FISA Hearings

[TrailBate]

The democrats demanded the Attorney General testify under oath. Republicans refused. Vote ensued. Guess what? He does not testify under oath.

hmmmmmm....why?

[BadDNA]

Forgive me, I'm bored.

Sing to the tune of the "Dukes of Hazard" theme:

He's just a good ol' boy,
never doin' no harm,
at least none we ever saw, outta trouble with the law, just don't let him be sworn.

Straighten the gays,
send the country to war,
law says we can't tap phones, reinterpret it and we will.

We're gonna get rich,
on the backs of the poor,
the police state's comin', won't be much longer now.

Just the good ol' boys,
wouldn't change if they could,
breakin' the system, abusing power like a dictator would.

[Slider]

It will take some impressive spin to resolve the Rodriguez confirmation testimony last year, where he said unauthorized wiretaps were "not the policy or the agenda of this president" with the fact that he knew they were ongoing at the time.

I guess we can now definitively add perjury to the list of this administration's crimes. Seems pretty clear why a lying sack 'o **** like the Atty. General would prefer not to testify under oath.

Slider

[catbbq]

It will take some impressive spin to resolve the Rodriguez confirmation testimony last year, where he said unauthorized wiretaps were "not the policy or the agenda of this president" with the fact that he knew they were ongoing at the time.

I guess we can now definitively add perjury to the list of this administration's crimes. Seems pretty clear why a lying sack 'o **** like the Atty. General would prefer not to testify under oath.

Slider


Perjury didn't seem to bother you with Clinton. Oh, but that's right, it isn't the actual crime, it is what the person is perjuring themselves about.

[Slider]

Perjury didn't seem to bother you with Clinton. Oh, but that's right, it isn't the actual crime, it is what the person is perjuring themselves about.


Ah, Clinton. First, the obvious question: What has he got to do with this?

Second, how would you know what bothered me about Clinton? That was long before this forum ever started.

But the real problem is the sheer volume of evidence of this adminstration's complete disregard for truth, law, and all those pesky ideals we profess to live by. Maybe we could ignore that WMD thing, and perhaps we might overlook the torture non-investigation. It gets a little harder with the treason, and now we have the Attorney General lying to get himself confirmed while helping the President undermine the Constitution. If you need more, we can rehash the Abramoff thing, toss in a side of Saudi Arabian protection after 09/11, then serve it all up on a platter of Cheney's collusion with the oil industry and blatant contemp of Congress afterward. Dessert will be flaming Halliburton payouts.

Have you sensed that there might be a pattern here?

Slider

[catbbq]

Perjury didn't seem to bother you with Clinton. Oh, but that's right, it isn't the actual crime, it is what the person is perjuring themselves about.


Ah, Clinton. First, the obvious question: What has he got to do with this?

He set the precedent for perjury.



Second, how would you know what bothered me about Clinton? That was long before this forum ever started.



Clinton got a blow job. <snip>


First thing you mentioned in the miner's thread was Clinton's BJ, so it obviously is the first thing on your mind. And the fact that in many threads you keep disregarding his perjury and jumping the the blowjob tells me exactly what doesn't bother you about Clinton.

[Slider]

He set the precedent for perjury.

This is your argument: An ex-president may have perjured himself in the past, so anyone in any president's adminstration can lie to Congress, the Senate and the courts, whenever they like? You're joking, right?



First thing you mentioned in the miner's thread was Clinton's BJ, so it obviously is the first thing on your mind. And the fact that in many threads you keep disregarding his perjury and jumping the the blowjob tells me exactly what doesn't bother you about Clinton.


Interesting. Did you happen to catch the context? I mentioned Clinton simply because it was inevitable that Bush backers in this forum would mention him, since they have in virtually every thread that has brought up the overwhelming weight of the crimes the current President has committed, sponsored, and plotted. If that is all you got, Bush's ass is history, since not even a corrupt, overwhelmingly Republican Senate would even bother to mention that as a defense.

There's no other way to describe Clinton's behavior than as irrelevant. If Bush was to use it as any part of a defense, it would be laughed out of the courthouse. You gotta move on, but I do understand that you have nothing else, so what the heck...

Slider

[TrailBate]

Yeah, the only reason they got Clinton is because they made him testify under oath. Now the republicans REFUSE to make Gonzales testify under oath. It would have been quicker to swear him in, then to have the debate and the vote.

It's pathetic to see that republicans need Clinton to answer questions about a blowjob under oath. But questions about national security, civil rights? Nah, don't bother.....fascist pigs.

You Bushbots need to stop obsessing over Clinton's penis. Pretty scary.

[TrailBate]

Ladies and Gentleman, the Attorney General of the United States:

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."

granted, he was NOT under oath......

[Mr_Cheeze]

Just a couple of points of order. First, Clinton continues to be brought up, not as a quasi counter argument to anything concerning Bush, but because it is funny seeing you lefties get all huffy about it. It truly is. And to make matters worse, which is my second point, you continue to slough off any criticisms of the former President as trite based on this notion that all he did wrong was get a hummer from a fat broad in the OO when we all know that you know better.

Carry on.

[TrailBate]

No, it's funny watching you righties get upset over a bj, but don't care about dead americans and treason.

Who here truelly believes a president should have to testify about his sex life under oath, but does NOT have to testify under oath about pre-war intelligence, spying, torture, illegal prisons, and outing CIA agents.

It's pathetic that the only thing you righties have to counter is Clinton's blowjob.

[catbbq]

No, it's funny watching you righties get upset over a bj, but don't care about dead americans and treason.

Who here truelly believes a president should have to testify about his sex life under oath, but does NOT have to testify under oath about pre-war intelligence, spying, torture, illegal prisons, and outing CIA agents.

It's pathetic that the only thing you righties have to counter is Clinton's blowjob.


I wasn't aware that Bush has been brought in to testify but wasn't under oath.

Bush should absolutely be held accountable for things he has done, once someone actually brings charges and he is found guilty. Just like Clinton was (held accountable that is, not found guilty). But critizing Bush becuase some other republican refused to swear in someone else in Bush's administration... thats just grasping.

[Mr_Cheeze]

No, it's funny watching you righties get upset over a bj, but don't care about dead americans and treason.

Who here truelly believes a president should have to testify about his sex life under oath, but does NOT have to testify under oath about pre-war intelligence, spying, torture, illegal prisons, and outing CIA agents.

It's pathetic that the only thing you righties have to counter is Clinton's blowjob.


... as the squirming continues...

So you don't think a President should have to testify about his sex life while under oath after being formally charged with sexual harrassment and then held accountable when he obviously committed perjury? Interesting. It was interesting, also, that he ended up settling with Paula Jones in the case while on appeals.

But you say it was all about a little blow job, which, as we all now know, does not constitute sex, according to the former President.

The only people hung up on the Lewinski blow job were the media and comedians.

[TrailBate]

I wasn't aware that Bush has been brought in to testify but wasn't under oath.

Bush should absolutely be held accountable for things he has done, once someone actually brings charges and he is found guilty. Just like Clinton was (held accountable that is, not found guilty). But critizing Bush becuase some other republican refused to swear in someone else in Bush's administration... thats just grasping.




Yes, Clinton was made to testify under oath about where his penis was. You righties keep saying "he committed perjury". yeah, he lied about something he should not have had to answer about to begin with. It was a pathetic ploy by republicans. REPUBLICANS did this. Now REPUBLICANS refuse to make their own people/cronies answer under oath about issues that actually matter.

[Mr_Cheeze]

So you DO believe that a President should not have to testify under oath when legal charges are brought up against him? Because that's what you're essensially saying. Or maybe you just aren't getting the fact that Clinton was forced to take the stand over Paula Jones' charges against him, and not because of Monica Lewinski's blowjob. I swear, you lefties are more hung up on that part of it than anything else! Who cares about the bj. The Lewinski part of that trial was simply an attempt by the prosecution to prove that Clinton's character and credibility was suspect, which it was. And the fact that he settled in the end is proof, as they say, in the pudding.

[catbbq]

<snip> that he settled in the end is proof, as they say, in the pudding.


eewwww.....

[TrailBate]

The point is the same. You guys care more about Clinton's sex life, than about all the treasonous things Bush has done. You're only defense is that Bush has yet to answer anything under oath. And with a government controlled by republicans, you probably won't. Proof is in the Attorney General's testimony.

[TrailBate]

another interesting thing about these hearings is that you have to really dig to find anything about it in the "liberal media." Yet the Lewinsky thing was all over the place.

[catbbq]

another interesting thing about these hearings is that you have to really dig to find anything about it in the "liberal media." Yet the Lewinsky thing was all over the place.


That's easy. There's no sex involved. The inital "pow" of illegal wire taps has long since worn off, and even the liberal media can't keep harping on something that has nothing new to offer and no sex appeal. Liberial media or not, they all answer to the almighty dollar.

[Rych]

another interesting thing about these hearings is that you have to really dig to find anything about it in the "liberal media." Yet the Lewinsky thing was all over the place.

The interesting thing is Senator Kennedy pontificates on the Bush administration wire taps which have the intention to save lives. What was Kennedy’s brothers' intention when they wire tapped Martin Luther King? Whose live did those taps save?

[Slider]

The interesting thing is Senator Kennedy pontificates on the Bush administration wire taps which have the intention to save lives. What was Kennedy’s brothers' intention when they wire tapped Martin Luther King? Whose live did those taps save?


He did have plenty to say about it, as did many other Senators, once they were revealed. The problem was that the FBI kept them secret. Sound familiar?

Lack of oversight inevitably leads to abuse. That was the lesson then, and the point now.

Slider

[TrailBate]

The interesting thing is Senator Kennedy pontificates on the Bush administration wire taps which have the intention to save lives.

Do they? Wire tapping Greenpeace, PETA, anti-war groups? If Bush felt he was saving lives, why go about wire tapping illegally? You would think if he really felt he was saving lives he would go about it legally. He did not. Why? He quite possibly was wire tapping people he should not have been spying on.

[Rych]

The interesting thing is Senator Kennedy pontificates on the Bush administration wire taps which have the intention to save lives.

Do they? Wire tapping Greenpeace, PETA, anti-war groups? If Bush felt he was saving lives, why go about wire tapping illegally? You would think if he really felt he was saving lives he would go about it legally. He did not. Why? He quite possibly was wire tapping people he should not have been spying on.


Source? I've never seen anything about greenpeace being wire tapped. Are they wire tapping peta or the terrorist wing of peta ( they're name escapes me now)?

[TrailBate]

Source? I've never seen anything about greenpeace being wire tapped. Are they wire tapping peta or the terrorist wing of peta ( they're name escapes me now)?



Do a search. You'll find it.

This is the crux of the issue. Who was he spying on, and did he go about it legally?

[fvh420]

The real point of the matter is this - There is a system that has been put into place to allow for surveillance of American citizens. It is called the FISA court. The President can "spy" on US Citizens with the approval of this small judicial court. It was set up as a check and balance against Executive Branch power abuse. They can even get retroactive approval after the spying has occurred. The FISA court can be brough in in very short order. Bush decided to circumvent this process and therefore broke the law. I do not know the logistics behind whether the Senate can call the President to testify; however they did call the A.G. who, while in his confirmation hearings last year said that there were no such programs. A year later, after now knowing that he lied, the Republican chairperson decided that the A.G did not need to be sworn in. This makes a mockery of the whole system. If for a second you believe that there is no back door cooperation between the White House and the Republican lead Legislature you are a fool.

The fact that someone has or has not lied in the past is of no relevance to this or any future topic. 2 or more wrongs do not make a right. What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

The bigger question is this, do you want the governmental systems that are in place today to use all the LEGAL tools at their disposal to defend the country. I stress the word Legal. If an organization like the NSA/CIA/FBI/ETC has a reason to suspect that an American citizen is in communication with a known or suspected terrorist organization, I would like them to act inside the confines of the law, period.

My feeling is that Bush and Co feel that they are above the law and are using fear to govern this country, funnel $ to the special interests that paid there way and appease the hard core fundies who helped tip the election by 1%. My feeling on Bush or past Presidents is not important with respect to the legality oftheir actions.
.

[Rych]

The interesting thing is Senator Kennedy pontificates on the Bush administration wire taps which have the intention to save lives.

Do they? Wire tapping Greenpeace, PETA, anti-war groups? If Bush felt he was saving lives, why go about wire tapping illegally? You would think if he really felt he was saving lives he would go about it legally. He did not. Why? He quite possibly was wire tapping people he should not have been spying on.


The point is there is a double standard. For instance, Bill Clinton says his mentor is former deceased Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright, who was a segregationist. Do we here about this the media? Trent Lott says the country would be better off if Strom Thurman became president, at his retirement dinner, and is labeled a racist by the media.

[TrailBate]

The point is there is a double standard. For instance, Bill Clinton says his mentor is former deceased Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright, who was a segregationist. Do we here about this the media? Trent Lott says the country would be better off if Strom Thurman became president, at his retirement dinner, and is labeled a racist by the media.


What does this have to do with Bush's illegal spying?

btw, Ann Coulter, the highlight speaker at a major conservative convention the other night, called middle eastern people "ragheads" in her speech.

[FriedRys]

btw, Ann Coulter, the highlight speaker at a major conservative convention the other night, called middle eastern people "ragheads" in her speech. What's so wrong about calling a spade a shovel?