chair the Judiciary Committee, objects. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

So try to paint this as partisan - I am sure Bill O'Reilly will come up with impressive sounding BS to help your argument. The surveillance is not legal, many in both parties agree, and Bush won't dance around this one.

Slider

Oh yeah, regarding the timing, there's this from the original NYTimes story:

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

[kernel crash]

Oh. So that release date was just a coincidence. I'm not buying that. Are You?

[Slider]

They were ready to publish a year ago, but didn't at Bush's request. Personally, I wish they had gone public ASAP. Might have played a role in our election, and we wouldn't be threatened by this fascist.

Slider

[Rych]

For the record, if my telephone number shows up on a known terrorist cell phone call list I think the government has the obligation to monitor my calls.

[Slider]

Federal law says otherwise, unless pre-approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. And getting that approval is a simple process. I think they refused one request among many hundreds since 9/11.

Bush is trying an end-around the federal law to remove even that small hurdle. In fact, he is ignoring the law entirely. If the president can make law as he sees fit, we no longer have any checks and balances among the governmental branches, and we have a fascist in charge.

It is not a small distinction.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Funny about the timing on all of this isn't it. This information was out there over a year ago. Some senators were informed of this practice behind closed doors. The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues. Now the times decides to release it on the eve of the elections in Iraq. You think they were trying to take the headlines away from Bush on the elections?





Oh, please. If they wanted to hurt Bush with this, they would have put it out before our own elections last november.

[TrailBate]

Considering all the stuff we know Bush has done, imagine all the stuff we don't know!


From BlueMassGroup.com


"A big hat tip to Rick Hasen who noticed this White House press release (buried in the Friday night trash). President Bush is going to nominate Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission.
Who?

Well, Hans von Spakovsky is a long-time activist in "voting integrity." Translated, he is a long-time activist in keeping people away from the polls. His ideas led to the notorious purge of Florida's voting rolls before the 2000 election in which thousands of mostly-eligible, mostly-Democratic, and mostly-minority voters were removed from the voting lists. Von Spakovsky also was a volunteer for Bush in the Florida recount. Want more? It's all here.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/040920fa_fact

This guy is a disaster. There is no way he should be on the FEC. FEC Commissioners are subject to Senate approval, so write or call your Senator."

[TrailBate]

Also from BMG.com

"And in one of the most controversial provisions, the agreement would shave $12.7 billion out of the federal student loan program, in large part by locking in interest rates often at a higher level than the current variable rates.

"This bill is the largest raid on student aid in history," said Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House education committee. "At a time when millions of American families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing tuition costs, it is shameful for Congress to raid student aid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.""

[Rych]

So what is actually more likely to cost American lives? The outing of Valerie Plame? Or the outing of the Bush "illegal" wiretaps?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Also from BMG.com

"This bill is the largest raid on student aid in history," said Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House education committee. "At a time when millions of American families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing tuition costs, it is shameful for Congress to raid student aid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.""




Yup, liberal Democrats once again, blaming those evil, wealthy Americans for not paying more than their fair share of taxes. ::)

[catbbq]

Also from BMG.com

"And in one of the most controversial provisions, the agreement would shave $12.7 billion out of the federal student loan program, in large part by locking in interest rates often at a higher level than the current variable rates.

"This bill is the largest raid on student aid in history," said Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House education committee. "At a time when millions of American families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing tuition costs, it is shameful for Congress to raid student aid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.""




Per http://money.aol.com/news/articles?id=n20051219005509990005&cid=2186

"The plan also includes a new grant for low-income students and reduces some borrower fees. Even with these new expenses, the student loan provisions still are expected to generate for the federal government $12.7 billion in savings and new revenue over the next five years."

"The 6.8% fixed rate was actually negotiated by Democrats in an earlier budget deal, when interest rates were higher. And one source involved in the talks said 6.8% will again be a reasonable rate when other interest rates continue to rise."


Since you guys are suddenly Constitution concerned, where in the Constitution does it mandate federal spending on education?

[heckler]

Also from BMG.com

"And in one of the most controversial provisions, the agreement would shave $12.7 billion out of the federal student loan program, in large part by locking in interest rates often at a higher level than the current variable rates.

"This bill is the largest raid on student aid in history," said Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House education committee. "At a time when millions of American families are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing tuition costs, it is shameful for Congress to raid student aid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.""




Come on now, with the way things are going now the GI bill just isn't bringing in enough cannon fodder for Iraq. This way that program will seem so much more appealing. ;)

[kernel crash]

Funny. I don't remember a big deal made about this.

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

[BG]

Guess we'll never learn.


A good perspective and read can be found here:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

[GeepNutt]

They can do all this with the Echelon technology but they still can't stop the phony Rolex and Viagra ad's from filling up my inbox.... ???

[TrailBate]

How quickly the Right blames Clinton....

"The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it. "

[Slider]

So what is actually more likely to cost American lives? The outing of Valerie Plame? Or the outing of the Bush "illegal" wiretaps?


Since the rest of the world already knows Bush is scum, they'd likely assume he's trampling our rights like he does to prisoners. So my guess is there was not one terrorist using a phone or email who did not assume that the Treasonator could be listening.

Further, I'd bet nothing of any value came from the whole process. If they stopped a single domestic terror event, you know Bush would be blabbing all about it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

George W Bush:

"...there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

the NYT is reporting the White House has also been monitoring PETA and Greenpeace as possible terrorist threats.

God Bless America!!

[kernel crash]

"That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained."

Really. Then how do you interpret the following statement.

In February 2000 CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

Clinton must have obtained an awful lot of warrants. Ya Think!

[Slider]

We have to set the parameters here. A wiretap follows every conversation placed or received at a given location, and there's a parallel for email. Echelon scans ALL conversations, made by anyone, looking for specific key words.

All along, the arguments against Echelon were that it would lead to abuses like what Bush is now practicing. That is why the FISA court approval step was added to the Partiot Act, to prevent exactly the abuse that Bush is now advocating as necessary and legal.

What Bush is doing is illegal, plain and simple. If he can make laws as he pleases, we all might as well kiss our free, democratic asses goodbye.


Slider

[BG]

Yes, let's be fair and "listen to" what EVERYONE has to say.

BG

[Slider]

Spying on everyone, indiscriminantly, does suck. But it is worlds better than selective monitoring of whomever the administration chooses. Kind of a melting pot of repression.

I thought that the treason thing would be the Bush downfall. It is looking more and more like this NSA thing just might save us all.

Slider

[off piste]

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

[BG]

"I thought that the treason thing would be the Bush downfall. It is looking more and more like this NSA thing just might save us all."

Naaaa, I think they'll most likely slide through on a technicality.

BG

[Slider]

Tele-mark's post shows there's not much wiggle room. No FISA approval, and you've committed a felony.

This one is pretty clear cut.

Slider

[off piste]

Things get more interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/21/paper_judge_resigns_over_bush_spy_program/

[MTBME]

Bush and Cheney insist they have not broken any laws. If they did, they deserve to take the fall if for nothing else but the stupidity of what they did and to think that no one would notice. And by the way, you do realize the eavesdropping we're talking about, was for International calls not domestic calls. Does that make a difference? Who knows.

Cheney does make a point when he says, "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," He goes on "You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," I know were a nation of laws, and the President is not above those laws. But lets face it, some of those laws actually protects and hides the identity of those who would do us harm. So going forward, this nation will have to make some tough decisions on how we can achieve a better balance. I suspect that conversation won't begin until after the next terrorist attack.

[TrailBate]

Cheney does make a point when he says, "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," He goes on "You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," I know were a nation of laws, and the President is not above those laws. But lets face it, some of those laws actually protects and hides the identity of those who would do us harm. So going forward, this nation will have to make some tough decisions on how we can achieve a better balance. I suspect that conversation won't begin until after the next terrorist attack.



More robust and strong executive authority? Hmmm, let's see.... lied to start a war, illegal torturing, illegal foreign prisons, outing CIA agents, detained Americans indefinately without legal recourse, eavesdropping on Americans, stealing elections, invading state's and civil rights over comatose patients,...

Yeah, what these guys need is MORE POWER!!!!

How has any of this helped us? Do we have Osama?(remember him?), Zarqawi? Who have we apprehended thanks to all this? Padilla, the dirty bomber who never had or planned a dirty bomb? Those mentally retarded guys who planned on "destroying" the Brooklyn bridge with blowtorches?

[BG]

Authorization during times of war
FISA authorizes the president to authorize surveillance and physical searches without a court order after a declaration of war by Congress.[9]. The duration of such surveillance under these provisions is somewhat ambiguous. The statute says that the president may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." It is unclear whether this limits the time of such surveillance or whether this limits the period of time in which the president may invoke this section. That is, whether the president may authorize indeterminately long surveillance under this section only during the fifteen days after a declaration of war. Or, whether the president may authorize only fifteen days of surveillance at any time after the declaration.
In classical public international law, a declaration of war entailed the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. In the twentieth century, the concept of war as such has been gradually replaced with the authorized use of force as recognized under international norms.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BG

[TrailBate]

Authorization during times of war
FISA authorizes the president to authorize surveillance and physical searches without a court order after a declaration of war by Congress.[9]. The duration of such surveillance under these provisions is somewhat ambiguous. The statute says that the president may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." It is unclear whether this limits the time of such surveillance or whether this limits the period of time in which the president may invoke this section. That is, whether the president may authorize indeterminately long surveillance under this section only during the fifteen days after a declaration of war. Or, whether the president may authorize only fifteen days of surveillance at any time after the declaration.
In classical public international law, a declaration of war entailed the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. In the twentieth century, the concept of war as such has been gradually replaced with the authorized use of force as recognized under international norms.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BG





This is beautiful. Congress never declared war, therefore we're now saying that authorizing military force is the same thing? Quite a stretch.

[BG]

We are a country of AMBIGUITY.

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

This is beautiful. Congress never declared war, therefore we're now saying that authorizing military force is the same thing? Quite a stretch.


Not a stretch at all. I guess you forgot that back in 2002, Congress voted to give the President the authorization to do just that... and he did it. It's not even a debatable point.

[BG]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Gave the man carte blanche.

BG

[MTBME]

(lied to start a war), Where's your evidence that Bush intentionally lied?
(illegal torturing, illegal foreign prisons), I know that must have kept you awake at night worrying about the conditions of foreign prisioners of war.
(outing CIA agents), Again where's your proof? Bush outed a CIA agent?
(eavesdropping on Americans), I'll bet every President in the last 50 years has done this.
(stealing elections), We'll have to have this one engraved on your tombstone because you'll be one of the few that goes to your grave reciting this tired mantra. But keep it up. It just reminds us how pathetic the left can be.
(invading state's and civil rights over comatose patients,...) What, allowing Terri Shrivo to die as she and her husband wished? Man what world are you living in.

[Slider]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Gave the man carte blanche.

BG

There's no mention of allowing domestic surveillance there, or mention of amending FISA. FISA, on the other hand, is specific about the need to get FISA Court approval for domestic surveillance.

I don't see any amibiguity at all.

Slider

[Slider]

Cheney does make a point when he says, "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," He goes on "You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years,"



Cheney, as usual, is spouting complete BS. If he wants strong, robust, executive authority, change the laws to allow it. Meanwhile, OBEY THE EFFING LAWS.

The whole thing about us not seeing another attack, and implying it is because Bush has spied on our own citizens illegally, is simply stupid. It is a straight non sequitur, with nothing offered to support a baseless conclusion. The real reason we haven't seen another domestic terrorist attack is because I added some air pressure to my tires. Really.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

(invading state's and civil rights over comatose patients,...) What, allowing Terri Shrivo to die as she and her husband wished? Man what world are you living in.


Not sure what you mean here. This is an issue where many on the right looked completely pathetic in siding with Shiavo's parents in trying to say that Terry showed signs of cognition, like smiling, and responding to stimuli, when doctors consistently denied was the case; and in vilifying the husband for wanting to do what he thought was right.

[MTBME]

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm


Nuff Said!

[TrailBate]

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm


Nuff Said!



Wow. Look who is on the Drudge Report's mailing list!


CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:


Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.




the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.


Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:


1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:


the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.


Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!

[TrailBate]

(stealing elections), We'll have to have this one engraved on your tombstone because you'll be one of the few that goes to your grave reciting this tired mantra. But keep it up. It just reminds us how pathetic the left can be.
(invading state's and civil rights over comatose patients,...) What, allowing Terri Shrivo to die as she and her husband wished? Man what world are you living in.




do a search on Diebold and Florida. Check out the latest stories, you'll see many about Florida counties getting rid of Diebold because they are too easy to manipulate, and leave no paper trail.

[TrailBate]

In other news, Ukraine is quietly withdrawing all of it's troops in Iraq. They will all be out by the 31st.

[Slider]

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
Nuff Said!


These are prior to FISA, which specifically addresses how and when domestic surveillance can be cariried out. Old news, trumped ny newer law.

Unfortunately, the Bush apologists will make sure even that is not Nuff Said. I see Fox is trying their best to muddy the waters. And the Bush lapdogs in Congress are doing the same sort of misdirection thing the adminstration is famous for. It I word has arisen, finally. Impeachment is now on the table and it will be fun to watch it develop.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"about Florida counties getting rid of Diebold because they are too easy to manipulate, and leave no paper trail. "

So what your saying is that it's possible, that Bush may have received even more votes, than we are aware of. He may have been cheated out of a bigger margin of victory. (see it works both ways doesn't it).

[TrailBate]

"about Florida counties getting rid of Diebold because they are too easy to manipulate, and leave no paper trail. "

So what your saying is that it's possible, that Bush may have received even more votes, than we are aware of. He may have been cheated out of a bigger margin of victory. (see it works both ways doesn't it).


I see you didn't even read the articles. Typical.

[kernel crash]

"(see it works both ways doesn't it).

I see you didn't even read the articles. Typical. "

Has there ever been an election where the hint of fraud was not brought up? Didn't Daly in Chicago steal the election for JFK when he ran against Nixon? And on and on it goes. What I clearly remember is that every time they recounted the votes in Florida, Bush's margin of victory got BIGGER. I can't believe were still talking about this.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You really ought to get off the whole election fraud issue considering Democrat were a much, if not more so, under scrutiny for cheating with voter registration and absentee ballot scandals in both elections.

Why is it that out of everything that you can legitimately criticize Bush for, which is to say there is quite alot, but this silly election stuff is tiresome.

[slapheadmofo]

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm


Nuff Said!



Wow. Look who is on the Drudge Report's mailing list!


CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:


Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.




the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.


Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:


1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:


the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.


Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!



I guess a factor would be they were considering more of a policing/law enforcement versus a wartime application. It's different times now.

[Slider]

Except that federal law still applies, and it says the FISA court must approve domestic surveillance.

Bush very clearly violated that law. It exists for the very important purpose of differentiating our form of government from a fascist one. We absolutely need checks on the power of all participants, including the president.

Bush says something to the effect that his check is his oath of office. That oath says, literally, to uphold the constitution. In this case, he not only violated his oath, but also a key provision in our law.

Impeachment is the only option if we want to protect democracy in this country.

Slider

[Rych]

Except that federal law still applies, and it says the FISA court must approve domestic surveillance.

Bush very clearly violated that law. It exists for the very important purpose of differentiating our form of government from a fascist one. We absolutely need checks on the power of all participants, including the president.

Bush says something to the effect that his check is his oath of office. That oath says, literally, to uphold the constitution. In this case, he not only violated his oath, but also a key provision in our law.

Impeachment is the only option if we want to protect democracy in this country.

Slider



Please! Please! I hope the democrats have the nut sack to impeach Bush. The democrats would then be as relevent as the Whigs. They won't though. They want to be able to sling arrows without actually having to put there name to paper. That's why they have Howard Dean who can throw as much **** against the wall and see if any sticks.

[kernel crash]

"Impeachment is the only option if we want to protect democracy in this country."

So that would mean Cheney would be president. Somehow I don't think that would satisfy you guys.

[TrailBate]

I guess a factor would be they were considering more of a policing/law enforcement versus a wartime application. It's different times now.


Another factor would be Clinton was following the law, Bush was not. The times aren't different, just the traitorous presidency.

[MTBME]

"So that would mean Cheney would be president. "

Hey that would open up a whole new thead. 17,327 reasons to hate Cheney.

[Slider]

Please! Please! I hope the democrats have the nut sack to impeach Bush. The democrats would then be as relevent as the Whigs. They won't though. They want to be able to sling arrows without actually having to put there name to paper. That's why they have Howard Dean who can throw as much **** against the wall and see if any sticks.


Except that the Republicans also see the danger in what Bush is attempting to do.

According to CNN, Sen. Specter, the Republican co-author of the Homeland Security act and a Senior Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Bush's actions "can't be condoned." He's calling for hearings. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans, are on board. And, watch, that list will grow.

This goes way beyond partisan politics.

Slider

[Slider]

"Impeachment is the only option if we want to protect democracy in this country."

So that would mean Cheney would be president. Somehow I don't think that would satisfy you guys.



President only until Impeachment, the Sequel. Don't forget that treason thing lingering in the background.

Could this gang be any more sleazy?

Slider

[Rych]

Spector is a Rino anyway.

[slapheadmofo]

The times aren't different,



Actually they are: we happen to be a country at war. Debating the right and/or wrong of this particular issue aside, you HAVE to realize that DOES make things different today.

[Slider]

Actually they are: we happen to be a country at war. Debating the right and/or wrong of this particular issue aside, you HAVE to realize that DOES make things different today.


If a war is all it takes to suspend the Constitution, what would stop any fascist-leaner from starting one to justify any act he cared to consider? Your post only underscores the importance of checks and balances, and the reason they are absolutely fundamental to our form of governement.

Slider

[Slider]

Spector is a Rino anyway.


Whatever O'Reilly-esque label you want to apply to try to disparage him, he's a straight Republican if you look at his voting record. He just happens to have more integrity than the DeLay's of the world, who'll sell out for any piece of power they can grab.

RINO - Republican Interested in NSA Oversight. Apparently, if you prefer to let us slip into fascism, you are a patriot, right? That is effing twisted.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I love the vague and dangerous excuses that are coming from Bush supporters: We're at war, so he can do what he wants, and "what are you democrats gonna do about it anyway?"

[Rych]

Spector is a Rino anyway.


Whatever O'Reilly-esque label you want to apply to try to disparage him, he's a straight Republican i




Pro Abortion
Pro Homosexual Marriage
Pro Union


Hmmmm, this is a straight (NPI)Republican? I'll take Joe Lieberman over this guy.

[Slider]

Pro Abortion
Pro Homosexual Marriage
Pro Union
Hmmmm, this is a straight (NPI)Republican? I'll take Joe Lieberman over this guy.



Abortion, sounds more middling than pro:

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Rated 21% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Homosexual Marriage/Union, again more middling than anything:

Oppose gay marriage but support civil union. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

So middle of the roaders are RINOs? Sounds like a typical Republican attempt at a smear.

Slider

[Rych]

Pro Abortion
Pro Homosexual Marriage
Pro Union
Hmmmm, this is a straight (NPI)Republican? I'll take Joe Lieberman over this guy.



Abortion, sounds more middling than pro:

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Rated 21% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Homosexual Marriage/Union, again more middling than anything:

Oppose gay marriage but support civil union. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

So middle of the roaders are RINOs? Sounds like a typical Republican attempt at a smear.

Slider





Truthfully, I could be called a rino by some since I'm Pro-Choice thru the first trimester.

[TrailBate]

You really ought to get off the whole election fraud issue considering Democrat were a much, if not more so, under scrutiny for cheating with voter registration and absentee ballot scandals in both elections.

well, that is definately debatable. I'm sure we can both come up with plenty of examples of cheating from both sides, but the Diebold thing outshines them all.



Why is it that out of everything that you can legitimately criticize Bush for, which is to say there is quite alot, but this silly election stuff is tiresome.


Because it's why this retard is president. I am convinced that if we had a cleaner election, this country would be in MUCH better shape right now. Why should a stolen presidential election be taken lightly?

It's like the Republicans saying "yes, we know the Iraq intelligence was flawed. Let's move on, shall we?"

No, let's not!

[kernel crash]

"Why should a stolen presidential election be taken lightly? "

Ahh, Maybe because it wasn't really stolen and you have an incredible need to twist the facts so that you can justify your view of the world. So why don't you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on dot org.

[FriedRys]

well, that is definately debatable. I'm sure we can both come up with plenty of examples of cheating from both sides, but the Diebold thing outshines them all. Fantastic, politics in America has decended to "You cheated more than we did" methinks I'm just gonna move to a shack in Idahoe and change my name to Ted.

[TrailBate]

Huffington Post's highlights of 2005:


So here is my list of things from 2005 that I’d love to forget -- that, indeed, we’d all be better off never having cross our minds again:

Bill Frist, video diagnostician. Bill Frist, stock market genius. Bill Frist.

That drivers will soon have to take out a second mortgage before filling up at the gas pump.

Bill O’Reilly’s enemies list. That HuffPo wasn’t on it (we’ll try harder next year).

That the president thought Harriet Miers was the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court

That Harriet Miers thought George Bush was the most brilliant man she ever met.

The passage of the morally bankrupt bankruptcy bill.

That the New York Times held off running the NSA spying story for over a year.

Being Bobby Brown: “Hell to the no!”

The note President Bush passed Condoleezza Rice asking if it was okay to take a bathroom break during a UN Security Council meeting.

The missing $9 billion the U.S.-led occupation government in Iraq can’t account for.

Jeff Gannon, White House correspondent -- aka Jeff Guckert, hotmilitarystud.com.

That there is a debate about whether waterboarding is actually torture.

Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, Viveca Novak: The Three Media Stooges of Plamegate

The Fred Durst sex tape.

That 493 U.S. soldiers have died since Dick Cheney declared the insurgency was in its “last throes”.

That Dick “5 deferments” Cheney was willing to go toe-to-toe with John “5 years as a POW” McCain over the issue of torture.

Jean Schmidt taking to the House floor and implying that Jack Murtha was a “coward.”

That voters could have gone to the polls in 2004 knowing that Bush was spying on Americans, that a key White House aide was charged with felonies, and that the initial reasons for invading Iraq were bogus -- but didn’t, thanks to the timidity of the mainstream media.

Tom Cruise vs. Brooke Shields

Tom Cruise vs. Matt Lauer

Tom Cruise vs. Oprah’s couch

That, in a 60s flashback, the Pentagon is once again spying on the activities of anti-war activists.

Hillary Clinton’s shameless attempts to rebrand herself as a red state friendly Democrat -- including her decision to sign on as a co-sponsor of an anti-flag burning bill.

Hillary’s visit to Iraq where when she opined that suicide bombers are "an indication" of the "failure" of the insurgency, and that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well"

Hillary taking on “Grand Theft Auto.”

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution.

That Phil Cooney, an oil-industry-lobbyist-turned-White House official, did extensive rewrites on government reports to make is sound as if global warming weren’t really that big a problem.

Duke Cunningham’s two defense contractor-provided 19th century French commodes.

That Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key architects of the war, has been successfully repackaged as the warm and fuzzy poverty-fighting president of the World Bank.

That thanks to Bush budget cuts, one in five military families need food stamps, or Women, Infants and Children program aid to get by.

That China has become the second largest holder of U.S. debt.

That Democrats chose the insipid “Together, America Can Do Better” as their new slogan. And that they actually paid a messaging team to come up with it.

Drilling for oil in ANWR (I’ve been desperately trying to forget this one since 2001, but the White House just won’t let me).

Bush strumming his guitar, Condi taking in Spamalot, and Cheney shopping for luxury digs -- all while New Orleans flooded.

That Bush waited five days before visiting the Gulf following Katrina. And that once he got there, he joked about his hard-partying days, congratulated Mike Brown on doing a "heck of a job," and promised to rebuild Trent Lott’s house.

Brownie’s resume -- especially his stint as commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.

That About 40 percent of Mississippi's National Guard and 35 percent of Louisiana's -- a combined total of roughly 6,000 troops -- were unable to help out after the storm because they were in Iraq.

That the first round of Katrina cleanup and reconstruction contracts went to that old gang from Baghdad: Halliburton, Bechtel, Fluor, and the Shaw Group.

The Post-Katrina Quote Hall of Shame:

“I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of levees” -- G. W. Bush

"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" -- Tom DeLay to young evacuees in the Astrodome

“This is working very well for them.” -- Former First Lady Barbara Bush on Katrina evacuees

“If you’ll look at my lovely FEMA attire you’ll really vomit. I am a fashion god.” -- Mike Brown in an email sent in the immediate aftermath of Katrina

Send to a friendPost a CommentRead all posts by Arianna Huffington

[kernel crash]

Quote from Trail Bait

"CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS"

Correction:

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court.

[Slider]

It was illegal then, and it is illegal now.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Yes but I don't remember such an uproar from the press, do you?

On another note I think Clinton acted "responsible" for doing it under those circumstances. National security was at stake.

[Slider]

The uproar is directly proportional to the transgression. Clinton, it seems, had the Attorney General authorize a warrantless search of a single house to search for evidence in a specific spy case.

Bush has taken that breach of civil liberty to a whole new stratosphere. It isn't apples and oranges, it is peanuts and solarsystems.

Slider

[catbbq]

The uproar is directly proportional to the transgression. Clinton, it seems, had the Attorney General authorize a warrantless search of a single house to search for evidence in a specific spy case.

Bush has taken that breach of civil liberty to a whole new stratosphere. It isn't apples and oranges, it is peanuts and solarsystems.

Slider


mmmm.... solar system and jelly sandwich....

[Mr_Cheeze]

The uproar is directly proportional to the transgression. Clinton, it seems, had the Attorney General authorize a warrantless search of a single house to search for evidence in a specific spy case.

Bush has taken that breach of civil liberty to a whole new stratosphere. It isn't apples and oranges, it is peanuts and solarsystems.

Slider


I think you mean, it's Democrats and Republicans. This entire issue is really just partisan politics, and the NY Times is right in the middle of it, as usual. It won't be long before Frank Rich write another tiresome diatribe about this administration's culture of corruption. And those like Slider and his ilk will eat it right up.

[kernel crash]

"It isn't apples and oranges, it is peanuts and solarsystems."

No I think your flat out wrong on this one. Its like trying to say I'm just a little bit pregnant. Both Clinton and Bush have the same philosophy on this issue and both have acted on it. That's the cold hard facts.

[Slider]

You guys are seriously maintaining that one search of a single house directly connected to a specific act of treason in some way equates to hundreds of searches, of anyone remotely suspected by the adminstration?

I guess you are entirely right. This is definitely the differnece between Democrats and Republicans.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

And I suppose you believe that these supposed searches were on your run of the mill Italian deli worker with relatives in Tuscany, or your IT tech with ties to Japan or, or perhaps an Ethiopian emigre who keeps in touch with his extended family in Africa? Or maybe... just a guess here, that they are keeping tabs on a very specific person... a Muslim, maybe... who is communicating with other probable Muslims in... I don't know... Yemen, let's say. Profiling. I realize the liberals hate that word, whether it describes successful policing activity or anti-terrorism. Personally, I don't have a problem with it since, um, I'm neither a Muslim, a terrorist, nor have any connections to someone named Ammad overseas. Call me racist... I know you will.

[TrailBate]

And I suppose you believe that these supposed searches were on your run of the mill Italian deli worker with relatives in Tuscany, or your IT tech with ties to Japan or, or perhaps an Ethiopian emigre who keeps in touch with his extended family in Africa? Or maybe... just a guess here, that they are keeping tabs on a very specific person... a Muslim, maybe... who is communicating with other probable Muslims in... I don't know... Yemen, let's say. Profiling. I realize the liberals hate that word, whether it describes successful policing activity or anti-terrorism. Personally, I don't have a problem with it since, um, I'm neither a Muslim, a terrorist, nor have any connections to someone named Ammad overseas. Call me racist... I know you will.


They were also on Greenpeace, PETA, and some gay and lesbian group, and anti-war groups.

[Slider]

The point is that they were on anyone at all the adminstration selected, with no input or oversight from anyone else. That kind of power, in the hands of any individual, is very explicitly barred under the Constitution, for very good reason. It is absolutely anti-democratic, in a fundamental way. Checks and balances are central to our goverment, and crucial to the ideas of democracy, civil liberty, justice and just about any other ideal you can name.

We choose to govern as a group, not subject to the whims of any single person. There's nothing more important, not a single thing.

Slider

[TrailBate]

In other news, Diebold is on a bad streak of being decertified in may states, It is also the subject of a securities fraud class action lawsuit, which convinced the CEO to promplty resign.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/technology/election_diebold/?cnn=yes

Here is Diebold promising to "deliver Ohio to President Bush."


Top story on FOX this morning: A plot by al qaida to assassinate Bush in the White House. Apparently an Al qaida operative called it the "holy grail of Jihad."

Does that make sense to anyone?

[FriedRys]

Top story on FOX this morning: A plot by al qaida to assassinate Bush in the White House. Apparently an Al qaida operative called it the "holy grail of Jihad."

Does that make sense to anyone?
Makes perfect sence, what better way to show the Muslim world that we Americans are weak and vulnerable than killing the leader of our country while sitting in the White House? Much like Osama was emboldened by our running from Somalia, something like this would be a far more visible victory(both actual and propaganda wise).

[Slider]

In case anyone misunderstood, the Attorney General does support a fascist America. From today's Globe:

Justice Dept. probing domestic spying leak
By Toni Locy, Associated Press Writer | December 30, 2005

WASHINGTON --The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program, Justice officials said Friday.

The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The Times revealed the existence of the program two weeks ago in a front-page story that acknowledged the news had been withheld from publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various aspects of the program.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the paper will not comment on the investigation.

Revelation of the secret spying program unleashed a firestorm of criticism of the administration. Some critics accused the president of breaking the law by authorizing intercepts of conversations -- without prior court approval or oversight -- of people inside the United States and abroad who had suspected ties to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

The surveillance program, which Bush acknowledged authorizing, bypassed a nearly 30-year-old secret court established to oversee highly sensitive investigations involving espionage and terrorism.

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution's war powers provision. They also argued that Congress gave Bush the power to conduct such a secret program when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Justice Department's investigation was being initiated after the agency received a request for the probe from the NSA.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been conducting a separate leak investigation to determine who in the administration leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the media in 2003.

Several reporters have been called to testify before a grand jury or to give depositions. New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail, refusing to reveal her source, before testifying in the probe.

The administration's legal interpretation of the president's powers allowed the government to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in conducting the warrantless surveillance.

The act established procedures that an 11-member court used in 2004 to oversee nearly 1,800 government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.

Congressional leaders have said they were not briefed four years ago, when the secret program began, as thoroughly as the administration has since contended.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said in an article printed last week on the op-ed page of The Washington Post that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ... but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens," Daschle wrote.

Daschle was Senate Democratic leader at the time of the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. He is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.

The administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress last week, saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said Bush authorized conducting electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella acknowledged "legitimate" privacy interests. But he said those interests "must be balanced" against national security.

[Slider]

Bush is getting outright blatant about this pursuit of fascism. When he signed the new anti-torture statute, he attached a rider saying "just kidding, the law doesn't apply to me." Seriously. The guy is actually telling the rest of us that he can do as he pleases, just like Mussolini and Hitler. Read on if you don't believe me.

Slider

Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.

Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view."

[vinnycactus]

Slider, you've resorted to talking to yourself in this thread. Think it may be time to let it go.

[Slider]

I dunno. I got your attention, didn't I?

Slider

[vinnycactus]

I typically don't get into political debates I was just noticing the traffic in this thread was dwindling.

Just so you know I'm a right wing conservative and although you do make some valid points, don't think you're going to convert me to the left. ;D

[Slider]

Conversion isn't my objective. I simply don't want some very, very important issues to go unnoticed here, and any of the other places I post.

To my mind, anyone who loves this country ought to be more than alarmed at the direction Bush is taking it. If he was a true conservative, concerned with protecting liberty, democracy, and all the traditional values we hold in this country, I'd have a lot less to say. Every position he takes threatens this country in some way, and even conservatives should note that.

Slider

[Rych]

I typically don't get into political debates I was just noticing the traffic in this thread was dwindling.

Just so you know I'm a right wing conservative and although you do make some valid points, don't think you're going to convert me to the left. ;D

No right winger or left winger has ever been converted on this thread. The righties and the lefties just lob bombs at each other in the hopes of assimilating the occasional fence sitter. I log on to this thread just to educate myself with the lefts convoluted arguments.

[slapheadmofo]

I used to be pretty middle of the road, but after being subjected to so much over the top rhetoric in this thread (among others), I plan to vote strictly republican for a few years just out of spite.

[Slider]

Talk about convoluted reasoning. You don't need spite, since you're already right in step with lots more who vote your way.

I'd like to hear a non-convoluted defense of fascism. Bush is going to get lots of chances to provide one, what with Cheney's office facing a Grand Jury soon, to be followed by his own set of Senate hearings about illegal domestic spying.

The Abramoff thing, which has Republicans (mostly) across the country shaking, might get lost in all the excitement, but it will be the piece that brings it all together. And what it will say is this: Despite al the proclamations about the need for a strong presidency and tighter controls internally after 9/11, all Bush and his henchmen were ever after was money. It didn't matter if they made us into the second coming of Uganda under Amin, as long as they and their co-conspirators made enough money to buy themselves some happiness.

You don't know it, but they are building their empire, and screwing all the rest of us, with the support of naive backers who vote in "spite."

Slider

[vinnycactus]

To my mind, anyone who loves this country ought to be more than alarmed at the direction Bush is taking it.

Slider


don't question my love for this country because i choose not to take YOUR view.

[kernel crash]

My new years resolution is to spend less time on this thread and I do expect to keep that resolution, but...

I'm just not paranoid of this country falling into fascism under Bush. We didn't elect him for life. His term will be over in a few years and someone else will have a chance to Fu@k up. As far as the Abramoff scandal, you'll soon discover its really not a republican scandal. Although the way the mainstream press is reporting it, it will surely sound like it.

[Slider]

I never questioned your love of country. As I said, "to my mind", love of country would require that we get the proto-fascist out of office ASAP.

If you follow the logical conclusion of the approach the Treasonator is taking, neither of us would be able to have this free discussion, since it may well represent some vague, unnamed, terrorist threat. And, if the Treasonator says it is a terrorist threat, then it is, at least that is what he is claiming. His approach is directly opposed to every principle we hold dear in this country. That is why I say true love of this country would require removal of the Treasonator.

Feel differently if you want, but at least use some reasoning if you want to explain why here, and not hide behind unfounded outrage.

Slider

[vinnycactus]

no need to get so worked up. i'm not worked up. i don't feel the need to regurgitate Boston Globe columns or Fox news articles for that matter. I tend to take those things with a grain of salt because I realize that no matter what side of the news media you're getting your information from, for the most part, is not necessarily filled with lies, but half-truths. So don't call out me because I'll post some unorginal thought I found on line, and you'll post some unoriginal though you found online and there will be this vicious circle or regurgitated half truths.

[Rych]

I used to be pretty middle of the road, but after being subjected to so much over the top rhetoric in this thread (among others), I plan to vote strictly republican for a few years just out of spite.


To be fair to the left, if instead of a mountain bike site, you were on a hunter's site you'd see a slanted right board that would make you vote left.

[Slider]

no need to get so worked up. i'm not worked up. i don't feel the need to regurgitate Boston Globe columns or Fox news articles for that matter. I tend to take those things with a grain of salt because I realize that no matter what side of the news media you're getting your information from, for the most part, is not necessarily filled with lies, but half-truths. So don't call out me because I'll post some unorginal thought I found on line, and you'll post some unoriginal though you found online and there will be this vicious circle or regurgitated half truths.


That is where you lose me. I never "called you out" or got worked up in any way.

To stick with the topic, any news source has bias, but it is not very hard to separate the facts from the spin, especially if you read more than one, and glean the truth from several sources.

If you want to challenge the story effectively, you'd have to be a lot more specific. Are you saying Bush attached no such rider? I haven't found any source, online or elsewhere, that says it's not true. If that is your point, let us know what you base it on. If you have another point, fill me in. I'm interested.

Slider

[Rych]

...I'd like to hear a non-convoluted defense of fascism. ... to be followed by his own set of Senate hearings about illegal domestic spying.


Slider



Again please have Hillary call for the Impeachment of Bush. I really would love to see this, which would be the death of the Democratic Party, happen.

BTW, for those of you who don't know, the DNC emailed buzz word for the week is FASCISM. Instructions are to say it as often as possible to attempt to make it true.

In case you have not heard, there was a vote. George W. Bush was reelected by a majority of the population.

[Slider]

My new years resolution is to spend less time on this thread and I do expect to keep that resolution, but...

I'm just not paranoid of this country falling into fascism under Bush. We didn't elect him for life. His term will be over in a few years and someone else will have a chance to Fu@k up. As far as the Abramoff scandal, you'll soon discover its really not a republican scandal. Although the way the mainstream press is reporting it, it will surely sound like it.


But everything he does is precedent for any successor to take it even further. It is the proverbial "slippery slope", and Bush is more than greasing the skids, he's cranking the incline up miles at a time. Meanwhile, there's lots and lots of damage that can be done. Just see how much of that Halliburton cash - yours and mine - that we get back. And watch what it takes to repay the terrifying deficit he'll hand us when he finally does leave office. Lastly, don't forget the lives of the thousands of troops his profiteering and incompetence has cost us. It can get worse.

Slider

[Slider]

Again please have Hillary call for the Impeachment of Bush. I really would love to see this, which would be the death of the Democratic Party, happen.

BTW, for those of you who don't know, the DNC emailed buzz word for the week is FASCISM. Instructions are to say it as often as possible to attempt to make it true.



It won't be Hillary, or Dean, but, most likely, a republican. This isn't party politics as you would like to paint it. It is a far graver and more broadly-perceived threat than you are willing to admit.

Fascism is an apt description, not a marketing concept. Bush is threatening the governmental controls we've carefully crafted for centuries in this country. There's no more appropriate term than fascism for what he is doing. I am glad to the the democrats are finally stepping up and calling attention to it. (BTW - got a source for that?)

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Talk about convoluted reasoning. You don't need spite, since you're already right in step with lots more who vote your way.



Oh? And what exactly is 'my way' of voting?

[Slider]

According to your post, it will be republican:



I used to be pretty middle of the road, but after being subjected to so much over the top rhetoric in this thread (among others), I plan to vote strictly republican for a few years just out of spite.


Slider

[slapheadmofo]

I used to be pretty middle of the road, but after being subjected to so much over the top rhetoric in this thread (among others), I plan to vote strictly republican for a few years just out of spite.


To be fair to the left, if instead of a mountain bike site, you were on a hunter's site you'd see a slanted right board that would make you vote left.


I can't believe that hunters have it in them to whine to the degree you see here. Maybe I'm wrong. Hell, if it shuts up even one of these morons that blame everything up to and including the weather on a single person, I'll go back to basing my vote on issues rather than be some party-line-toeing sheep on either side. But as long as I keep hearing the nonsense I've been hearing for the past few years, I want no part of the whole lefty scene; I'd be shamed just by association.

[Slider]

If that is the basis for your political affiliation, you definitely ought to remain a Republican.

As for morons who blame things on a single person, it seems you don't even read the posts. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, there's some sound reasoning there? Or better, if you disagree, that maybe the most appropriate response would be a reasoned rebuttal in place of the name calling?

If I or anyone else who posts here is a moron, we should be easy marks for your own vast intellect, right? If that is the case, how come you never quite make your point, but feel free to disparage those who do?

Time for a mirror search.

Slider

[off piste]

And now, from a bunch of "Right Wing Gun Nuts":

http://www.packing.org/community/general/listview/7389

[Rych]

Again please have Hillary call for the Impeachment of Bush. I really would love to see this, which would be the death of the Democratic Party, happen.

BTW, for those of you who don't know, the DNC emailed buzz word for the week is FASCISM. Instructions are to say it as often as possible to attempt to make it true.



It won't be Hillary, or Dean, but, most likely, a republican. This isn't party politics as you would like to paint it. It is a far graver and more broadly-perceived threat than you are willing to admit.

Fascism is an apt description, not a marketing concept. Bush is threatening the governmental controls we've carefully crafted for centuries in this country. There's no more appropriate term than fascism for what he is doing. I am glad to the the democrats are finally stepping up and calling attention to it. (BTW - got a source for that?)

Slider




Source?

[Slider]

You said:

"BTW, for those of you who don't know, the DNC emailed buzz word for the week is FASCISM. Instructions are to say it as often as possible to attempt to make it true. "

I was asking where you got that info.

Slider

[Rych]

You said:

"BTW, for those of you who don't know, the DNC emailed buzz word for the week is FASCISM. Instructions are to say it as often as possible to attempt to make it true. "

I was asking where you got that info.

Slider

Sorry you misunderstood...I thought you’d recognize mudslinging when you saw it;)

[Slider]

Damn! You got my hopes up. It is really about time someone other than Dean or Barbara Boxer stepped up and called it for what it is.

But maybe it shouldn't come from the Dems. I gotta think that McCain is stewing after Bush lied right to his face about the torture thing. The "just kidding" rider is NOT the deal they cut, and I doubt McCain will let it pass.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

fascist
evil
tyrant
corrupt


All buzzwords used ad infinitum by Democrats for about 20 years now, so I'm not sure why Slider would offer indignation at the suggestion that Democrats' modus operandi is to focus on the other party's misdeeds instead of offering solutions. Unfortunately, it just so happens that this Bush administration has done nothing to disprove such rhetoric with their stubborn insistence that the Iraq war has been and still is just.

This Abramoff stuff is not all that surprising. You'll hear the left harp away that this is a Republican scandal. That it's just more proof of the administration's corruption, yadda, yadda. However, they will be quite wrong in that assessment. The Abramoff scandal is, in fact, symptomatic of what is wrong at the very core of big government and big politics, in which both parties are equally at fault. Big time spending by government, coaxed by big moneyed special interests, which comes from all angles. Factor in to that that pretty much every big time politician is first and foremost centered on their own re-elections.

All one needs to look at is the most recent budget passed by Congress, 2.5 trillion dollars in spending. Lobbyists like Abramoff - don't think he's the only one involved in such dirty politics. He just happened to get caught - are paid by gigantic interests to do whatever they can to make sure certain people are elected and that those in office appropriate money a certain way. Money talks, period. This has nothing to do with "Republican" and has everything to do with our broken two party system that 95% of the population had been conned into believing is so wonderful. People like Slider and everybody on Huffington Post (a.k.a., BeatADeadHorse.com) who are shills for the Democrats and the Limbaughs and Hannitys who shill for the GOP? They are just a part of the problem.

These arguments like you guys are having make it a perfect opportunity to say that anyone who continues to vote either R or D only add to the problem. The reason why I often side with the right is because those on the left like to act so innocent when it comes to how the game of politics is played. It's easy to harp on the Republicans while they are in office and control Congress. Not so easy to look within and ask, "Hey, what can we really do to make government better." And that's because they all believe in a BIG government every bit as much as each other. Those two parties... not really that different from each other, and there within lies some real ******* irony.

[Slider]

Cheeze, Cheeze, cheeze. So many words, so little grasp.

First, far from indignation, my response to hearing that the Dems were using the F-word as description of the president’s policies was relief. It definitely is about time someone tells it like it is. Unfortunately, Rych was just instigating things.

As for 20 years of use of those words, you’d really need to cite something more specific than your usual broad swipe for anyone to know what you are talking about. For all his failings, Reagan was a both-sides-of-the-aisle guy, and not a fascist, and I don’t think Tip O’Neil or anyone else ever suggested otherwise. Bush senior, maybe, but you would have to cite an example for your claim to mean anything.

I’m really surprised you have no grasp whatsoever of the Abramoff thing. For someone who regularly decries both parties (despite clear republican leanings), I would have thought you would at least be able to put things into some sort of historical perspective. To give you the idea: DeLay’s role goes way back. He started muscling into DC based lobbying firms in 1994, and made sure that only Republicans got the senior management positions. This was all done with PAC money that he doled out freely. The Abramoff scandal is simply the love child of all that DeLay arm twisting, followed by purely Republican-driven policy changes that eliminated many lobbying rules in place on Capitol Hill. With DeLay and the Republican control of both houses in place, Abramoff began literally buying legislation for his clients.

This aint a Democrat thing, but the money did reach both parties.

Slider

[FriedRys]

Damn! You got my hopes up. It is really about time someone other than Dean or Barbara Boxer stepped up and called it for what it is.

But maybe it shouldn't come from the Dems. I gotta think that McCain is stewing after Bush lied right to his face about the torture thing. The "just kidding" rider is NOT the deal they cut, and I doubt McCain will let it pass.

Slider




The Arizona Republican said legislation before Congress would establish in U.S. law the international standard banning any treatment of prisoners that "shocks the conscience."

That would include, McCain said, mock executions and the controversial technique known as "water boarding," in which a subject is made to think he is drowning.

Asked on ABC's This Week whether such treatment of a terrorism suspect who could reveal information that could stop a terrorist operation would shock the conscience, McCain said it would not.

"In that million-to-one situation, then the president of the United States would authorize it and take responsibility for it," McCain said.

sounds like his own version of "Just Kidding" if you ask me.

whole story here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-18-mccain-torture_x.htm

[Slider]

With that, McCain drops a few notches in my esteem. He really disappoints me, and I kinda hoped he'd be the next Democratic president! ;D

Slider

[Rych]

So back to this “illegal” spying thing Slider. Let’s say for example terrorist X in 2002 Afghanistan has Arab/American Y’s phone number in his cell redial. This is not probable cause. Now Bush not wanting to go against FISA’s ruling does not tap Arab/American Y’s phone. Arab/American Y goes on to blow something insignificant up, like say the Brooklyn Bridge. Would you be arguing now that Bush was soft on American Security?

[Slider]

Bush can spy on anyone he wants, as long as he gets court approval. What is not only wrong, but a direct threat to democracy, is for Bush to ignore law, cross-branch oversight, and the constitution, and decide for himself who he wants to spy on.

I don't get why we would want to provide that power to anyone. Even assuming (despite all evidence) that Bush is the most astute judge of character and threat potential, what about the next president, or the one after that. Since we can't possibly say what is in the heart of any individual, instead we say decisions like those need input from a variety of elected officials.

The alternative is called fascism.

Slider

[Rych]

Bush can spy on anyone he wants, as long as he gets court approval. What is not only wrong, but a direct threat to democracy, is for Bush to ignore law, cross-branch oversight, and the constitution, and decide for himself who he wants to spy on.

I don't get why we would want to provide that power to anyone. Even assuming (despite all evidence) that Bush is the most astute judge of character and threat potential, what about the next president, or the one after that. Since we can't possibly say what is in the heart of any individual, instead we say decisions like those need input from a variety of elected officials.

The alternative is called fascism.

Slider


But in my scenario the court would deny wire tapping because of the lack of probable cause.

What actually happened:


The CIA raids in Afghanistan in 2002 captured Abu Zubaydah with cell phones. Soon after the raids, the NSA began listening to calls placed to the phone numbers found on the cell phones.

This led to the Wire tapping and arrest of American Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge.

[Slider]

FISA doesn't require probable cause. They have lots of leeway, and denied, I think, one out of 10K requests since 9/11.

Slider

[Rych]

FISA doesn't require probable cause. They have lots of leeway, and denied, I think, one out of 10K requests since 9/11.

Slider


Actually the number is:

Since 2001, the judges modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration.


A low number, but not the .0001 number you think it is.

[Slider]

Modified is not rejected. The same source you used, I think, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, says that the court rejected 6 of 5,645 requests. We don't have specifics, but wouldn't you think they made a reasonable assessment before rejecting those?

Whatever the number, oversight of some type is absolutely necessary, both now and for the future, to prevent abuse. Keep the government outta our business unless we do something to indicate we are a threat. And the assessment of the level of threat must not lie in any single person's hands. That is what the FISA court is for.

Slider

[Slider]

This is for all of you who asked for proof that Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war. Here it is. The administration knew well in advance that the whole Niger uranium thing was crap, yet the famous "16 words" were used.

And they lied again when they claimed that "faulty intelligence" was to blame. Turns out the intelligence was on the mark all along. It was only the policy that was faulty, but Evil is a better description.

Slider





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 18, 2006
2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech. Two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the supposed Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.

A handful of news reports, along with the Robb-Silberman report last year on intelligence failures in Iraq, have previously made reference to the early doubts expressed by the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research in 2002 concerning the reliability of the Iraq-Niger uranium link.

But the intelligence assessment itself - including the analysts' full arguments in raising wide-ranging doubts about the credence of the uranium claim - was only recently declassified as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has sought access to government documents on terrorism and intelligence matters. The group, which received a copy of the 2002 memo among several hundred pages of other documents, provided a copy of the memo to The New York Times.

The White House declined to discuss details of the declassified memo, saying the Niger question had already been explored at length since the president's State of the Union address.

"This matter was examined fully by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission, and the president acted on their broad recommendations to reform our intelligence apparatus," said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

The public release of the State Department assessment, with some sections blacked out, adds another level of detail to an episode that was central not only to the debate over the invasion of Iraq, but also in the perjury indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

In early 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency sent the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate possible attempts to sell uranium to Iraq. The next year, after Mr. Wilson became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraqi intelligence, the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A. officer who suggested him for the Niger trip, was made public. The investigation into the leak led to criminal charges in October against Mr. Libby, who is accused of misleading investigators and a grand jury.

The review by the State Department's intelligence bureau was one of a number of reviews undertaken in early 2002 at the State Department in response to secret intelligence pointing to the possibility that Iraq was seeking to buy yellowcake, a processed uranium ore, from Niger to reconstitute its nuclear program.

A four-star general, Carlton W. Fulford Jr., was also sent to Niger to investigate the claims of a uranium purchase. He, too, came away with doubts about the reliability of the report and believed Niger's yellowcake supply to be secure. But the State Department's review, which looked at the political, economic and logistical factors in such a purchase, seems to have produced wider-ranging doubts than other reviews about the likelihood that Niger would try to sell uranium to Baghdad.

The review concluded that Niger was "probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq," in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale. It also cast doubt on an intelligence report indicating that Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja, might have negotiated a sales agreement with Iraq in 2000. Mr. Tandja and his government were reluctant to do anything to endanger their foreign aid from the United States and other allies, the review concluded. The State Department review also cast doubt on the logistics of Niger being able to deliver 500 tons of uranium even if the sale were attempted. "Moving such a quantity secretly over such a distance would be very difficult, particularly because the French would be indisposed to approve or cloak this arrangement," the review said.

Chris Farrell, the director of investigations at Judicial Watch and a former military intelligence officer, said he found the State Department's analysis to be "a very strong, well-thought-out argument that looks at the whole playing field in Niger, and it makes a compelling case for why the uranium sale was so unlikely."

The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

A Bush administration official, who requested anonymity because the issue involved partly classified documents, would not say whether President Bush had seen the State Department's memo before his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003.

But the official added: "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering operation. The president based his remarks in the State of the Union address on the intelligence that was presented to him by the intelligence community and cleared by the intelligence community. The president has said the intelligence was wrong, and we have reorganized our intelligence agencies so we can do better in the future."

Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

"All the people understood that there was documentary evidence" suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I am fairly confident to state that I can speak for everybody when I say:
http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/sound_sorting/initial_consonants/y/images/yawn.jpg

[Slider]

You're short attention span is not my problem. And neither is your presumption that you speak for anyone other that your addled self.

In case you can't connect the dots, as is usually the case, this is the smoking gun that undermines everything the adminstration has said on the lead up to the war. If that means nap time for Cheeze, go for it. But why bother posting about it?

Slider

[TrailBate]

It’s pretty sad when an administration that tortures, operates illegal prisons, lies to start wars, kills untold thousands of civilians, illegally spies on Americans, doesn’t properly equip or support it’s troops, outs CIA agents, investigates baseball instead of it’s own illegal activities (plural), makes your medical decisions for you, etc, gets nothing more than a “yawn” from people like Cheeze.

[stich]

I think it would be pretty entertaining & the start of a good thread if Slider & Trailbait kinda fell off the face of the earth as a result of these posts LOL!

With all that the evil Bush admin is getting away with these days - it could happen LOL!

[Rych]

It’s pretty sad when an administration that tortures, operates illegal prisons, lies to start wars, kills untold thousands of civilians, illegally spies on Americans, doesn’t properly equip or support it’s troops, outs CIA agents, investigates baseball instead of it’s own illegal activities (plural), makes your medical decisions for you, etc, gets nothing more than a “yawn” from people like Cheeze.


Torture---I'm ok with it.

Illegal prisons- if they keep planes from flying into buildings, cool.

Lies to start wars-debatable, but over.

Kills untold thousands of civilians- As long as its not American civilians, and what they're doing protects Americans, cool.


Doesn’t properly equip or support its troop---Agreed

spying on Americans--It's better than interning them in camps like the Democrats did to the Japanese in WWII.

outs CIA agents--Like John Kerry?

Investigates baseball instead of its own illegal activities--Like perjury? Is that not illegal?

Makes your medical decisions for you...Like telling you you can't stick a pair of scissors into a 40 week old baby?




-

[TrailBate]

Torture---I'm ok with it.

Then I suggest you move to a country that supports such behavior, ie, China, Iran, Pre-war (and post war, actually) Iraq, Russia, or any country that supports Terrorism and does not believe in human rights.



Illegal prisons- if they keep planes from flying into buildings, cool.

Do they? If these prisons did that, why can't they be open to open to scrutiny? Why do they have to be hidden? Because they can't be justified, that's why.



Lies to start wars-debatable, but over.

Not over. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. Why do Bush supporters hate our troops so much?



Kills untold thousands of civilians- As long as its not American civilians, and what they're doing protects Americans, cool.

I guess you don't understand the concept of "civilians."






spying on Americans--It's better than interning them in camps like the Democrats did to the Japanese in WWII.

Yep, it was stupid then, it's stupid now.



outs CIA agents--Like John Kerry?

Totally bogus. I debunked that myth here long ago.



Investigates baseball instead of its own illegal activities--Like perjury? Is that not illegal?

yeah, let's get Bush under oath to answer to all these charges. He'd be hung before lunch.



Makes your medical decisions for you...Like telling you you can't stick a pair of scissors into a 40 week old baby?

Like telling mothers they can't make any decisions based on their own health.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You're short attention span is not my problem. And neither is your presumption that you speak for anyone other that your addled self.

In case you can't connect the dots, as is usually the case, this is the smoking gun that undermines everything the adminstration has said on the lead up to the war. If that means nap time for Cheeze, go for it. But why bother posting about it?

Slider


I'll tell you what, then. You stop regurgitating the same stuff over and over and maybe you'll stir up some worthwhile debate instead of just preaching to an empty congregation.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think it would be pretty entertaining & the start of a good thread if Slider & Trailbait kinda fell off the face of the earth as a result of these posts LOL!

With all that the evil Bush admin is getting away with these days - it could happen LOL!


Are you suggesting a Vince Foster special?

[Slider]

You're short attention span is not my problem. And neither is your presumption that you speak for anyone other that your addled self.

In case you can't connect the dots, as is usually the case, this is the smoking gun that undermines everything the adminstration has said on the lead up to the war. If that means nap time for Cheeze, go for it. But why bother posting about it?

Slider


I'll tell you what, then. You stop regurgitating the same stuff over and over and maybe you'll stir up some worthwhile debate instead of just preaching to an empty congregation.


I think it is that attention span thing again. They have drugs to treat ADD these days, you know. In case they don't work, you might want to start by reading the Subject of this thread.

But, to be more specific, try reading some past posts in this subject. I can find at least five direct questions in this thread asking for proof that Bush lied leading up to the war. Now, I'll type slowly so you get it.

T h i s is t h e p r o o f.

Now why don't you post some more irrelvant, unsupported stuff as usual so we can all have a laugh.

Slider

[TrailBate]

I'll tell you what, then. You stop regurgitating the same stuff over and over and maybe you'll stir up some worthwhile debate instead of just preaching to an empty congregation.


This is the genius of Bush, or the complete stupidity of Americans: We are so numbed and desensitized to the government's corruption and treason, even at the highest levels, that nobody notices or cares anymore. Yet certain geniuses still get upset over Clinton's bj. very sad.

[vinnycactus]

question:

Do you guys write your congressman(woman) and voice your concerns?

[stich]

I think it's more like a case of apathy, my view of politics is very simplistic; Those with the dough make the rules, always have, always will. You'll never change it, never.
And finally I could care less which "club" you belong to. :'(

[TrailBate]

question:

Do you guys write your congressman(woman) and voice your concerns?


Kerry, Kennedy and Frank here from me all the time.....