BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Friday, December 30, 2005

NSA leak is Getting the Investigation it Deserves

--story--

I called for an investigation and an investigation we shall be getting. It looks like the FBI is going to investigate the NSA to find the person who leaked the existence of the classified phone tapping program.

The New York Times Spokeswomen; Catherine Mathis was speechless when she was asked to comment on the upcoming investigation. Why? Because she knows who the leaker is, and the NYT is hoping that if they just lay low people will forget who published the story and the FBI won't investigate the New York Times too.

Anthony Romero of the ACLU however did have something to say about this. He said "President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss,"

What law did he break Mr. Romero? Are you telling me that none of your activist lawyers know the laws? Constitutional crisis? Are you telling me that none of your lawyers who use the constitution as a cape to swoop down and protect terrorists know what's in the constitution? Even if this was somehow illegal, (which is unlikely) he's protected under the constitution. Article two proves that the President's power as the Commander-in-Chief provides him with the necessary constitutional authority to circumvent FISA during a time of war, because Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President Commander in Chief with the responsibility to protect the Nation. This authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization". But if this is not a case of presidential authority, then it is most definetly a case of civil liberties, well, that's what the ACLU wants you to think. I'd like to ask Mr. Romero what civil liberties he has lost since this program has been put in place, compared to what civil liberties would be lost if Lyman Faris succeeded in blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, which would have happened if it wasn't for Bush's phone tapping program. The right to life is a civil liberty right? But you can't expect too much from these twisted fools. If Faris did succeed in blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge the ACLU lawyers would quickly strap on their constitution capes and step into their diversity boots to fly down and protect Al-Qaeda telling us to be more open-minded to thier opinion and lifestyle.

Perhaps Mr. Romero should have a long discussion with constitutional law professor Peter Rubin who actually knows what he's talking about. He, unlike the ACLU lawyers, actually knows U.S. law. He know that Bush's actions were legal under the constitution and how leaking this information is a crime. If I couldn't expose the ACLU's upside down thinking, this man could.

To put things in to perspective of how radically left the ACLU is, I'll let you know what two Democratic congressmen are saying about this.

Jane Harman of California said regarding the leak, "its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

And Peter Hoekstra of Michigan said, "These politically motivated leaks must stop,"

Too true Mr. Hoekstra. The intentions of this leak (at least on the part of the New York Times) were to hurt Bush, but in fact the exact opposite has come! His polls are actually going up now that people know the president is doing his job by keeping us safe! Of course the leak was irresponsible and illegal and the terrorists now have time to adjust but in the wake of the NYT's effort to damage the Bush administration things have only been going better for him!

President Bush has called this leak "shameful," and the ACLU has responded calling Bush's program shameful. Why might that be? Because we should all have open hearts when it comes to terrorists. Well, if it wasn't for Bush's program a lot more people would have open hearts, and I'm not talking about having a high level of tolerance.

quotes and information from FOX News: here

27 Comments:

  • At 30/12/05 4:02 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Bush lied AND kept it a secret? gee that sounds hard to do. Did he use hand signals or what? And wouldn't that mean Clinton lied too since there were wiretaps allowed during his administration?

     
  • At 30/12/05 4:08 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I was also wondering how Bush could lie while he clearly admitted to the existence of the program because he knew it was legal.

    Just leave it to the ACLU to mess with your brains like that.

     
  • At 31/12/05 12:41 AM, Blogger Ranando said…

    Happy New Year to All!

    Ranando of The Ranando Report

     
  • At 31/12/05 2:02 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Excellent post, Cody. I'm glad to see you are back to blogging. You have been missed!

    Yes Dark. I also posted on that. Isn't it funny how the Democrats totally ignore that little fact? It was okay when Clinton did it. But since it's Bush, suddenly it's not okay. I believe Democrats are suffering from a severe case of amnesia. They don't seem to remember 9/11 either. I wonder how that could be?

    Happy New Year!

     
  • At 5/1/06 10:09 PM, Blogger Patty said…

    In six months they will have deleted or added a comma to what they are saying now and lie again to say Bush lied.
    It has been my experience that people that accuse others of wrong doing long and loud have a full closet. Just a thought. Wish we could investigate that closet
    Redneck Granny Rides Again

     
  • At 6/1/06 12:08 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Absolutely Patty. I see you've noticed it too: A cheater will always accuse someone of cheating when the winner of a game winns; a lyer always accuses an honest person of lying when they don't want to hear or admit the truth. Lyers and cheats always think everyone else is a lyer or a cheat too. It's a given!

     
  • At 6/1/06 11:51 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... wouldn't that mean Clinton lied too since there were wiretaps allowed during his administration?

    No, Clinton did NOT allow warrantless wiretaps.

    Cody said... I was also wondering how Bush could lie while he clearly admitted to the existence of the program because he knew it was legal.

    NO, it isn't legal.

    Gayle Said... A cheater will always accuse someone of cheating when the winner of a game wins.

    That's not what's happening here. The evidence makes it quite clear that bush is the liar. He also thinks he is above the law -- which NO president is!

    The most important question, which no one here is addressing, is WHY doesn't bush go through the proper channels and get the legal warrants?? I would be very interested in hearing why you people think bush doesn't/won't just get a warrant!! You are aware that warrants can be sought 72 hours AFTER the fact, aren't you?? So the argument can't be the need to act quickly... I am completely perplexed as to how ANYONE could defend bush's warrantless wiretaps, which are in direct violation of the 4th amendment!

    Posted Friday January 6, 2006

     
  • At 6/1/06 4:58 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    No, Clinton did NOT allow warrantless wiretaps.

    The link doesn't prove that. It proves he SAID he wouldn't, but not that he didn't. I'm still looking for a link saying he didn't use domestic spying before/during/after the Oklahoma city bombings.

    The most important question, which no one here is addressing, is WHY doesn't bush go through the proper channels and get the legal warrants??

    He shouldn't have to. read the constitution.

    I am completely perplexed as to how ANYONE could defend bush's warrantless wiretaps, which are in direct violation of the 4th amendment!

    exerpt from the 4th ammendment:
    against unreasonable searches

    I am simply perplexed that anyone could think that stopping a suicide bomber is unreasonable. Just look at Lyman Faris who was going to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. The NSA program caught a man who was going to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, taking innocent lives and your telling me that tapping into the phone call was unreasonable?! Talk about upside-down thinking!

    That's not what's happening here. The evidence makes it quite clear that bush is the liar. He also thinks he is above the law -- which NO president is!

    I'm sick of wasting my time with twisted-thinking idiots like you. All I'll say is read article 2 of the constitution.

     
  • At 6/1/06 7:21 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Oh they read the Constitution Cody, the parts they agree with. the ones they don't they simply twist to their own meaning.

     
  • At 6/1/06 7:22 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... I'm sick of wasting my time with twisted-thinking idiots like you.

    You think I am a "twisted thinking idiot" because you are making INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS! I DO think the government should spy on suspected terrorists. I DON'T think they should spy on Americans without warrants!

    As for your (and bush's) argument that the Constitution grants him these powers -- total hogwash! One of the most important aspects of our government is CHECKS AND BALANCES! That you think our founding fathers intended this passage to give Presidents this unchecked power is laughable!

    Why does bush refuse to get legal warrants from the FISA court, which is basically a rubber stamp? because he is spying on people and groups he should NOT be spying on!! His warrant requests would be rightfully refused!

    Bush is abusing his position and violating the Constitution! He should be removed from Office and thrown in jail!!

     
  • At 7/1/06 9:24 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    How is it violation of the Constitution? The 4th is illegal searches and seizures you numbskull. if Mohhamad Al-Mohammed calls you and sets off a computer trained to listen to certain keywords such as "kill", "president" "bomb" etc in the same call, then you will be tapped. Are you so incredably stupid that you didn't know that they use a computer? What you thought Bush just sat there tapping phones all day?

     
  • At 7/1/06 7:11 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... How is it violation of the Constitution? The 4th is illegal searches and seizures you numbskull.

    King George's Constitution. December 20, 2005. (excerpt) The Fourth Amendment ordinarily prohibits any search, which includes interception of telephone and email messages, without probable cause and a judicial warrant. (The "ordinarily" refers to some very narrow exceptions, inapplicable here, for unintrusive searches and for situations where officer safety or the need to act instantly justifies a departure from the usual requirements.)

    Moreover, even when the government believes there is probable cause, which is not required by Bush's unlawful scheme, there is the critical question of who decides whether there is probable cause in any given situation. Because executive branch officials are naturally focused on zealous law enforcement, they will inevitably construe "probable cause" too generously. and find it too quickly. For this reason, the Framers required a court order, reflecting an independent judgment by a separate branch of the government, to determine whether probable cause exists. For King George to take this authority entirely into the hands of the executive branch is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Bush's Spy Program and the Fourth Amendment. January 02, 2006. (excerpt) The most relevant precedent is United States v. United States District Court (Keith). Decided in 1972, Kieth involved a prosecution for conspiracy to blow-up a CIA office. The court's decision stated that the President had no constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens on American soil without a judicially issued search warrant based on a finding of probable cause -- and further stated that "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if [national] security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch".

    Source: The University of Chicago Law School Faculty blog.

    Saturday January 7, 2005

     
  • At 8/1/06 9:45 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    hmmm, yous qoute an 05 article next to a 75 article. They MIGHT just apply to different times don't you think?

     
  • At 8/1/06 10:20 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... hmmm, yous qoute an 05 article next to a 75 article. They MIGHT just apply to different times don't you think?

    ?????????????????????

    Your posts keep getting stranger and stranger. The dates of the articles I posted are December 20, 2005 and January 02, 2006.

    If you are talking about the date of the court case which is mentioned (1972 NOT 1975) then my answer to your question is NO.

    From Encyclopedia Britannica Online
    Precedent: in law, a judgment or decision of a court that is cited in a subsequent dispute as an example or analogy to justify deciding a similar case or point of law in the same manner. Common law and equity, as found in English and American legal systems, rely strongly on the body of established precedents.

     
  • At 9/1/06 7:30 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    passage to give Presidents this unchecked power is laughable!

    During a time of war he can do what he has to do to protect the American people, and if you read article two like I told you you would know that already.

    And to call it domestic spying is wrong too. They are calls from other countries coming into America. So if that's domestic spying then this (fictional) case would be considered it too.

    Lets say a person comes in to America from Canada and they frisk him. Would you call that domestic search & seizure/spying?

    He should be removed from Office and thrown in jail!!

    Can't you focus that hate on, say the government of Iran? I know I shouldn't question your nationalism, but I do wonder sometimes.

     
  • At 9/1/06 10:36 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... During a time of war he can do what he has to do to protect the American people, and if you read article two like I told you you would know that already.

    This argument is complete nonsense! When will this "war" end? How will we know when we have "won". This doesn't have anything to do with bush "doing his job" by "protecting America". It's a power grab, plain and simple. He wants to spy on Americans.

    Cody Said... And to call it domestic spying is wrong too. They are calls from other countries coming into America.

    WRONG. I provided a link to this story in an earlier post, but I guess you didn't follow it:

    Pentagon Spying on Anti-War Activists. Secret database obtained by NBC News tacks "suspicious" domestic groups. A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth FL, a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

    A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period. (end excerpt).

    I don't understand WHY you keep distorting my arguments! I keep insisting that it is ILLEGAL for bush to spy on Americans without a warrant. You respond by asking why I am so concerned about the rights of terrorists. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF TERRORISTS -- I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS!! bush IS spying on American citizens! He IS breaking the law! Why do you not have a problem with that?

    Cody said... Can't you focus that hate on, say the government of Iran?

    No. bush is a much more serious threat.

     
  • At 10/1/06 6:38 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    That's a completely different topic from the NSA issue. And last time you gave me the link you said it was the FBI was spying on anti-war activists, now you're saying it's the pentagon. So which one is true? But it doesn't matter, if you're doing something illegal, some form of government authority is going to go after you, it's only normal. The NSA, however, isn't involved in stopping domestic crime. Two different, very different things.

     
  • At 10/1/06 6:45 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    No. bush is a much more serious threat.

    To who? The bad guys? Are you CRAZY? This Iranian president is building a nuclear arsenault to blow people up and the man trying to stop him is a greater threat? I think now would be a more appropriote time to question your nationalism, and don't lie to me. When your own leader is somehow worse than the government of Iran it's gone way past Bush-bashing. It's undermining the country to be frank, and it's disgusting. Excuse my while I go vomit.

     
  • At 11/1/06 5:53 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... To who (is bush a much more serious threat)? The bad guys?

    If you wanted to know why didn't you follow the link I provided?

    A poll released today by The Wisdom Fund, identified President George Bush, Jr. as the "biggest threat to justice and peace". Visitors to The Wisdom Fund web site when presented with three choices: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, George Bush, Jr., voted overwhelmingly for President Bush.

    Mr. Bush received 55 percent of the votes cast, Osama bin Laden 24 percent, and Saddam Hussein 21 percent.

    Cody Said... I think now would be a more appropriote time to question your nationalism...

    Why don't you tell me why YOU hate America so much? America was founded as a Democratic Republic, yet you are all for bush's plan of turning America into a Plutocracy! I doubt you are one of America's wealthy elite, so WHY do you support bush? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

    Cody Said... ...and don't lie to me. When your own leader is somehow worse than the government of Iran it's gone way past Bush-bashing.

    Lie about what?

    When you say "bash" it implies, to me, that you think I am simply being critical of bush because he is a Republican and I am a liberal. If bush actually were a Republican that would be one thing -- but he isn't!

    bush is an amoral lying murdering elitist arrogant scumbag who should FRY for his crimes.

    Cody Said... It's undermining the country to be frank, and it's disgusting. Excuse my while I go vomit.

    No, bush is the one undermining the country, as are people like you who support this criminal regime! Excuse me while I go vomit!

    Wednesday January 11, 2006

     
  • At 11/1/06 8:25 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    ugh...

    1)I don't care about polls, they don't mean anything, ever.

    2)Every president in the United States has suspended a law durning a time of war, some protected and some not, but in this case he is. What Bush is doing is nothing compared to things other presidents have done. Just look at what Lincoln went through to end slavery. He suspended habeas corpus, and we're squabbling over a spy agency that is....spying?!

    3) Plutocracy?! But I thought we were turning fascist a minute ago. Is this just your opening argument as to why taxes should be raised maybe? And about the fascist thing, I think you took George Orwell a little bit too seriously buddy!

    4) When you don't want a president to do whatever it takes to win a war it is beyond Bush-bashing. It is undermining the country. If it wasn't for this GREAT, HONEST, and DETERMINED president who wants to do what's best for the country, we'd be seeing many more terrorist attacks on America after 9/11. And like I said, they have tried, and because of this wonderful president they failed. And yes I will continue to praise the president every time you call for his death.

    Lie about what?

    Your patriotism. At least tell me if you have ever thought about moving to Canada after Bush was elected because if you say yes it means your country isn't worth it if a Republican is president.

    bush is an amoral lying murdering elitist arrogant scumbag who should FRY for his crimes.

    This reminds me of the phrase, to the left of Lenin. You're so radical it scares me. You should ask a fellow Liberal doctor if euthanasia is the only option to end your terrible suffering of the mental disease called radical Liberalism. I think we can all guess what answer he would have, perhaps only a Conservative can save* you from your sickness now. In fact I could prescribe you to a medicine right now. I think the best one to start out with is sanity, then we can move on to the more powerful (and harsh) truth.

    *Save as in not being killed by some crazy left-wing doctor who thinks someone with the flu should be put out.

    (Don't call this a death wish, it is simply a recovery wish. Besides, after saying what you have about our GREAT president, having sensitivity toward you shouldn't matter)

     
  • At 11/1/06 8:49 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Bush: NSA Wiretapping Hearings Good for Democracy

    "LOUISVILLE, Ky. — President Bush said Wednesday that congressional hearings to investigate his domestic eavesdropping program will be good for democracy as long as they don't give secrets away to the enemy."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181341,00.html

    It looks like Bush wants to assure the public that he's operating within the law. I think this will work out well for the president.

     
  • At 11/1/06 10:12 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    1. Never?! I guess that makes sense, as you are then able to summarily dismiss any and all polls which show most people disagree with bush on Iraq and spying issue.

    2. Legally, if a President wants to exercise war powers, There must be a declaration of war by Congress. Since this has not happened your argument is null and void.

    3. A plutocracy is a form of government where all the state's decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of citizenry, and the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems (including fascism), as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concomitantly with the features of those systems.

    4. "Whatever it takes" including breaking the law and trampling the constitution?

    Cody Said... At least tell me if you have ever thought about moving to Canada after Bush was elected because if you say yes it means your country isn't worth it if a Republican is president.

    Why would I move to Canada? I recently moved farther SOUTH. I am really enjoying the mild winters where I now reside. I have never considered a move farther north. As I pointed out in my last post -- bush is NOT a Republican!!

    Cody Said... This reminds me of the phrase, to the left of Lenin. You're so radical it scares me. You should ask a fellow Liberal doctor if euthanasia is the only option to end your terrible suffering of the mental disease called radical Liberalism.

    Conservatism As A Mental Disorder -- And A Threat. We have the "know how" and resources to effectively deal with problems like Terrorism, Global Warming, Nuclear War and Global Hunger. We are not actually doing so, even though such problems threaten our well being and even our very survival. Try to tell me that we wouldn't have done something about global warming by now if humanity was 90% "liberal" in our thinking. Would we be ignoring poverty and AIDS, invading Iraq, facing a rise in religious terrorism or watching health care and education crumble around us? Not too likely.

    The real problem, the root problem of nearly all others, is not found in some external force or enemy. This enormous threat to humanity lies in the human mind -- it all starts in the few inches between our ears. Call it conservatism, fundamentalism, right wing thinking, ideological insanity, what have you, it can clearly be considered a mental disorder; a dysfunction of the human mind, and it threatens our survival.

    Cody Said... If it wasn't for this GREAT, HONEST, and DETERMINED president who wants to do what's best for the country...

    bush is NONE of these things. George Bush is the worst president of the United States of America, ever. Hands down. He is also an amoral lying murdering elitist arrogant scumbag who should FRY for his numerous crimes.

     
  • At 12/1/06 1:29 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... It looks like Bush wants to assure the public that he's operating within the law. I think this will work out well for the president.

    Of course you would hope that the continued lying works out well for him!

    I looked at the Fox News article you provided the link to. Below are two UNALTERED (except for the 2 words I bolded) quotes:

    In his opening remarks, he defended the global war on terrorism and the U.S. effort in Iraq. He said insurgents in Iraq were trying to drive the United States out through violence and bloodshed but he declared, "They're not going to shake my will".

    While saying he wanted to bring American troops home, he said, "I don't want them to come home without achieving the victory".

    The arrogance of this man is astounding! Notice how he thinks this is ALL ABOUT HIM! Thousands of US Soldiers killed and maimed; tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed -- and it's all about him!!

    Clearly bush is suffering from megalomania, delusions of persecution and omnipotence and an "anal/sadistic" indifference to others' pain. (From the Publisher's Weekly Review of "Bush on the Couch" by Justin A. Frank)

    Cody Said... To who (is bush a much more serious threat)? The bad guys?

    Peter Bergen, author of the book "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader" was interviewed by Jon Stewart on last night's "Daily Show". When Mr. Stewart asked him, "Has Iraq hurt/helped Al Qaeda in your opinion", Mr. Bergen responded, "Oh, it's helped them immensely... If Osama believed in Christmas, which obviously he doesn't, Iraq would be his Christmas gift".

    Clearly it is bush who is undermining our country! It is bush who is "giving comfort" to the enemy! bush is the one who hates America and should be tried for Treason! Since you support bush, calling him "great", you must also hate America. Cody, why do you hate America so much? WHY?!

    Scratch that -- I doubt you hate America -- you're just very very ill. I pray you get the help you so obviously need.

    Thursday January 12, 2006

     
  • At 12/1/06 8:04 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    1. Never?! I guess that makes sense, as you are then able to summarily dismiss any and all polls which show most people disagree with bush on Iraq and spying issue.

    I dismiss ALL polls because they are almost always worded in a way to get the answers they want.

    2. Legally, if a President wants to exercise war powers, There must be a declaration of war by Congress. Since this has not happened your argument is null and void.

    The last time there was a declaration of war was WWII. Now I realize a declaration of war would make things easier but it doesn't make it impossible or illegal to do the things he's doing. Lets look at the constitution for a minute.

    Article 2 clause 8 Oath or Affirmation:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    "In suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, President Abraham Lincoln claimed that he acted in accordance with the oath."
    Wikipedia

    And the argument becomes a little less null and void when you remember that Lincoln never made a formal declaration of war for the civil war, but he still suspended habeas corpus and was protected under the constitution. Maybe if Lincoln was impeached you would have this argument, but as you know, he wasn't.

    3. A plutocracy is a form of government where all the state's decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of citizenry, and the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems (including fascism), as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concomitantly with the features of those systems.

    Oh, a fascist plutocracy. Yeah, I can just see Bush scheming that one up right now...

    4. "Whatever it takes" including breaking the law and trampling the constitution?

    I've proved that he isn't doing that, multiple times.

    Why would I move to Canada? I recently moved farther SOUTH. I am really enjoying the mild winters where I now reside. I have never considered a move farther north.

    That's nice to hear.

    Conservatism As A Mental Disorder

    Such a bad rip-off of a good book.

    bush is NONE of these things. George Bush is the worst president of the United States of America, ever. Hands down. He is also an amoral lying murdering elitist arrogant scumbag who should FRY for his numerous crimes.

    So how does your list go for the worst presidents? Like this?

    1) Bush
    2) Reagan
    3) Nixon*

    (I would probably agree with you on this one)

    Maybe all of the Republicans should be "FRIED" for their "crimes" so we can have a left-wing revolution where socialism replaces capitalism, the ACLU replaces the court system, and marijuana is legalized.

    Of course you would hope that the continued lying works out well for him!

    It is though! Democratic congressmen have been lying about this program since it was leaked and Bush's polls have only gone up! Isn't it just great?

    The arrogance of this man is astounding! Notice how he thinks this is ALL ABOUT HIM! Thousands of US Soldiers killed and maimed; tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed -- and it's all about him!!

    No, it's not just about him.

    While saying he wanted to bring American troops home, he said, "I don't want them to come home without achieving the victory".

    And I don't understand the fact that you want troops to leave Iraq now because of many deaths, but you fail to understand that the lives of 22 million Iraqi's would be at a much greater risk if we were to leave now. If we leave before the government is ready we'll leave Iraq as an anarchy. And from anarchy comes chaos.

    Peter Bergen, author of the book...

    I really don't care what Peter Bergen thinks about the war in Iraq, especially since he is wrong.

    Scratch that -- I doubt you hate America -- you're just very very ill. I pray you get the help you so obviously need.

    Well I do have a strange growth on my toe, and I thank you for your consideration, but I've already gotten a doctor to check it.

     
  • At 12/1/06 8:10 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    The last time there was a declaration of war was WWII. Now I realize a declaration of war would make things easier but it doesn't make it impossible or illegal to do the things he's doing. Lets look at the constitution for a minute.

    oops, second to last sentence, just add the words "without one"

     
  • At 13/1/06 5:13 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Go to Google, type in "Worst President" and see who's bio comes up right on top.

    As for your list of worst presidents, bush is definitely Number 1, while Reagan and Nixon would both certainly make the top 10.

    Cody Said... No, it's not just about him. (repeats the same bush quote I posted) While saying he wanted to bring American troops home, he said, "I don't want them to come home without achieving the victory".

    Do you think that by bolding the LIE section, you somehow are changing the meaning?? You do notice that he said "my" instead of "our" and "I" instead of "we", don't you??! He doesn't care how many US troops die (except that the more die the lower his poll number will go)! He's an arrogant sadistic egomaniac!

    Cody Said... And I don't understand the fact that you want troops to leave Iraq now because of many deaths, but you fail to understand that the lives of 22 million Iraqi's would be at a much greater risk if we were to leave now. If we leave before the government is ready we'll leave Iraq in anarchy.

    No, it is not a fact. I think it was a HUGE mistake that we invaded in the first place, but now that we are there I think an immediate withdrawl would be a mistake. But I am not foolish enough to believe that if/when we finally do leave it will be because we have achieved complete victory!

    Rep. Murtha, a conservative Democrat, has noted that over 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave, while 45 percent believe that attacks on American occupying forces are justified. (Of course Cody does not believe this information, as it relies on polling! He probably thinks that the number of normal Iraqi citizens who view the United States as their savior is close to 100 percent.)

    The bush plan, however, calls for a permanent US Military presence in Iraq. That is why they are constructing permanent military bases from which they plan to launch attacks on other Muslim nations in the future (Iran).

    Cody Said... I've proved that he isn't doing that (breaking the law and trampling the Constitution), multiple times.

    No, you haven't!

    Bush/Cheney Have Disgraced Their Office; They Should Resign. by Ralph Nader. (excerpt) Now comes the most recent, blatant impeachable offense -- Bush ordering the spying on Americans in our country by the National Security Agency. This disclosure stunned many N.S.A. staff who themselves view domestic surveillance as anathema, according to Matthew M. Aid, a current historian of the agency.

    Domestic eavesdropping on Americans by order of the President to the National Security Agency violates the 27-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unless they obtain a warrant from the FISA Court. This court meets in secret and has rejected only four out of 19,000 applications.

    So why did Bush violate this law and why does he defiantly say he will continue to order domestic spying as he has since 2002? Not because the FISA Court is slow. It acts in a matter of hours in the middle of the night if need be. The law actually permits surveillance in emergencies as long as warrants are requested within 72 hours or 15 days in times of war.

    Bush violated the law because of the arrogance of power. Ostensibly, he believes that a vague Congressional resolution after 9/11 to fight al-Qaeda overrides this explicit federal law and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Bush even claims he can unilaterally decide to domestically spy from the inherent powers of the Presidency to fight wars. (To him Congressionally-undeclared wars are still wars).

    The overwhelming position of legal scholars is that Bush and Cheney have violated grave laws protecting the liberties of the American people. The crime, says Professor David Cole of Georgetown Law School, is "punishable by five years in prison". Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School said that the President ordered such a crime and ordered US officials to commit it... "this is a serious felony... what happened here is not just a violation of Federal law, it's a violation of the U.S. Constitution. It is an impeachable offense". (December 24, 2005)

    Cody Said... I really don't care what Peter Bergen thinks about the war in Iraq, especially since he is wrong.

    No, of course you don't agree with, nor will even consider any information coming from Peter Bergen, one of the most respected Al Qaeda experts in the world!

    Friday January 13, 2006

     
  • At 22/1/06 12:39 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Vice-President Al Gore Speaking on 16 January 2006. Constitution Hall, Washington, DC
    Domestic Surveillance and Executive Powers

    Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger.

    In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.

    As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.

    It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.

    So, many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.

    ...A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution -- our system of checks and balances -- was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men".

    An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution -- an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny". [Read More]

    Sunday January 22, 2006

     

Post a Comment

<< Home