Dems Join Suit to Ban Terrorist Surveillance
Until now, Democrats had insisted that they didn’t want to end President Bush’s terrorist surveillance program, saying instead that the law merely needed to be changed to make terrorist surveillance inside the U.S. illegal.
On Wednesday, however - even before USA Today’s bogus report about the NSA’s phone number data collection program - 71 House Democrats signed up to sponsor a move that would make it illegal for the NSA to continue to monitor terrorist phone calls.
The liberal web site Raw Story reported Thursday:
“The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”
“Both suits demand the program be stopped.”
Predictably, Michigan Democrat John Conyers led the charge:
“As our brief makes clear, this Congress dealt with this issue authoritatively almost 30 years ago - warrantless spying on American soil is flatly prohibited,” he railed.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
The post above is such B.S. that it hardly warrants a
response. Just because Dems want to ensure
protection of the guarantees to all U.S. citizens under
the U.S. Constitution, the very foundation of our
government, from infringes by the government, does not
mean they favor Al Queda a claim that is nothing
more than easilly disproven bullshit Rovian conservative
bullshit. If the Republicans in control of government
are allowed to break the Constitution with no checks and
balances, which if you look closely is PRECISELY the goal
of the Bush Administration and the Republican Puppet
Congress, than Al Queda has indeed won.
When you posted the Al Queda picture above mocking the
Democrats, did you THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION IS THE ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CATCH
AL QUEDA, AMERICA’S NO. 1 ENEMY AFTER 9-11,
AND THAT BUSH HAS UTTERED, “I DON’T KNOW WHERE
HE IS. I DON’T SPEND THAT MUCH TIME THINKING OF HIM.”
Did you think about that for one second?
May 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
War I love Ya man, you have passion. Too bad you are on the wrong side, LOL!
But anything led by John Conyers can’t be taken seriously.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Democrats Join Suit to Ban Terrorist Surveillance…
Latch onto terms like “domestic spying,” “wiretaps,” or “eavesdropping,” and you get mischaracterizations and overreactions. Take the time without overreacting to find out what it’s all about and you get a rational picture and wonder what on ear…
May 12th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Do I for one minute think that government officials can’t violate the Constitution and/or get nutty on power trips?? Heck no!! But, and here is where I probably differ from each end of the political spectrum, neither do I believe that ONE NUT (even as high as the President) can (or would) make major inroads into civil liberties all by themselves.
In order for this to be a BIG DEAL to me personally, I’d have to be convinced that the BIG BAD BUSH BOYS were listening in on my phone conversations, without getting court permission first. Just keeping track of who calls certain people (a lot) is not a bad idea - if the someone’s in question happen to be suspected members of criminal conospiracies. It happens, a lot. Access to records (public or private) is a whole lot easier (for everyone, not just the government) then most people think or imagine.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
“Do I for one minute think that government officials can’t violate the Constitution and/or get nutty on power trips??”
That’s precisely the issue for me. Both Nixon and Clinton showed that these kind of records, just sitting there, prove too big a temptation to resist. I’m not so concerned that Bush is going to throw me in jail, but that some petty bureaucrat, because of a petty issue with some taxpayer, will use these kinds of records to wreck that person’s life.
We both agree and history shows that people abuse their power; collecting data like this is simply giving these petty bastards another tool with which to harass people.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the pols will stop collecting anything if we throw out the innies and put in the outies. The Dems oppose it because they oppose Bush, not because they are friends of civil liberties (if they insist they are, have them explain Echelon). The GOP is keen on it because they are the guys who are up to bat now. They’ll scream about it as soon as these “anonymous” phone records start to turn up in the research files at the DNC.
And I’ll laugh my ass off at them.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Twot is simply mistaken in his claim that the Bush Administration is interested in
violating the Constitution. He’s really off base there. And this dopey USA Today
story is not “news”. I read about this a long time ago. Why would USA Today resurrect this
non-story as news, you might ask? Well, if you have to ask, then you’re a liberal without
a clue, still in complete denial that the MSM has a severe leftist bias, and that’s YOUR problem.
In any case, this practice of checking records of phone numbers in order to pick out
suspicious calling patterns, etc., is NOT prohibited either by the FISA act, OR by the 4th
Amendment. In fact, in 1978, the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland that government
collection of phone numbers is legal, and that callers cannot have a “reasonable expectation
of privacy” in the numbers they dial.
So what we have here is more hysteria by liberals like twot, who are not nearly as well-informed
as they consider themselves to be. But according to them, WE’RE the ones they accuse of not doing
our research, and of only reading and listening to right-wing sources. Pot….Kettle….Black.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
And El Borak, on more than one occasion over at JABBS, I’ve brought up the Echelon program during
the 90s, and the hundreds and hundreds of raw FBI files on Republicans that were purloined during
the Clinton Administration, and nobody there ever cared to comment on those issues. I guess they
were all okay with the ACTUAL abuses that occurred when a Democrat was in office. Yet in
their paranoia, they are all up in arms at mere SPECULATION that President Bush might be violating the
U.S. Constitution.
That’s why I dislike debating with some libs. Their obvious double standard and hypocrisy drives me
nuts! They are totally inconsistent in the standards they impose.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
“I guess they were all okay with the ACTUAL abuses that occurred when a Democrat was in office.”
Well, of course they are. Dems are good people doing good things for good reasons, Republicans are bad people doing bad things for bad reasons. Means are irrelevant (and more and more, ends are irrelevant). What is important at the end of the day is who gets to tell the huddled masses to put bike helmets on the children. It’s about power for power’s sake.
But it’s much easier to rally the troops if you have a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ™ that’s going to peek through your bedroom window to make sure you’re not…well, let’s let that one go. What’s more likely is that your phone records will get sold on the black market to your estranged spouse’s attorney or something. That’s not nearly as exciting, but is far more threatening to civil liberties of an ordinary citizen.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
ANY person, party, group, or thing that uses FEAR as its primary tool in getting (forceing) members/compliance should be greatly avoided by anyone who appreciates true freedom.
No one group of human beings has all the answers, or all the baddies.
Every human being makes mistakes and is fallible. (the only perfect human being who ever lived was, according to history and my personal set of faith beliefs, crucified for his trouble).
I’m with trinity in terms of trying to “debate” with people whose minds are closed to facts. You simply cannot educate someone who believes they already know all there is to know (on any given topic). That is why I TRY to avoid such behaviors or mind set. But in the end, I can only control myself - and not very well at that!
May 12th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
With regard to this “newest” anti-Bush story about the
NSA’s phone number data collection program, it’s interesting
to note that the policy was initiated under President Clinton,
back in 1994.
So keep that in mind when you see self-righteous Democrats in
Congress waving their copy of USA Today around in the air while
demagoguing the issue in front of the cameras. Really, how
on earth are we supposed to take these people seriously? lol
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act “to make clear a telecommunications carrier’s duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.” The act made clear that a court order isn’t the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, “A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/32651
May 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
twot said…
“When you posted the Al Queda picture above mocking the
Democrats, did you THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION IS THE ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CATCH
AL QUEDA, AMERICA’S NO. 1 ENEMY AFTER 9-11,
AND THAT BUSH HAS UTTERED, “I DON’T KNOW WHERE
HE IS. I DON’T SPEND THAT MUCH TIME THINKING OF HIM.”
Did you think about that for one second?”
And you, genius, did you ever stop for one second to think
that perhaps one of the major reasons we haven’t captured
this animal yet is because of deliberate, unauthorized leaks
from our intelligence agencies?
If you remember, at one time we were able to track OBL via
his cell phone, using satelite tracking systems. That is,
until some blabbermouth felt the need to publish this information.
Then, all of a sudden, that option was no longer there.
And then of course, there’s the fact that Clinton could have
taken OBL from the Sudanese when they offered him to us. Oh yeah.
I forgot. Clinton misspoke when he told us about that debacle.
We’re supposed to believe that never happened. Right. lol
As far as what President Bush said about not wasting time thinking
about OBL all that much, well, you can miscontrue his words if you
want to. I mean, why start being fair now? Most Americans understand
that he has a million other things on his mind right now, and some
of them are simply out of his control. All he can do is try his best
to do what is necessary to protect Americans from another attack, despite
those who work to undermine his every effort.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Wow, some of us get so far from the real issues here.
Regardless of whether it is instituted or enforced by either party, there are certain things I don’t want the government to know, collect or get into. The telephone database is one of the areas where I consider that my privacy has been violated and it would not matter to me (even as a Dem) which party was doing this. I would still think it was wrong.
So, what’s bothering me most about some of the comments is that Trinity and El B, for example, are saying that I only feel wronged or violated because Bush is in office and this is happening. Untrue. I would feel the same regardless. I don’t see how this is a double standard.
The difference between me, I guess, and all the other Dems you know (or claim to know - though it doesn’t much sound like you actually listen to them) is that I’m for civil liberties, a sense of fairness and upholding the Constitution regardless. The party in power doesn’t matter to me nearly as much as feeling like those in power are using their power wisely, fairly, and lawfully.
I usually vote Dem and claim Dem because that’s mostly how my beliefs run, especially on social issues. But like most people, I cannot be easily categorized into the one pigeon-hole some of you want to put all Dems in.
May 13th, 2006 at 12:45 am
ePixie29 said…
“Wow, some of us get so far from the real issues here.”
Perhaps, ePixie29, but if you’d go look, you’d see that I was only responding
to comments made by twot. (#1 comment) And the reason I brought up the fact that
this practice was initiated during the Clinton Administration is because I have
to look at all of these phony Democrats in Washington pretending to be outraged,
like they’d never heard of this telephone number database before, when in fact,
most of them actually voted for the damn bill. Now you might think that’s not
a fact worth mentioning, but I would have to disagree with you on that one. ;)
ePixie29 said…
“So, what’s bothering me most about some of the comments is that Trinity and El B,
for example, are saying that I only feel wronged or violated because Bush is in
office and this is happening. Untrue. I would feel the same regardless.”
Well, if that’s true, ePixie29, then good for you. In case you haven’t noticed,
that doesn’t appear to be the case with most liberal bloggers. Of course, we
have no way of knowing if that’s truly the case with you, but if you are sincere in
what you said, then perhaps, as El Borak suggested, you might tell us where you
stood on things like Echelon, Carnivore, and the 500+ raw FBI files that were
illegally obtained by the Clintons back in the 90s. No lib yet has opted to
respond to that simple question. Perhaps you will explain why these things
have suddenly become so problematic, when they’ve been going on for years.
So why don’t you tell us exactly how you think your privacy rights have been violated
by the NSA’s phone number data collection program. You do understand that this
has nothing to do with wiretapping and the like, right?
May 13th, 2006 at 2:09 am
“So why don’t you tell us exactly how you think your privacy rights have been violated by the NSA’s phone number data collection program.”
I can tell you. Privacy is “The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others”. That means if you’re watching me, you have invaded my privacy. Now in some places I have no expectation of privacy (in public, for example) and if I’m on the street, then while you may deny my privacy by looking at me (in fact, I forfeit it when I go in public) it’s not an issue.
But, where does that privacy constitutionally exist? The fourth amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The right of the citizen to be secure (”Free from the risk of being intercepted or listened to by unauthorized persons”, definition 3) is guaranteed against government invasion except in certain cases, and a warrant and probable cause is necessary for that invasion to legally take place. Effects (”movable belongings, goods) are included in that security.
Now, I suppose one could argue that a record owned by the phone company of my calls is not actually my “effect” but is an effect of my effect, like the police looking through my trash without a warrant. And they legally can (you’ll note that I do not claim the program is illegal). That’s what the law says, but I think it goes against the spirit of the amendment, which says that my right to be secure (unlistened to) is to be protected unless one has a warrant. Unless they have probable cause a crime has been committed by me, they have no business looking into my stuff.
Now, for those who don’t think databasing phone records is an invasion of privacy, would one find wiretaps without warrants to be such an invasion? After all, the government is simply collecting and interpreting electronic pulses from a wire or air that is not mine. Do I give up my rights because the words leave my mouth? How about looking in bedroom windows? After all, the police are not really seeing my stuff, but light (and it’s not my light) reflected from it. If one wants to pick nits, there is no limit to what the government can look into, short I suppose of actually entering my house and opening my closet.
It’s not so much a question of the right to privacy, but of the power of government to infringe on that privacy. The government may have abbrogated to itself the legal authority to do whatever, but that does not mean that they are not invading my privacy when they do it.
May 13th, 2006 at 2:24 am
“… and El B, for example, are saying that I only feel wronged or violated because Bush is in office and this is happening. Untrue.”
It may be untrue in your case, and since you’re anonymous, I probably don’t know you enough to even guess. However, it certainly is true in the case of Al Gore (and when I said “Democrats” I meant the kinds of Democrats who speak for the party), who in the article I linked on Law.com said concerning the abuse of FBI files, Republicans “can’t talk about the real matters facing America. They’re out of ideas . . . so they want to bring up all of these other matters and try to pretend that these are the matters of primary concern to the American people. They’re not,” Gore said.
Well, then according to Gore, a White House that looks into the lives of political opponents (and FBI files are very private and contain all manner of unsubstantiated noise, which is why they are protected by privacy law) is not a matter of primary concern. Except, I guess, when the GOP does it. Like I said, to some people, the Dems can do it because they are doing it for the right reasons, but the GOP can’t do it because they’ll do it for the wrong reasons. I don’t think anyone should do it - they are both abuses of power - which is why I said on YD’s blog that it makes me sick.
May 13th, 2006 at 3:43 am
“but if you are sincere in what you said, then perhaps, as El Borak suggested, you might tell us where you
stood on things like Echelon, Carnivore, and the 500+ raw FBI files that were illegally obtained by the Clintons back in the 90s.”
Where I stood in the 90s on these issues is still where I stand today. Using programs like the Echelon dictionary to figure out if you need to listen in on my phone call as a way of getting probable cause to listen to my phone call not only invades my privacy but probably infringes upon my right to free speech as well. (Seems like the case, but, hey, I’m not the one who decides the constitutionality of the law, so this is just a citizen opinion.) As for the e-mail program Carnivore that was abandoned about a year ago (to my knowledge) and replaced, this seems like the same thing to me. I don’t care who is listening in. If you weren’t invited to the party, then stay out. It matters not to me who is in charge of running the programs like Echelon, Carnivore or the telephone databases used for data-mining, I don’t want the govt that far up my ass or yours for that matter. We have established procedures for letting the govt get to this information if they really need to get to it.
“Perhaps you will explain why these things have suddenly become so problematic, when they’ve been going on for years.”
I haven’t claimed “sudden” problems with this. These things have been going on for years and I’ve always been against it. My voice is just so small, I’m not always heard. Fortunately, there are others who feel this way too and have been speaking out as well. Again, I go back to the “I don’t think you are actually listening” argument from my earlier comment.
Smaller government, that stays out of my business, follows the letter and the spirit (as was well explained by El B above) of the law is what I want.
I really don’t want to debate that Democrats will cry outrage in Washington because there is no debate there. Politicians, regardless of party, say what they think the people want to hear, will respond positively to and will keep them in office.
I’m with El B here “I don’t think anyone should do it - they are both abuses of power.” Giving more power to the govt, as comes with the information gleaned from things like the telephone database, corrupts the govt.
May 13th, 2006 at 3:58 am
El Borak said…
“It’s not so much a question of the right to privacy, but of the power of government to infringe on that privacy. The government may have abbrogated to itself the legal authority to do whatever, but that does not mean that they are not invading my privacy when they do it.”
But from what I understand of this program, El Borak, what the NSA wanted the carriers to provide are the “call-detail
records”, which are complete listings of the calling histories of their customers, including updates on these lists, so
they could keep current. The information they requested didn’t include any of the content of those phone calls.
Furthermore, if I’ve got it right, they had the phone companies withhold the customer names, street addresses and every other bit of information that would identify the customer. So if all those precautions turn out to be accurate, El
Borak, would you still feel that your privacy has been invaded?
May 13th, 2006 at 4:12 am
ePixie29 said…
“I haven’t claimed “sudden” problems with this. These things have been going on for years and I’ve always been against it. My voice is just so small, I’m not always heard. Fortunately, there are others who feel this way too and have been speaking out as well. Again, I go back to the “I don’t think you are actually listening” argument from my earlier comment.”
Fair enough, ePixie29. I’ll accept you at your word, although I maintain
that the majority of posters on sites such as JABBS and many other websites
even further to the left are obviously a lot more partisan than you seem to be.
And I do listen very well, actually. Really. You’ll see. :) When I asked
why these programs had suddenly become so problematic, I was referring not to
you, specifically, but to those Democrats, including the party’s leadership,
who never complained about any of the abuses of power that actually DID occur
under the Clinton Administration. And there were many. That makes them big
hypocrites in my eyes.
May 13th, 2006 at 4:30 am
“So if all those precautions turn out to be accurate, El Borak, would you still feel that your privacy has been invaded?”
If that’s all they are looking at, what’s the purpose of collecting it? They are not simply looking for anonymous stats on how many Americans made calls - or they could ask for summaries and not detail records - there must be something there by which they can say, “Aha! El Borak in Kansas looks like he’s calling a terrorist. We need to look at him more closely.”
Senator Jon Kyl said today that “the data collection is necessary to better ‘connect the dots’ of terror cell activities,” which means to be of any use, they have to be able to trace calls to individuals. If they are looking at whom I, personally, am calling, then yes, my privacy is being invaded.
And no, I don’t trust the government to tell me exactly what they are doing; the only thing I can base my suspicions on are the purposes for which they claim to be collecting it. If they are looking for patterns they must be looking for the people - the individuals - who are making those patterns or it’s simply a waste of time.
Not that I would put wasting time past them, but I’m not one who is going to assume that, either.
May 13th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
El Borak said…
“Senator Jon Kyl said today that “the data collection is necessary to better ‘connect the dots’ of terror cell activities,” which means to be of any use, they have to be able to trace calls to individuals. If they are looking at whom I, personally, am calling, then yes, my privacy is being invaded.”
Well, first off, as I think I stated elsewhere, the Supreme Court
disagrees with you. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland
(1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does NOT
violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers CANNOT
have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial.
That’s the first point.
Second point is, in the event that the NSA picks up a pattern of calls
from a suspected al Qaeda member or affiliate to or from a certain telephone
number, which just happens to be yours, OF COURSE the government will THEN go
see who it is this terrorist keeps calling. And you know something, El Barak?
In my judgement, not to do that basic investigative work would be grossly
negligent and irresponsible.
Naturally, the law would still apply. If both numbers are domestic, FISA
would have to be involved, because a warrant would then be needed. If the
call originated from outside the U.S., however, a warrant would probably
not be required, since that would not be considered a domestic call, but
an international one.
You know, El Barak, right after 9-11, everybody was squawking about how
inexcusable it was not to have connected the dots. Well, it’s true. Had
we connected those dots prior to 9-11, who knows what might have been
avoided? Our intelligence agencies were aware that these terrorists were
in our country. And they contacted one another by phone etc. while they
were coordinating this attack. Had the NSA terrorist surveillance program
been in effect back then, it’s conceivable that the plan could have been
discovered in time to change history.
I understand hardball politics perfectly well, but for those who claim that
partisanship does not enter into it, I’m at a loss to understand their
objections to this program. Everyone is against unnecessary infringement
upon our civil liberties, but let’s face it. If we get attacked again, and
it’s very likely we will, all those who die in that will attack lose their
civil liberties. Permanently.
May 13th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
“The Court reasoned that callers CANNOT have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial.”
…because that is shared with the phone company. From there they jump to because I can’t expect complete privacy, therefore the government can cozy right up wherever they wish. As I said in #14, the government has simply abrogated to itself the power in violation of the spirit of the 4th Amendment (Read Brennan’s dissent in Smith, he says the same thing).
“I understand hardball politics perfectly well, but for those who claim that
partisanship does not enter into it, I’m at a loss to understand their
objections to this program. ”
Are you truly at a loss to understand my objections? I probably ought to qualify this by admitting that I run a government database, filled with all manner of personal data. Most of it is collected from direct interaction with those whose records I keep, some of it is gathered from public records, a little of it is purchased from others who mine it from sources unknown to me but which I assume to be public. I am responsible not only for making sure that data is accurate, but that it is used only for the purposes for which it is collected.
But I also realize that the very existence of that database means there is a potential that it might be abused - as the Clinton FBI files were abused - because I and others have access to a whole lot of data that people would not want to see in the paper. Is it an invasion of privacy? Nope, because every party in my database has had some manner of financial interaction with the government entity I work for and the entries concern those interactions.
But that’s a world away from surreptitiously gathering and analyzing data on individuals who are going about their individual lives without interacting with the government entity directly.
The word for that activity is “spying,” and those who want the NSA program and programs like it ought to have the guts to come out and say, “We are spying on you American citizens. No, we’re not going to tell you how. No, we’re not going to tell you when. But we are doing it for your own good.”
If they can’t say it, then they have no business doing it.
May 13th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
El Borak asks….
“Are you truly at a loss to understand my objections?”
I would say that I understand your ‘concerns’, and that is because
I share them. But no, under the circumstances, when you consider
all of the factors that are involved, I don’t share your objections.
From the looks of things, neither do most Americans, and it’s not
because they are stupid, naive or ill-informed. It’s because they
are a practical, common sense and fair-minded people, and their gut
feeling is that President Bush is NOT a Nixon or a Clinton, and that
when he says that he is only interested in tracking al Qaeda, most
people believe him.
Of course there is always the potential for abuse in these situations.
But from everything I’ve read about this program, from people who are
intimately involved in the actual execution of it, like Hayden, and
other NSA people who have written and/or done interviews on the subject,
I feel very reassured that it is being done responsibly. Granted, the
president has his work cut out for him, balancing the real need for this
surveillance with the desire and the responsibility to protect the civil
liberties of the people he serves. I for one believes that he takes this
duty extremely seriously. Others would disagree.
May 13th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
“and their gut
feeling is that President Bush is NOT a Nixon or a Clinton, and that
when he says that he is only interested in tracking al Qaeda, most
people believe him.”
That’s the beauty of short-sightedness. Bush may not be a Nixon or a Clinton, but what about the next Pres or the one after that? I simply do not consider Bush’s moral fiber to be relevant to the power-limit of government because he’ll be leaving that power behind for someone else. Everything he builds today will be in the hands of another within a few short years.
So would you disapprove of this plan if Hillary were President? She will be. How about Henry Waxman? What if Pat Shroeder were brought back from Colorado to oversee it, or maybe if John Conyers or Major Owens were running the NSA?
What you are saying when you say Americans’ “gut feeling is that President Bush is NOT a Nixon or a Clinton” is that this power is fine in the hands of the good guys. It doesn’t work that way. The power you accumulate goes to the good guys AND the bad guys, and the election is right around the corner.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
El Borak said…
“That’s the beauty of short-sightedness. Bush may not be a Nixon or a Clinton, but what about the next Pres or the one after that?”
But El Borak, you are acting as though you believe all of the BS
from Bush’s adversaries (and a few RINOS as well, granted) that
he has broken all manner of laws and violated our Constitution.
Now if you believe that, without any evidence of it, sobeit. But
it appears to me that he has informed and briefed everyone he’s
required to inform in Congress, and has gotten advice from his
Attorney General, lawyers in his DOJ, the NSA, and even the FISA.
The only people screaming for investigations and impeachment hearings
are the uninformed members of Congress whose massive egos have been
bruised because they feel left out. And they’ve been left out, for
very good reasons. A good number of them tend to leak like sieves.
So it’s not as though there are no controls in place to ensure that
the executive branch doesn’t abuse its power. There are. But those
in the know, from both parties, understand that this program has been
effective in the war against these Islamo-fascists, and do not really
want to end the NSA surveillance program.
The real problem is that at this particular moment in time, the “loyal
opposition” party has morphed into something entirely different, and
we have a major power struggle going on. It’s hard to find any statemen
or woman. Politics seem to trump all else.
And just as an aside, when Nixon abused his power, it was members of
his own party who came to him and advised him to step down because
there wasn’t enough support for him to survive politically. So in that
case, at least, the system worked. ;)
In the case of a President Hillary (God forbid!) or some other individual
who might have the propensity to misuse their office to gain political
advantage, I would hope that there will be enough good men and women in
Congress with the intestinal fortitude to keep her, or whomever, in check.
Our system of government does provide remedies for these problems.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Here’s the URL to an address given by General Hayden to the National Press Club. It’s worth a read, for anyone who may not yet have heard any of the General’s remarks.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf
May 13th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Also, many might find this piece from the American Spectator on-line quite interesting. ;) Especially if you are a liberal who is out to get Bush. ;)
“IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute’s validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.
In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation’s security in 1940, when he did all of these things.”
Rest of article can be found here:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9790
May 13th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
“But El Borak, you are acting as though you believe all of the BS
from Bush’s adversaries (and a few RINOS as well, granted) that
he has broken all manner of laws and violated our Constitution.”
Quite the opposite. I’ve said it’s irrelevant and I mean it: my politics is not “cult of personality” politics. It doesn’t matter if Bush is the very image of Christ or the devil himself, because neither the authority of government nor its responsibilities are dependent upon the character of the people who wield it.
You are correct that politics seems to trump all else, but I’m afraid that you’ve missed the bigger picture. Politics is the national (nay, international) religion and has grown, like the government it feeds, far out of proportion to its design. But like the Holy Mother Church of the 14th century, its ability to actually accomplish anything meaningful is now almost non-existent. It is ubiquitous yet strangely powerless. There are no grand ideas left, simply secular crusades (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on illiteracy, War on Terror) that drag on for years and are never won, can never be won. Did it matter if the Popes of the Middle Ages were good men or bad? Today we can’t even name them. It’s no different with Presidents.
“In the case of a President Hillary …I would hope that there will be enough good men and women in Congress with the intestinal fortitude to keep her, or whomever, in check.”
Yes, faith is the hope of things not seen, and I hope your hope is justified, yet history is full of the times it did not work out as well as it might have. I’m too much of a cynic to share it, so rather than giving her the One Ring and hoping for the best, I’d rather just throw it away, thanks.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:51 am
In comment #26, I can definately see the parallels between FDR and the ideas that you espouse regarding President Bush’s current actions.
However, for all of the great things FDR did, we must not forget that he also made great errors in judgment. (This is far from the current issue under debate, but, nevertheless…Recall that FDR during WWII also authorized the internment camps of several Japanese and Japanese American citizens during this period.)
So, in continuing to compare FDR to Bush, this leads me to the conclusion that Bush has made and likely will make great errors in judgement and that regardless of how his presidency is viewed when we think back on it 20 or 50 years from now, we will still remember the wrongs we feel have been accomplished while he was in office. Unfortunately, I don’t know what the great accomplishments of his presidency are; so for me, the comparison to FDR ends with your comment, trinity, and the fact that they’ve both made great errors. Beyond that, I doubt that historians will make many comparisons between these two presidents.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:38 am
The right-wing propaganda and misinformation run so thick on this post.
Still, it is not difficult to cut through it USING FACTS AND OBJECTIVE
SOURCES like a hot knife through butter.
(If I miss some of the falsehoods, it
is because it would take days to ONCE AGAIN dispel these kinds of myths perpetrated
above that have already been largely debunked.
FALSEHOOD NUMBER ONE (oft repeated above): It is only Democrats raising concerns over the phone number database collection program.
Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa), Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) and House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) as well as Sen. Charles grassley (R-IA)
have also raised concerns and criticized the program as potentially infringing upon
citizen’s constitutional rights. I heard quoted in the MSM that former Republican
House Chairman Newt Gingrich on Fox News and Former Rebublican
Rep. Joe Scarborough on MSNBC also last week sharply rebuked Bush for the phone data collection program.
program.
FALSEHOOD NUMBER TWO: Clinton had already earlier used a similar program
collecting databases of phone records and had spied on people without a warrant.
Here is what CIA director George Tenet testified before Congress on 4/12/00
“I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activies 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.”
Then National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, currently Bush’s nominees for CIA director appeared before the SAME committee and testified, “If (an) American person is in the USA, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection I
(of communications) against him or her.”
That is among the many other evidences I have gone over with Trinity repeatedly on the JABBS blog dispelling the falsehood that Clinton also engaged in some kind of
warrantless spying, or phone record collection for that matter.
FALSEHOOD NUMBER THREE: Clinton had refused an offer from the Sudanese government to
take Osama Bin Laden into custody. THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORT specifically said
there existed no credible evidence to support this story. The Sudanese government HAD
NEVER offered OSL to the United States, the commission wrote. I provided a link and quoted
the specific section in a recent response to Trinity in the JABBS blog.
www.jabbs.blogspot.com
FALSEHOOD NUMBER FOUR: The phone database collection does not involve actual listening
into any calls. The Washington Post in a Feb. 4 report stated that the data
collected was used to pinpoint the calls that indeed the NSA listened in on.
This lead to wiretapping of thousands of domestic calls made overseas, but no useful
info was found through any of this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html
I believe the USA Today story echoed the claim as well that the phone numbers
directed which calls for the government to listen in on. Needless to say, the MSM
has been repeating the common sense the last few days that a phone number can be
matched to more personal data within seconds using accompanying databases.
FALSEHOOD NUMBER FIVE: Bush is not spying on political enemies or opponents.
I give Media Matters credit for compiling a list of stories below in the main stream
media offering evidences the NSA program may go beyond merely terrorist hunting activities.
Bush Administration uses U.S. Army to spy on war critics. The Bush Administration used top-secret U.S. Army spying capabilities to spy on domestic war critics such as Quakers, Students Against the War, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Greenpeace. An internal review forced the Pentagon to admit it had “improperly stored” information on potentially thousands of people because there was no “reasonable belief” they had any link to terrorism. (Newsweek, 1/30/06)
Bush Administration uses FBI to spy on war critics. The Bush administration is using the FBI to “collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators,” causing the California Attorney General to declare that Bush Administration policy violates the state constitution prohibition on spying on political and religious groups without evidence of criminal activity. (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/23/03)
Bush Administration forced to turn over records revealing FBI is spying on Bush critics. A Freedom of Information Act request revealed the FBI “collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups” that are leading Bush critics “in what the groups charge is an attempt to stifle political opposition to the Bush administration.” (New York Times, 7/18/05)
Bush Administration uses Pentagon to spy on Bush critics. NBC obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration’s surveillance of war critics.1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period. “I think Americans should be concerned that the military, in fact, has reached too far,” says NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin. “It means that they’re actually collecting information about who’s at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests.On the domestic level, this is unprecedented.” (NBC News, 12/14/05)
The Bush Administration may have wiretapped a CNN reporter. In January, NBC published a transcript in which James Risen, the New York Times reporter who broke the NSA wiretap story, was asked if CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour’s phone was wiretapped. After a surge of interest, NBC deleted that line - saying the transcript was “released prematurely.” Amanpour is married to James Rubin, a top Clinton Administration foreign policy strategist and an advisor to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. (CNN, 1/6/06)
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush’s pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush’s political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, “No, I asked, are you targeting us and people
May 15th, 2006 at 12:47 am
I challenge you conservatives, Trinity, Sniffer, to tell me what is wrong
with any of my substantiated arguments above. By contrast,
I see little if any proof offered to support ascertions made
by all you Bush apologists above. Let me put it this way, my arguments
find support in objective main stream media reports and objective
statements of officials. All the right-wing arguments find no support
outside of Reich-wing radio and television such as Faux News, or from
statements of widely-cited lyers or at least truth manipulators
such as George Bush or Dick Cheney.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Attention Bushies who smugly believe the phone data collection system
is not far reaching beyond finding terrorists and has no potential for abuse:
You should be interested New York Daily News piece which
reports that the Government Accountability Office found that several
government agencies are planning a similar phone data collection system
for what should be considered wrongful purposes.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/417583p-352763c.html
Also Fred Kaplan of Slate Magazine does a good job describing why
all citizens must be concerned about the NSA’s various programs now including
phone number collection.
http://www.slate.com/id/2141643/nav/tap2/
He writes a nice summary of his beef in the article:
“Again, (the phone number database) isn’t necessarily a bad idea. But here’s the crucial issue: The executive branch of the government cannot be trusted with sole access to such massive and intrusive information. This has nothing to do with who the president is; it has everything to do with the nature of power. To dispute this fact is to dispute the need for checks and balances; it’s to dismiss the constitutional premise of the U.S. government.”
May 15th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
AND SEE ARTICLE BELOW we have more even evidence the NSA is abusing the domestic phone database surveillance. The Busheviks are spying on ABS news reporters.
(Of course, the conservative sheep are not concerned about Bush breaking the law
and/or violating the U.S. Constitution. “Baaaa! Our Leader says he is not violating
people’s privacy. Baaaa. We believe in our Leader. Baaa. The executive branch, baaaa,
overseeing the executive branch, is good enough for us because baaa! our Leader, oh
holy one, says it is so.
Baaaa. We don’t care how many times he has proven to lie to us. Baaa. We don’t care
we are a dwindling number of His followers. Baaa. Baaaa.
We trust in Our Leader to protect us from terrorists, baaaa, baaa! We will
listen to no one else. Baaaa Baaaaa!”)
May 15, 2006 10:33 AM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA’s secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.
The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.
A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.
May 15, 2006 | Permalink
May 15th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
TheWarOnTerrible: You beat me to it; I was actually going to post that very thing.
The only comment I would make is not to get too secure in your belief that Democrats are any better. The FBI Documents scandal proves they’re not. And when the Dems take over the NSA in three years, I’ll bet you dimes to dollars they will not repeal this. In fact, they’ll expand it.
Think long and hard today about how you’ll react then. If you’re fine with it, then you’re just as baaaaaaa as the people you mock.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
the war on terrible said:
“AND SEE ARTICLE BELOW we have more even evidence the NSA is abusing the domestic phone database surveillance.”
Twot, would you please indicate exactly which sentence in the Ross/Esposito article constitutes “evidence” that the NSA is abusing the domestic phone database?
I read the entire piece, and saw only that an unnamed “senior federal law enforcement official” told ABC News that the government is tracking the phone numbers of ABC’s confidential sources. The way I read it, Ross and Esposito specifically state that they have no clue how this is being done, yet you take it upon yourself to accuse the NSA of abusing their authority. Care to explain? Or is speculation synonymous with evidence in your mind?
“ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.”
May 16th, 2006 at 2:33 am
Trinity, All I meant by presenting the story of the
alleged government tracking of ABC news phone records was to show yet more
evidence in a chain of evidences, many of which I presented above,
to dispute conservatives’
ABSOLUTE certainty that the NSA wiretapping spying phone record collection program
ABSOLUTELY does not go beyond terrorist surveilliance. Why put such blind faith
in Bush Administration statements when such evidences raise questions.
Please, Trinity, review all my posts from No. 29 down for all the evidences
providing reason to believe the Bush Administration may be abusing the
wiretapping, spying, phone number collection activities whatever for purposes beyond
hunting down terrorists.
I saw a PBS special on Watergate recently which reported Nixon excused his
wiretapping of his political enemies, once caught, by saying he was protecting the country from Communists. Is it so outrageous to believe their may be a similarity to the Bush Administration?
I apologize if I went too far with my sheep/Baaa analogy.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:50 am
I better add that many of the improper surveillance
activities cited in my post 29 above have been by the FBI, as well the NSA.
Just wanted to acknowledge that fact to spare a criticism from the Bushies.
I nonetheless add that
if the evidences are correct and Bush does direct the FBI to improperly go after political enemies, it is not a stretch to believe he would compliment those activites with
those of the NSA. The two agencies are supposed to be working in step as the
Bush Administration’s alleged improvements to national security.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:59 am
the war on terrible said…
“Trinity, All I meant by presenting the story of the
alleged government tracking of ABC news phone records was to show yet more
evidence in a chain of evidences, many of which I presented above,
to dispute conservatives’
ABSOLUTE certainty that the NSA wiretapping spying phone record collection program
ABSOLUTELY does not go beyond terrorist surveilliance. Why put such blind faith
in Bush Administration statements when such evidences raise questions.”
But that’s my point, twot. You cannot dispute anything unless you have the facts with which to dispute it, and I don’t see any facts here. Only speculation. I do not have blind faith in the Bush Administration, but having witnessed the kind of vicious opposition and the partisan obstructionism that the president has been subjected to from your side, much over issues that I’m in agreement with him about, I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s your side that goes around saying that he lied about everything going into the war. I certainly don’t believe that. If he lied, then they all lied. And we know they all didn’t lie. It’s pure politics to slander him like that. Dirty politics. And unless and until it’s shown that the Bush Administration has improperly used information acquired from the NSA, it’s yellow journalism on Ross and Esposito’s part to go around suggesting that was what was done.
I’m well aware that there are investigations going on into all of the unlawful, and IMO treasonous, leaks that have come out of the CIA, and I fully support the administration’s attempt to get to the bottom of them. I’m confident that since they are living in a political fishbowl, they will be certain to dot every “I” and cross every “T” to ensure that these investigations are done properly, using the correct means to collect the information they need. If they do anything unlawful, it will be discovered and they’ll be held responsible.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:36 am
(the war on terrible said…)
“Please, Trinity, review all my posts from No. 29 down for all the evidences
providing reason to believe the Bush Administration may be abusing the
wiretapping, spying, phone number collection activities whatever for purposes beyond
hunting down terrorists.”
Don’t worry. I intend to respond to your posts. I was out of my state for Mother’s Day, so I’m a little bit behind. I did leave a sarcastic comment over on JABBS about the Sudanese offering OBL to Clinton, but for some reason it never showed up over there. So I guess when I have time I’ll have to go do it all over again, both here, and there. ;)
For now I would just like to respond to this:
“Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush’s pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush’s political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, “No, I asked, are you targeting us and people…”
Now I understand that you are just regurgitating stuff from “Media Matters”, but since I watched that entire speech on C-Span, I can tell you that they misrepresented what happened with General Hayden and that person who asked him that question. General Hayden did not “dodge” anything. He had just completed a speech wherein he gave all sorts of reassurances as to what sort of program the NSA terrorist surveillance was, and what it wasn’t. He assured the journalists that they were using it for one reason, and one reason alone, and went to great lengths to clarify that nobody else need be concerned about it, and then after all that, that guy gets the mic and asks him that question about political enemies.
So then General Hayden said THIS to him:
“You know, I tried to make this as clear as I could in prepared remarks. I said this isn’t a drift net, all right? I said we’re not there sucking up coms and then using some of these magically alleged keyword searches — “Did he said ‘jihad’? Let’s get — ” I mean, that is not — do you know how much time Americans spend on the phone in international calls alone, okay? In 2003, our citizenry was on the phone in international calls alone for 200 billion minutes, okay? I mean, beyond the eithical considerations involved here, there are some practical considerations about being a drift net. This is targeted, this is focused. This is about al Qaeda.”
And the guy again asks him the same question. So General Hayden simply ignored the imbecile, because he had just gotten finished saying the program was NOT used for that sort of purpose. How many times did he have to repeat himself? He was annoyed with the guy and felt he had given him enough time and had already responded to his question. He moved on to someone else. He never “dodged” the question.
Just wanted to clear that up. Here’s the link for that speech, since you can’t cut and paste from that website:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf
May 16th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Response to Trinity:
1. “It’s your side” bringing questions about Bush lying us into war.
I must remind you it is BOTH Democrats and Republicans raising the issue.
2. “Yellow Journalism.” I suppose the reporting leading up to the Watergate
investigation,” which your party similarilly attempted to debunk, was also
yellow journalism.
I suppose the comprehensive investigations on the WhiteWater deal and Monica, which
conservatives were hypocritically comfortable with because it concerned Clinton,
were also yellow journalism.
Maybe reporters should stop investigating anything to prevent people like yourself
from accusing them of yellow journalism. May I remind you the so-called yellow
journalism of the early part of the last century directly resulted in dramatically
improved working and living conditions for the working classes, and put an end
to rampart worker exploitations of the time. Our very grandparents and great grandparents
survived and had a better life directly as a result of such reporting.
Maybe you would be happier with a government-controlled press as in China. I visited
China a few years ago and witnessed personally massive censorship.
Your argument about yellow journalism makes no sense at all on too many levels
to keep track of.
2. “Treasonous leaks.” When the executive branch instills no checks and balances on
itself for activities in which reports have demonstrated as potentially in violation
of the U.S. Constitution, I’m glad insiders speak out.
Once again, that’s the price ANY SANE U.S. CITIZEN WELCOMES, for a free and open press
non-restricted by the government. It cannot work both ways.
I am going to remember your arguments so that when the next president, a Democrat,
is accused of any similar form of wrongdoing, which will be made easier thanks
to all the damaging precedents being set by the Bush Administration,
you won’t be able to start crying like all the hypocritical conservatives and Republicans
who went after Clinton are crying now.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I just posted this over at JABBS in response to something twot said over there. Since it applies here as well, I’m just cross-posting it over there. :)
(thewaronterrible said…)
“Trinity: That claim about Clinton having declined Sudan’s offer of Bin Laden to U.S. custody and to Saudi Arabia has long been discredited.”
Only by people like you, twot, who choose not to see beyond their own noses. You see only what you want to see, and ignore the fact that there were Clinton people in place on that commission who used their position to keep certain information away from the eyes of other, more objective people on the panel.
We know for a fact that Jamie Gorelick’s aide was responsible for removing certain pieces of evidence that would undoubtedly make former President Bill Clinton look bad or negligent, and we can also be quite sure that the aide, didn’t make that decision unilaterally.
And it was an outrage first of all that Jamie Gorelick was even on that commission. Instead, she should have been one of the witnesses called in to testify and defend her actions while working in the Clinton Justice Department. Just the fact that she was allowed to be on the panel, told me all I needed to know about how serious the 9-11 Commission was going to be about getting to the bottom of all we did wrong pre-9-11. This was pure CYA in nature.
Then you had Sandy Berger helping whitewash Clinton’s actions and/or non-actions as well, by making multiple trips into our National Archives and unlawfully removing vital, relevant secret documents, sneaking them out past the guards by hiding them in his pants, jacket and socks, taking them home, going through them, and removing and SHREDDING anything he felt might be found to be detrimental to the way the Clinton Administration handled certain aspects of our national security. And all he got was a slap on the wrist, which is an outrage in and of itself, but I digress.
(the war on terrible said…)
“It does not matter what Clinton said.”
No. Of course not. Here we have Clinton, speaking at a business luncheon on Long Island, and telling us in his own words how Sudan was looking to get rid of OBL, but that he didn’t feel we could accept him because he had not yet committed a crime against the U.S. He went on, again, in plain English, to tell the audience how he begged the Saudis to take him, but that they considered it a “hot potato”, so they didn’t want him.
I’m sure you’ve heard the tape for yourself. But nevermind. Don’t believe your own lying ears! Believe the Clinton insiders (read: protectors) who tell you that it just never happened. That Clinton “misspoke”.
Twot, I don’t really care that you choose to ignore the real evidence that’s available for all to see, or that in your desire to protect yourself from the truth, you flatly refuse to connect the dots. Be as willfully blind as you wish. Just don’t expect me to share in your delusion, okay?
May 16th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
When Whitewater investigators concluded lack of evidence the Clintons had been
personally engaged in any wrongdoing, conservatives to this day are not
satisfied with the finding.
BUT
When Libby is indicted for lying to a grand jury, and prosecutor Fitzgerald insists
there is reason to believe a CIA agent may have been criminally outed, although he couldn’t
prove anything due to Libby’s stonewalling, conservatives are not satisfied with
the finding and insist Libby must be innocent and the entire Plame matter is
a joke.
When the 9-11 Commission and other reports make clear their exists no evidence
Sudan offered up OBL to the U.S. government during the Clinton Administration,
or that no link exists between 9-11 and Sadaam, conservatives persist in
disregarding the info and basking in their contrary baseless conspiracy theories.
When the Senate committee writes in its official report that CIA agents told only what the Bush Administration wanted to hear regarding pre-war Iraq intelligence, and
that the investigation in how Bush used that intelligence has never occured, and when official British memos and countless evidences surface such as Bush’s main sources in
Iraq lied about WMDs, that official reports Bush knew or should have known regarding
statements about WMD trailers in Iraq were false, and Bush also had info
questioning info that Sadaam was trying to purchase Uranium from Africa,
Bushie conservatives bask in the
opinion there exists no evidences Bush had lied us into war and that no further
investigations are warranted.
When countless investigative news reports and countless statements from CIA and NSA insiders
indicate Bush may be illegally spying on people, conservatives disregard all of
the info as unsubstantiated bunk or “yellow journalism” not meriting any further investigation.
Whenever Bush Administration opens their mouth contradicting all the available evidences
Bushies bow in belief.
Here’s what conservatives are really advocating, whether they understand it or not.
They want powers of the executive branch to do anything it wants in the
name of terrorism, with absolutely no checks by congress or the media, in direct
contravention of the checks and balance principals contained within the U.S. Constitution, the very foundation of our government, designed to prevent the historical abuses
of governments now and in the past around the world.
They insist we all must trust in everything the President
says — just as long as he/she is a Republican — mind you — and bow our heads in sheep
unison.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“I must remind you it is BOTH Democrats and Republicans raising the issue.”
Yes, yes. I know. And I must remind YOU that there are certain Republicans who side with Democrats more than they ever side with their own party, which is why conservatives refer to them as RINOs. (Republicans in name only) I should know. One of my own U.S. Senators is the head RINO. (Sen. Arlen Specter)
(the war on terrible said…)
““Yellow Journalism.” I suppose the reporting leading up to the Watergate
investigation,” which your party similarilly attempted to debunk, was also
yellow journalism.”
I’ll let your rant stand on its own merit, such as it may be. But I have to laugh at that above comment of yours, because everytime a conservative mentions Clinton, we’re told we are pathetic to keep bringing him up. (Even though we’re not permitted to forget about him because he and his wife are still shoved in our faces everyday in the news) But I can’t help but notice how often you and other libs have tried to throw Nixon in my face. rofl I just find it humorous. :)
(the war on terrible said…)
” “Treasonous leaks.” When the executive branch instills no checks and balances on
itself for activities in which reports have demonstrated as potentially in violation
of the U.S. Constitution, I’m glad insiders speak out.”
If someone in a sensitive position in government is truly concerned, as a patriot, at something that they observe that they genuinely feel is illegal/wrong, there are channels for them to air their grievance. As whistleblowers, they are protected by law. They are never free to go directly to the newspapers, unless they first resign in protest from their position, if they feel that strongly about the issue.
(the war on terrible said…)
“you won’t be able to start crying like all the hypocritical conservatives and Republicans
who went after Clinton are crying now.”
Don’t even go there, twot. Clinton made his own problems for himself by repeatedly lying before a grand jury and getting his wife and his cabinet to go out in front of the American people and lie some more. If you don’t think this is a big deal, then why are you libs so eager to string up Karl Rove for possibly lying in front of a grand jury? In Rove’s case, it hasn’t even been proven that he did lie, yet you guys have already found him guilty. And you talk to me about being consistent?
May 16th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Go on with your conspiracy theory regarding Clinton blowing a chance
to take OBL into custody, no one is listening.
I like the recent response in the JABBS blog to your comments here. Clinton
has not been president for six years so stop resorting to him to apologize
for your man in office now.
The blogger added: A recent official poll showed
that an overwhelming majority of Americans trusted Clinton more than
they trust Bush on every single issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html
May 16th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“The blogger added: A recent official poll showed
that an overwhelming majority of Americans trusted Clinton more than
they trust Bush on every single issue.”
Yes, without a doubt, President Bush has dropped considerably in the polls in recent weeks. Still, I take these polls with a grain of salt, and would have to see the poll’s internals before giving them too much weight. That goes double, since it’s a CNN poll. :) I’d have to see how their questions were worded, because many times they are constructed in such a way as to arrive at a specific, pre-determined response In other words, a push poll, and those polls are pretty much worthless, imo.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“When Whitewater investigators concluded lack of evidence the Clintons had been
personally engaged in any wrongdoing, conservatives to this day are not
satisfied with the finding.”
Not that I have any desire to go back and relive Whitewater with you, twot, but yes. You’re right. I am definitely not satified with the so-called findings of the Whitewater investigation. Ray was wrong to conclude on his own that there was insufficient evidence to convict the Clintons of any wrongdoing. Here’s an excerpt from “Accuracy in Media” for anyone who wishes to refresh their memory. I’d forgottem myself, just how involved this whole mess was. Lots of corruption and fraud in evidence, too, but it appears that for whatever reasons, Robert Ray felt that a jury could not be convinced that the Clintons were committing perjury if they swore under oath that they were unaware of any fraud. Go figure. Everybody around the Clintons were corrupt, yet somehow they managed to come out of it, if not lily white, at least very shrewd, or just plain lucky. Personally, I think after all that, a jury should have been allowed to go over all of the evidence for themselves. Here’s a link to the refresher course on Whitewater. I guess it is pretty interesting after all, although quite moot at this point.
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/475_0_4_0_C/
May 16th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Twot, I responded to what you posted about General Hayden’s so-called “dodging” of a question about the NSA spying on Bush’s political enemies. Do you have anything to add?
May 16th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Not really care to respond to the Hayden thing, because that was accidentally
attached as part of my post of a “regurgitated” Media Matters compilation of articles
of evidences Bush may be abusing the FBI/NSA spying activities.
If you likewise can find me a string of CREDIBLE objective articles from CREDIBLE
major news sources all evidencing a given point, as I have done,
I don’t care if that said compilation comes from either the most far right or the most
far left website.
Why don’t you visit my post to you on JABBS where I said, in so many words,
that conservatives like yourself find no credibility in
officially concluded investigations such as those conducted by the 9-11 Commission,
the Senate Committee or The Whitewater Commission.
But the same conservatives come to quick, Right-wing conclusions on matters that
have not likewise been fully or even partially investigated by any third party:
i.e. the outing of Valerie Plame, Bush pre-war intelligence manipulation, the NSA
program, etc. etc.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Trinity,
Maybe you should contrast Clinton’s business dealings involving Whitewater with Bush.
Bush was once under investigation by the SEC for securities fraud in connection with the insider stock sale of his former FAILED company Harkin Energy.
The results of the Harkin/Bush investigation were never disclosed publicly.
We can also recall that prior to becoming governor of Texas, Bush ran three businesses
into bankruptcy (sound similar to what he has done to the United States?).
Bush has the opposite of the Midas touch. Everything he touches turns
to failure.
I BRIEFLY brought up Nixon to demonstrate the conservative double-standard.
You bring up Clinton AT GREAT LENGTH to attempt to demonstrate, I don’t know,
that Bush should be excused because Clinton was an even more corrupt
and worse president.
You know how weak you sound?
May 17th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“Not really care to respond to the Hayden thing, because that was accidentally
attached as part of my post of a “regurgitated” Media Matters compilation of articles
of evidences Bush may be abusing the FBI/NSA spying activities.”
As you wish, twot, but in view of the way you are constantly touting all of your supposedly “credible” and “objective” sources for information, (in contrast with all of my extremely biased, unreliable right-wingnut sources) ;) it would be appreciated if you would be honest enough to either defend that claim they made about General Hayden if you can, or if not, to at least concede that perhaps they aren’t quite as unbiased as you thought they were, since it’s obvious that they completely misrepresented . Your decision. I couldn’t care less whether you do or don’t. It’s your credibility, not mine.
(the war on terrible said…)
“You know how weak you sound?”
Twot, you have to understand that everything is relative. We have completely different ideologies, so I would expect that when I interact with someone with your political leanings, we are going to disagree on issues. And believe me, as off-base as you might believe I am, I find you to be equally wrong-headed and misguided in your own thinking. That’s why we belong to different political parties. So believe me, you may think I sound weak, but no more so than I find you.
May 17th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
You want a response about Hayden? Okay. I will give you one.
If Hayden didn’t dodge the question, all he did was parrot talking lines, probably
written by Karl Rove, who with any luck will be indicted shortly.
Hayden did not address the specific allegations. This is similar to McClellan
who had gave talking lines instead of answering questions about earlier
statements HE HIMSELF MADE regarding Rove and Libby’s involvement in
outing Plame’s name.
That’s all we get from the Bush Administration is Rovian talking lines (name the topic)
that later prove to be dubious, if not outright lies, as the facts begin to surface.
Oh well, let’s credit the administration for consistency.
If our ideologies differ, than we should look at our motives.
My motive is to point out the incompetence and great harm caused to our
government, our finances, our world standing etc.
by the Bush Administration, in a movement for well-in-demand changes.
Your motive is to dredge up excuses and apologies for what the overwhelming
majority of the country acknowledges as the gross missteps and failures of the Bush
Administration, in a movement to keep everything the exact same, failed way.
For conservatives, it is always Blind Loyalty to the Party Before Country, and even before their own best interests.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:04 am
You call that a response, twot? Karl Rove talking points??? You invoke the name of Karl Rove with regard to General Hayden and the very serious and comprehensive speech that he gave to the National Press Club about what the NSA program does, and what it does NOT do? How lame is that? Did you ever read it so that you could attain even the most fundamental understanding of this program, and its importance to our national security? Do you want to remain uninformed forever? And then you wonder why I can’t take you seriously.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:03 am
I don’t trust Hayden simply based on the lies and misrepresentations of the NSA
program by Bush Administration officials in the past, just like I, and most
everyone else, no longer believe anything “last throes” Cheney says regarding progress
in Iraq.
Hayden is part of the same Bush/Cheney cabal whose ultimate motive is to
pursue the Progress for the New American Century plot.
Thank God they are failing miserably and that is one Bush Administration
failure we can all be thankful for.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“just like I, and most everyone else, no longer believe anything “last throes” Cheney says regarding progress in Iraq.”
I don’t think it’s all that wise of you to speak for “most everyone else”, since I think it would be safe to consider you to be pretty far Left of center. And you guys say that President Bush lives in a bubble?
(the war on terrible said…)
“Thank God they are failing miserably and that is one Bush Administration failure we can all be thankful for.”
Yes. I’ve noticed that many of today’s Democrats do not have the spines of past Democrats when it comes to certain things like national security, or caring about oppressed people. Democrats like yourself seem to be okay with the idea of brutal dictators murdering millions of their own people AND aggressively invading their neighbor’s countries. Sad thing that. It used to be a great Party.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Trinity responds to:
“just like I, and most everyone else, no longer believe anything “last throes” Cheney says regarding progress in Iraq.”
With:
I don’t think it’s all that wise of you to speak for “most everyone else”, since I think it would be safe to consider you to be pretty far Left of center. And you guys say that President Bush lives in a bubble?”
Now here’s the truth:
Maybe Trinity is not aware of polls showing Cheney’s approval ratings in the twenties
and the teens? It is in reality to be “far Left of center” to take a favorable view of Cheney.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“Maybe Trinity is not aware of polls showing Cheney’s approval ratings in the twenties
and the teens? It is in reality to be “far Left of center” to take a favorable view of Cheney.”
Maybe Trinity, (that’s me) like President Bush and Vice President Cheney, doesn’t give a flying leap about low approval ratings, so long as we feel that we are doing the right thing, within the law, to protect this country from another terrorist attack. I know that, considering the “stand for nothing” party you are affiliated with, this might be a foreign concept to you, but conservatives actually care a lot more about integrity and national security than they do about polls. It’s called (sound it out now) L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P! Ever hear of it?
May 18th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Without the support of the people a presidential administration has no ability to
govern.
This CBS news piece from yesterday, says it much better than I just attempted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/17/opinion/meyer/main1623700.shtml
Sound it now. There is no L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P only lame ducks.
Quack.
And Bush has made the U.S. and the world more vulnerable to terrorism, not less
through his misadventure in Iraq and other follies.
Perhaps you haven’t seen
the state department reports which show global terrorism on the upsurge?
Perhaps you haven’t seen all the reports by global security and terrorism
experts that the “War on Terror” has dramatically enlarged and energized the
Al Queda organization?
Perhaps you haven’t heard that Bush has not yet captured Osama Bin Laden yet?
Perhaps you missed the reports CONFIRMING Kerry’s story was absolutely accurate
that Bush missed an opportunity to capture OBL at Tora Bora?
Perhaps you closed your ears to the recent reports where the British Government
officially declared that the terrorist cited the War in Iraq as the reason
for causing the London subway bombing?
Perhaps you’ve ignored all the newsstories about Bush cutting funding on all
Homeland security port and airport and subway security measures and receiving failing grades for a failure to enact recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, after he promised
to do so. (This topic was reviewed at length last year by JABBS).
Baaaa. Bush Good. Baaa Bush protect me from terrorists. Al Quada. Baaa. I hear and see nothing else. Baaa. Baaaa.
Quack.
Later I’ll provide links to all of the above facts so you can educate yourself.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:37 am
lol twot. You are nothing, if not entertaining. When you’re not BAAing, you’re QUACKing. Beyond that, you are a walking cliche.
Unfortunately, you are right about global terrorism being on the rise, but you are wrong to think that it is anything that we are doing that causes it. It’s a growing threat from an incredibly evil ideology, and Western civilization as we know it is severely threatened. Whether you call it militant Jihadism, Islamic radicalism, or Islamo-facism, it’s here to stay, unless we destroy it. It’s already got a major foothold in Europe, and if not eradicated, will become wide-spread here as well.
Another point. Calling it “terrorism” is actually not even accurate. Terrorists normally want something in return for ending their acts of terror. These freaks want nothing except world domination. So please, twot, spare me your condescending, arrogant lectures about how it is the Bush Administration that is causing the rise of this sick culture. It is YOU who needs to educate yourself, because you sound like a real boob. Read history. This is not the first appearance of this abomination on this Earth. We’ve been attacked for decades already. One attack here. One there. They’ve been gradually gaining strength, and the only way to end this war that threatens our way of life is to destroy them before they destroy us.
Use a modicum of common sense, twot. If these whackos can fly planes into our buildings, think what they can do if they get their hands on a dirty bomb or worse. Don’t fall for that crap that it’s all America’s fault. It’s pathetic.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Yes, but you completely gloss over all the information from objective sources
such as the State Department that “radical military Jilhadism, Islamic fascism”
is on the rise, NOT ON THE DECREASE, and the cited reason is consistently the
U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Dum de dum. dum. So we give yet another 50, no make that 100 more dead soldiers.
Dum de dum. Spend another $100 billion. It’s just another day. dum de dum.
So what we have another subway attack, maybe this time it will happen in the U.S. Dum de dum. We will continue to have nothing to do with it. de de dum dum. The U.S. is still winning the war on terror. dum dum de dum dum. Things are improving. They have to be. Bush says it is so. de dum. This is not Vietnam. Dum de dum dum.”
Why don’t you review the Progress for the New American Century to demonstrate
the real Bushevik motivation in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, which wasdeveloped long before 9-11.
It has nothing to do with stopping terror. In fact, 9-11 was just the tool that the
Busheviks needed to implement this misguided, dangerous plan for U.S. world domination of a bunch of radical right-wing extremists who have no business being in power.
Maybe you can explain to us why Bush was set on going to war with Iraq the moment
he stepped into office, long before his self-imposed 9-11 campaign of fear and paranoia.
(This is precisely the goal of the terrorists who attacked the U.S, to make America scared enough to accept eradification of our freedoms).
Maybe you can explain the overwhelming evidences Bush Administration prompted security experts to assign blame to 9-11 to Iraq literally moments after the plane hit the Pentagon?
Oh yeah, I forgot all this info is just “speculation” “lacking facts.”
None of it is worth an independent investigation to determine how we got into a failed war
increasing terrorism and causing the country to lose standing in the world.
But it’s well worth it to see whether Clinton lied about a blowjob.
That’s the problem with conservatives. They cannot get it into their heads that
maybe, just maybe, the Busheviks may have an agenda beyond fighting terrorism.
“Baaaa. Evidences be damned. Baaa. Bush says it. Baaa. It must be so.”
The conservatives, y’see, represent the sheep in George Orwell’s allegory Animal Farm.
I introduce a new character into the book. The lame duck.
Of course, the words of this lame duck president as Bush/Cheney lacking any standing
or credibility with the majority of the American public just might as well be:
“quack, quack, quack, quack.”
May 19th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
The only way to rid of terrorists is “to destroy them
before they destroy us.”
What an unrealistic ignorant viewpoint. It will never gain favor
among any thinking life form.
How do you suggest we do that. Launch another preemptive war.
Drop an atomic bomb on Iran.
Bush would end the world before he would end terrorism and that is precisely
the path he is heading down. Moron!
Ridding the world of terrorism or these so-called
Islamic extremists is like ridding the world of genocide
or starvation or poverty. Ain’t going to happen.
One can strive to reduce the problem. There are hugely better
ideas out there than what has been dumped upon the world like a massive pile
of rotting, smelling garbage by the Bush Administration.
Once again, the fact that Bush has NOT MADE A DENT in reducing global or
U.S. terrorism, either for now or for the future, and if anything has heightened
the problem offers enough proof of that.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“Without the support of the people a presidential administration has no ability to
govern.
This CBS news piece from yesterday, says it much better than I just attempted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/17/opinion/meyer/main1623700.shtml
Sound it now. There is no L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P only lame ducks.
Quack.”
I read the article you provided, twot. (Hey, did YOU ever read Hayden’s speech?) Consultants like Richard Viguerie are correct when he says that there is a lot of anger out there at President Bush and some of the Republicans in Congress, and you are correct that the rest of the Bush Administration could very well turn out to be a lame duck two years. And if that’s the case, the President can blame himself, and some of the weak-kneed RINOs in the Senate for the way they have turned a deaf ear to their conservative constituents on certain issues. We didn’t re-elect these individuals so that they could legislate like liberal Democrats.
As you must know, at this moment, the thing conservatives are most upset about is illegal immigration. When you have big libs like Kennedy, Reid and Durban praising the President, you should KNOW you have effed up big time, yet it seems that the President doesn’t get it. We like what he’s done on tax cuts, we’re happy that good, solid originalists have been appointed to the Supreme Court, but we are positively fuming that the problem we have with ILLEGAL aliens has been allowed to go on so long, with no immediate end in sight. I doubt that there will be any legislation passed on this for quite a while, since there is such a wide discrepency between the House and the Senate on what needs to be done.
So although it’s true that liberals and conservatives are both giving the President low marks these days, it’s for entirely different reasons. It does not mean that we do not support him on other issues such as the war in Iraq or other matters of our national security. In other words, we may be disappointed with this president, but it’s not as though we would vote for a Democrat, with whom we would have even more disagreements.
And as has been reported, as low as the President’s poll numbers are, Congress’ numbers are way down there as well. It will be interesting to see who ends up being the presidential candidates in ‘08. If McCain is the nominee, I think the Republicans are dead meat.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“Yes, but you completely gloss over all the information from objective sources
such as the State Department that “radical military Jilhadism, Islamic fascism”
is on the rise, NOT ON THE DECREASE, and the cited reason is consistently the
U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Well, to be frank, I’m not a big fan of our State Department, and disagree with you that they are always objective, so I really have no interest in what reason they might cite for the increase in radical Islam. I agree with them that it’s on the rise, but it was on the rise way before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Try to use your common sense, twot, if you have any. These are people who cut the throats of those who write books they disagree with, or who make films about Islam that they do not like, or who create cartoons that they feel diss their prophet, Mohammad. Hell, they’ll decapitate you simply because you are not one of them. It’s “Death to the infidel!”, and you and I are the infidel, brightlight. And so are our children. They are also responsible for the deaths of millions of other Muslims who are not radical enough to suit the jihadists.
So please, you can join and/or even lead the “Blame America” crowd, but I won’t be joining you. There are plenty of reasons for the rise of this evil ideology, such as the hate that is taught to their youngsters in school from very young. Our kids go to soccer camp. Their kids go to suicide bomber camp, where they are brainwashed into thinking that the most honorable thing they can aspire to is to blow themselves up and take as many infidels with them as they possible can.
You are right about one thing. As long as there are madrasas that teach this radical form of Islam, it’s going to be next to impossible to wipe it out completely. But at the same time, we do need to use every means possible to monitor all of the new communication technology that’s out there to enable us to prevent attacks here in the States as well as other countries. If not, we will eventually be dealing with not only subway bombings, but attacks in our malls, our schools, our sports stadiums, and anywhere else they would consider a good target.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“One can strive to reduce the problem. There are hugely better
ideas out there than what has been dumped upon the world like a massive pile
of rotting, smelling garbage by the Bush Administration.”
Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me as to what hugely better ideas you are referring to.
(the war on terrible said)
“Why don’t you review the Progress for the New American Century to demonstrate
the real Bushevik motivation in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, which was developed long before 9-11.”
I believe it is called the “Project” for the New American Century. Not the “Progress”. So tell me, twot. Are you against the idea of peace in the Middle East? I think I’ve said this before over on JABBS, but if not, let me say it here. I am pretty much in favor of the mission statement of “The Project for the New American Century”, so I don’t consider it quite the same bugaboo that you seem to. I believe in peace through strength, and promoting democracies throughout the world. Democracies tend not to attack one another, in case you were not aware of that. The spread of democracy is a good thing.
The basic idea, in case you weren’t aware, is that the seeds of democracy that we are helping to nurture in Afghanistan and Iraq will take root and then spread to other countries in the Mid-East. You asked if we should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran. I would say that is certainly not desireable by anyone, and I’m sure would only be considered as a very last resort, after all other attempts to keep Iran from attaining nuclear WMD have definitely failed.
Let me ask you a question, since you have claimed that there’s a shitload of great ideas out there that the Bush Administration just isn’t considering. How would you resolve the Iran issue, bearing in mind that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often professed a desire to wipe Israel completely off the map? If it becomes apparent that Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear WMD, what is your solution to that extremely dangerous development? You have my undivided attention.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
(the war on terrible said…)
“just like I, and most everyone else, no longer believe anything “last throes” Cheney says regarding progress in Iraq.”
Right, twot. In the meantime, back in the real world, Iraq’s leaders have agreed upon their first full-term government, which is great news, but only for the Iraqi people, and of course, for those of us who are actually hoping for success over in Iraq. ;)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1643348.htm
Also, here is another link to a great piece entitled “The Real Iraq”. Do yourself a favor, twot, and read it. Somehow I get the feeling that you don’t ever allow yourself to be exposed to any news about Iraq that doesn’t conform to your pre-conceived idea of how badly things are going over there. Yes, progress is slow, and arduous, but I believe the Iraqi people are up to the challenge, and are eager to experience all the hope and freedom that a democracy has to offer. Read it and weep!
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/Taheri_0606.htm
May 21st, 2006 at 3:37 am
AJ Strata makes a good point over on The Strata-Sphere blog today:
“The media, left and right, need to get over calling what is going on in Iraq ‘a war’. We are not in a war with Iraq. The fighting with the nation of Iraq ended years ago, but I can understand people holding their breathe and waiting until the democratic process had been tested and a permanent government seated. But now that this has also happened (and much faster than in the Balkans):”
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1828
May 21st, 2006 at 4:14 am
For one, it is not the “Blame America” crowd. It is the blame Bush crowd.
The idea to spread Democracy into Afghanistan and Iraq idea is failed policy.
On top of the quagmire in Iraq, perhaps you didn’t hear the latest news on Afghanistan,
how it is experiencing the worst fighting since the time the U.S. attacked in 2001.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article549507.ece
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=653252006
Not to mention all the stories how the Taliban is actually
on the rise in the country, and that the country’s number one export under American
control has become the opium trade.
Iraq should have proven what Vietnam has proved. We just don’t have the resources to
attack every country we deem a threat to us (with the exception of Afghanistan, but
Bush f–ked up that effort by diverting attention to Iraq), or shove Democracy down
the throat of every country on a belief to do so will make us more secure.
How to deal with Iran?
It is interesting to see the Bush Administration now FOLLOWING DOWN THE EXACT SAME PATH
recommended by Kerry for Iraq during the 2004 campaign, the very same methods in which
caused Kerry to be mocked as weak on terror.
The U.S. must work to develop a WILLING coalition of countries in alignment with
the United Nations. With the influence through numbers, the coalition
can hold a series of summits and make decisions on what to do about Iran.
How to deal with Iran?
Simple. Do the exact opposite of how Bush dealt with Iraq.
The fact that Bush is not following the same course with Iran, which along with
North Korea stands as a larger threat than Iraq ever was, demonstrates even
he recognizes what a disasterous policy it was.
Bushie historical revisionists forget that IT WAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION not
Sadaam that would not allow the UN inspectors to return to the country, where
if allowed to do their work LIKE THE UN AND MOST OF THE WORLD outside of the U.S.
and Britain wanted, would have dispelled the WMD claims so we could have worked
with the world to find a more effective solution for dealing with Sadaam.
You Bushie revisionists also forget that Sadaam sent a report to the U.S. thousands
of pages in length where he largely told the truth in denying the country had
any WMDs, that they
had been discarded since the early 90s when he used them on his own people.
You Bushie revisionists forget that the U.S. supported Sadaam at the time he attacked
his own people, and U.S. manufacturers largely supplied the ingrediants to make the gasses
that Sadaam used.
Nevertheless, Bush refused to listen. He opted instead to further exploit the 9-11
tragedy and use Islamic fear and paranoia to convince the U.S. not to lend any credibility
to Sadaam.
Nonetheless, as slimeballs as Sadaam and Iran’s current president, we still must attempt
to peacefully cooperate with them and recognize in their minds we are the evil ones.
By showing a better understanding of them, they will choose to see our way of thinking.
The will stop raising their children on hatred.
Even a book like Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People” speaks
boatloads of common sense on not only how to win favor with friends and business
associates, but with political and religious enemies.
AN ATTEMPT AT PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING DOES NOT REPRESENT WEAKNESS.
IT REPRESENTS BASIC BASIC HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. IT REPRESENTS COMMON SENSE.
In part, it all stems from the understanding all human beings of all races, creed,
and ideology share the same basic needs.
The side that better understands these simple facts stands the best chance at diminishing terrorism, as well as genocide, starvation, poverty and all of the world’s ills.
The side that believes military is the only answer. The side that fails to first make
a heartened and continued stab at diplomacy and peace is the loser.
I’m probably not stating any of this very well, as I am writing this response
after getting little sleep the last several days due to career-related reasons.
Nonetheless, I hope you get the idea.
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:57 am
And one more, just for good measure, twot. This, from The Sunday Times, May 21, 2006, written by William Shawcross. Headline: “It’s no time to quit Iraq — we’re winning”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2189891_1,00.html
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
I read the Shawcross piece already. And we have seen the exact same article six months ago,
a year ago, a year and a half ago.
As an indication people no longer find such articles credible and just roll
their eyes, we see less and less of such articles.
Very few take them seriously beyond the pitiful minority of the U.S. population
still in support of Bush Administration policy in Iraq (about the same
percentage of the population who believes in UFOs by the way).
Now, for every article touting at progress in Iraq we get several more telling the truth
that Iraq has seen very little if any improvement in the economy, and security wise things have become much much worse, deaths have increased, attacks against U.S. troops have increased, violence against every day Iraq citzens have increased, etc..
Here’s one such article where the Iraq people have little faith in the latest developments
Bush touted yesterday with the new government:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mood22may22,0,6920671.story?coll=la-home-headlines
On top of everything else, seeing that you also conveniently overlooked the reports I’ve presented showing the situation
in Afghanistan has deteroriated beyond control, there’s little other reason for me to give credibility to Shawcross.
We can’t make improvements in Afghanistan as we cannot make improvements in Iraq.
The propping up of the government is just a save face effort. JUST AS IN THE US,
a government administration with no credibility means nothing.
If Bush stays the course, six months from now we’ll read the same g–damned article as the Shawcross piece again, a year from
now we’ll read the same article yet again. And again. History will repeat itself.
In the meantime, hundreds of additional U.S. soldiers
will be killed.
Maybe I’m being cynical. Due to no other reason than the upcoming midterm elections,
for purely political reasons, the Bushie Republicans are wisening up.
The strategy now is rapidly becoming: HOW CAN WE GET THE TROOPS OUT OF THERE AND STILL SAVE
FACE.
In the meantime, expect Bushies to incredulously try to spin developments in Iraq.
And spin and spin and spin.
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 am
(the war on terrible said…)
“Now, for every article touting at progress in Iraq we get several more telling the truth
that Iraq has seen very little if any improvement in the economy, and security wise things have become much much worse, deaths have increased, attacks against U.S. troops have increased, violence against every day Iraq citzens have increased, etc..”
You’re delusional, you know that? Yes there is still violence in certain specific areas, but in most of Iraq, people are enjoying newfound freedoms. Exiled family members are returning home. Conditions are improving every day. We’ve known for a long time that this wasn’t going to be an easy mission. Don’t worry though. When we finally do succeed in bringing stability to Afghanistan and Iraq’s nascent democracies, you can go out and get one of those Leftist moonbat bumperstickers for your car that reads: “NOT IN MY NAME”. That is, unless you aready have one of those.
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Delusional, Trinity?
That is you. Wake up from your right-wing fantasy heaping great harm
upon the U.S.
Did you happen to see the somewhat recent U.S. Department of State Report
Provincial Stability Assessment?
http://topics.developmentgateway.org/iraq/rc/ItemDetail.do~1060452?itemId=1060452
It COMPLETELY DISCREDITS YOUR CLAIM:
“Yes there is still violence in certain specific areas, but in most of Iraq, people are enjoying newfound freedoms.”
THE REACH OF WAR: FRICTIONS; U.S. STUDY PAINTS SOMBER PORTRAIT OF IRAQI DISCORD
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. April 9, 2