They'll vote him the authority to do what he did illegally already. Then everyone will agree since what he illegally did in the past is now legal it just doesn't seem right to pursue it any further. After all, would someone charged with sodomy BEFORE it was made legal still be vigorously prosecuted? Would a woman who had an abortion in the immediate months before Roe be penalized? Nah, Bush will be absolved of all wrongdoing once Congress acts. Then he can go back to listening in on the phone calls of the DNC.
Posted by steve duncan at January 22, 2006 12:38 PMThe congress should (a) require that various administration officials testify, not just Abu Gonzales, (b) insist on an admission of fault on the part of the president, and (c) instist on rigorous oversight of existing and future executive surveillance powers. The odds that Bush would go along with that is so close to zero as to be negligible.
In the unlikely event he did go along with it, it would go a ways towards re-establishing a constitutional governemnt. If he didn't, it would bolster the argument for impeachment. I think it is a win-win.
Posted by shargash at January 22, 2006 12:43 PMThe GOP playbook might as well be the chapters in William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich! Everything Shirer reported the Nazis doing in Germany has so far come to pass in America. We are almost to the point where Hitler - I mean, King George - burns down the Reichstag - I mean, the Congress building - to make the point to the legislative branch that their services are no longer required. After that, they will vote themselves out of existance.
Posted by pessimist at January 22, 2006 01:07 PMSteve,
Interesting take with your perspective. Similar to the analysis of my roe v wade effect article.
I would disagree on a few points.
1. You assume that Bush is doing something illegal. I haven't heard a definitive answer to that. I've heard valid arguments from both sides. I've heard that Clinton did similar things as well. I really don't know for a fact if it is illegal to do that which he is doing and continuing to do. An INVESTIGATION by politicians is and will be political, which is what I suspect you want. You want hearings, to stir the base.
2. Presidents frequently refuse to go to Congress for laws giving them authority to do that which they already believe they have that right. I'm reminded of Clinton's use of Executive Privilege. It had been a respected belief that President's had the authority, but Clinton used it, if I recall-again, I'm not lying, I just remember it this way, that he used it to cover up his Lewinsky affair.
However, the Supreme Court did come in and overrule a Presidential Privilege. So essentially, Clinton was guilty of violating the special prosectutor's subpoena power, which was given to him by Congress. That turned up to be illegal, but not criminal.
3. I find it ironic, that at the core of the left wing's arguments is that this President is a Fascist. That he is trampling on the rights of its citizens. However, per your post, even John Kerry said, hey, no problem, we will give him that authority, we just want him to ask for it.
So which is it? Are you against Bush using his apparent authority to stop terrorists through the use of wiretaps?
Or do you agree with Kerry, that the President should continue with the wiretaps, but that Congress should clearly write a law saying that it okay.
Sounds like semantics to me. Tilting at windmills.
The GOP playbook might as well be the chapters in William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich! Everything Shirer reported the Nazis doing in Germany has so far come to pass in America. We are almost to the point where Hitler - I mean, King George - burns down the Reichstag - I mean, the Congress building - to make the point to the legislative branch that their services are no longer required. After that, they will vote themselves out of existence.
Posted by pessimist at January 22, 2006 01:16 PMSorry about the double post.
Posted by pessimist at January 22, 2006 01:17 PM1. You assume that Bush is doing something illegal. I haven't heard a definitive answer to that.
Posted by carpediem at January 22, 2006 01:09 PM
*****
Read the text of the FISA law, moron. It's clear as day.
You're unreal, Don Quioxte. Why would Bush state (we've all seen the clip) that you have to get a warrant and then claim you didn't when his little secret came out? Why would he try to coerce the NYT into not printing the story?
Why did the above transpire? Let's use Occam's Razor here and go with the simplest, most logical explanation:
Because BushCorp got caught breaking the FISA law. Period. One must wonder who else they've been spying on.
Your clients have a fucking idiot for an attorney.
Posted by God Of War at January 22, 2006 01:18 PMI once said, a few years ago, that what we ought to do is just give 'em plenty of rope.......
damn, I couldn't have been more wrong about that.
The more rope we gave 'em, again and again and again, they simply used to hang us!
They are now wagging the Osama, the craven shitheads that are about 40% of the country will go right along, and those of us who actually believe in following the constitution will be branded traitors yet once again.
Shit. I don't see no way out of this fucking nightmare short of a violent overthrow of these assholes.
Posted by Vinnie at January 22, 2006 01:41 PMReading Mr Soto's post, I can't help but be horrified that we (as in the United States) have reached the stage where Congress is considering legalizing something that is both unconstitutional and just so very very wrong.
Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment for far less.
If illegal wiretapping, lacking warrants, due process and oversight, is allowed to continue, then I don't see any way for a democratic state to be restored. (What we are enduring now is not a democracy.)
I have nothing to hide. My life is singularly unexciting. But I do not want someone listening in. Such tactics are the realm of rogue nations with autocratic rulers with unchecked power. Such things belong elsewhere. Not in the United States. For if we begin allowing such things here, then we have nothing to protect anymore. Our way of life, our democratic principles, the very fabric of our government, as weaved by the strong thread of our Constitution, will no longer exist.
If protecting democracy means undermining and destroying democracy, then we'll all have lost, you see.
Posted by zhak at January 22, 2006 01:41 PMAgain, God of War, why don't you go back into your bedroom and do what you do so naturally, while the grownups talk.
This is another clear distinction between the parties. Republicans are embarrassed by our own versions of the GOW, while you guys invite them to speak at your convention.
Tell me GOW, have you even read the FISA law?
I've not, but I've read many academic opinion pieces on both sides which give me rise to consider that there is reason to believe that the rule is unsettled.
If it were, then why haven't your true blue Democrat leaders gotten on television in ads, like against Alito, and called upon Bush to stop the criminal wiretaps....
Occmans Razor says that the simpliest answer is usually correct, so simple is easy for you, but the other part of the Razor theory is that "all things equal" and right now, that is not the case.
There is an honest debate among truth seekers and not among politicians of whether the President is acting within his authority. Merely saying Bush is Hitler is simple enough for you I guess.
Posted by carpediem at January 22, 2006 01:42 PMWill somebody please give the idiot a blowjob?
Posted by Vinnie at January 22, 2006 01:43 PMI think your forgetting about Bush's other card here and "Democrat's worst nightmare".....scAlito.
Why go through all the bother of Congressional hearings and legislative wrangling when you're this close to having 5 Supremes willing to give you their scotus judicial stamp of approval for pure unfettered executive branch power?
But leaving that part of the equation out of the mix, you bring up some valid points.
Posted by emal at January 22, 2006 01:50 PMI've read FISA. You must obtain a warrant via the FISA court if you're wiretapping an American citizen. You can even obtain the warrant within 72 hours of the action. It's sole purpose is to confirm that the NSA is ACTUALLY SPYING ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR A LEGALLY JUSTIFIED REASON.
Ah...there's the rub. A legally justified reason. And, given the demonstrated evidence that the FISA court almost always grants the warrant, one is led to assume two things (again, Occams Razor):
1. The FISA court will bend over backwards to grant a warrant because national security is a grave concern;
2. Bypassing the FISA court begs the question: What, and who, is the Administration using the NSA to spy on without FISA approval, when a warrant is so readily available? Who? Political opponents?
Who? And Why? Why the illegal ignoring of the minimal FISA requirement?
THAT is the question. The Administration claims they are only spying on Americans speaking to terrorists. Really? Prove it. Fact is, we've got evidence that BushCorp is spying on fucking QUAKERS and THE CATHOLIC WORKERS.
!!!!!
Crappy, you're growing desperate. You're getting owned. Its no surprise, being that you're an apologist for traitors and criminals. Give it up.
You're my bitch.
Posted by God Of War at January 22, 2006 01:59 PMHitler - I mean, King George - burns down the Reichstag - I mean, the Congress building -
And blames it on liberals. You forgot that part of the equation.
Tell me GOW, have you even read the FISA law?
Although I can't speak for GOW, the text is so easy to find, why would you want to read an academic treatise on the thing? The language is very clear. The clarity is probably so that even an idiot like Busch can understand it.
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
Let me see. Periods of one year. He started this in 2001.....Hmmmmm. It's kinda like neo-cons. I smell a rat.
If it were, then why haven't your true blue Democrat leaders gotten on television in ads, like against Alito, and called upon Bush to stop the criminal wiretaps....
Simple: everyone knows that the Reps play dirty. So dirty, in fact, that if a Dem were to speak out and place an ad and say that Bush is breaking the law, the Reps would turn around and use it against said politcian to call them "soft on terrorism."
What we need is an independent, non-partisan (I'm dreaming, I know) to examine the records of who they've been illegally spying on. Until we know exactly who they've been spying on, they can say they're only spying on terrorists to protect us. And the sheep will believe. If they are only spying on terrorists, then they have nothing to fear in having someone examine the lists and phone logs and email logs.
Posted by ann at January 22, 2006 02:12 PMI found this post interesting from another website, thought it might have been GOW or Dennis or Judith or Anjha. Was it any of you?
George Bush's Nazi Regime
George Bush's whole administration has all the earmarks of a well prepared nazi-type regime! They are working on it tooth and claw! The only thing they need now is an internal terrorist threat, or civil disorder growing from anti-war
protests to justify declaring a National Emergency with its protests to justify declaring a National Emergency with its legally sanctioned suspension of Constitutionally protected
rights. Concentration camps for hard-core anti-war activists will be supported by the stupidity silent majority with their brainless, moronic, imbecilic, blind and bigoted moral retardation. Hence idiotic flag-waving becomes a substitute for rational analysis,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.desert-storm/browse_thread/thread/c5fc74dcb0c3add7/594ce2916e17559f?lnk=st&q=George+Bush's,+Nazi+Regime&rnum=1&hl=en#594ce2916e17559f"
Bush executed this most treacherous and evil plot in order to justify the launching of a war which he had desperately wanted for a long time
"http://groups.google.com/group/misc.headlines/browse_thread/thread/42a57473e45d1af6/c9ff142bb07c4ddf?lnk=st&q=nazi+bush&rnum=7&hl=en#c9ff142bb07c4ddf">link
Impeach George Bush! Call your Congressperson and demand it!
How much more blatant and obvious does the information have to be? We've got a President who very obviously came into power under very corrupt circumstances
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/browse_thread/thread/5d86560bd0b25d6b/e66506b3e326d968?lnk=st&q=George+Bush's+Nazi+Regime&rnum=8&hl=en#e66506b3e326d968
Oh yeah. If you want to know the autorization for war, well the pretzledent does have it.
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
Let me see. He did this before 9-11, that's how long ago and when did the war resolution pass?
McCain did not say that Bush does not have the authority. He said he didn't THINK Bush had such authority. Quite a different thing and perfect for when it's found that BUS DOES have such authoriy.
Posted by at January 22, 2006 02:24 PMMcCain did not say that Bush does not have the authority. He said he didn't THINK Bush had such authority. Quite a different thing and perfect for when it's found that BUS DOES have such authoriy.
Posted by at January 22, 2006 02:24 PM
*****
Wow. That's some profound reasoning skill there.
At least you were smart enough to refrain from identifying yourself.
Moron. How typical of the idiot reich.
Posted by God Of War at January 22, 2006 02:27 PM"Wow. That's some profound reasoning skill there."
more like simple reading skills
Posted by at January 22, 2006 02:33 PMSection 1811. Authorization during time of war
FISA SECTION 1811 STATES.
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligenceinformation for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war;
So yes, I do think there is some questional basis for believing that Bush is acting within his scope as commander in chief. Again, Bush said he did it and is going to continue to do it. Why do we need hearings? He admits it.
What we need is a strong democratic leader to stand up and say... Please Mr. Bush, why not just ask us of a better law and we will give it to you...no wait, Kerry has already said that.
I haven't read the entirety of FISA. I've read too much federal law that references dozens of other statutues that all have sub paragraph A part B that has a special exception to part 2 of subparagraph 8. So I am not an authority on it.
And, get this, neither are you GOW et. al.
You wraskly wiberals.....always looking for the worst in everything Bush does.
Posted by carpediem at January 22, 2006 02:33 PMSo what did you think Judith, GOW, Dennis, did you write those other posts?
Bush is Hitler, Bush is making up reasons to go to war, Bush is a nazi and is going to take away our constitution and put the liberals in concentration camps.
I'm waiting.... and you know where I'm going with this don't you?
Steve,
I have to disagree on this one. We do NOT control anything that goes on in Congress. If we let the Administration come to Congress to seek authority they don't believe they need, exactly which 'JOURNALISTS" do you think will provide the enlightening context for a seleepy American public?
With the willing help of their congressional lackeys, they will get the authority to ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY wiretap Americans. I agree with zhak. This is just so fundamentally WRONG and we have so little ability to control either process or the information served to the public, we could get shafted big time trying to play around with these issues. We are in no position to be coy. We have to stand for the constitution and just say NO.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 22, 2006 02:46 PMWhere is America? I want to go home!
Posted by rlp at January 22, 2006 03:12 PMDear rlp,
As my earlier posts fully disclose, the looney left complained and charged Bush with being a Nazi, violating the rights of americans, trying to find a way to set up a constitutional crisis, making up excuses to go to war.
Unfortunately, These comments were from 1991 in reference to Bush 41.
Just like in 1991, the Looney Left's predictions were silly and juvenille and sound exactly the same as today.
I googled Bush and Nazi and found over 1/4 million hits on their "groups" listings.
When are you guys gonna give it a rest.
Remember it was Bill Clinton that saved the day from the dictator, Bush 41, now maybe Hillary Clinton can do the same and Save America from Bush 43.
You guys are so very sad.
Posted by carpediem at January 22, 2006 04:16 PMWell, if a Democrat was doing the same thing, there would be no doubt about whether it was legal or not.
I don't understand something. Either it is legal or it is illegal. We never had any questions about it before now. I guess when you have an Administration pushing the envelope as far as it will go, then it is up for debate. If it was illegal enough for Nixon, then it is illegal enough for George. Don't let them muddy the waters. It's not complicated.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 04:17 PMIf the Dems decide to roll over on Nero Jr.'s intentional, calculated violation of a legitimate federal law, that's the last straw.
I have severe doubts that the NSA qualifies as a military organization, and that Congress recognized a war on American soil in its Afghanistan force authorization.
But even if this NSA spying could conceivably fall under the president's power as "commander in chief", it is absolutely clear that FISA was intended to govern such surveillence.
Furthermore, Article I, sec. 8, cl 14, a little mentioned clause, gives Congress the power "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". (This clause is why we have armed services committees in Congress.)
If the NSA surveillence is use of the nation's military forces by the president, then FISA is a rule for the "government and regulation of [these] forces" promulgated under Congress's clear constitutional power over the military.
Nero's illegal program must be thoroughly investigated and explained to Congress, he must be censured for his intentional, willful violation of existing federal law, he must acknowledge FISA's legitimacy and certify he will not violate it or any other duly enacted law of Congress, and he must explain how any supposedly necessary changes to FISA do not violate the fourth amendment protecting citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
These seem to me to be minimum requirements for Dems to demand as part of an "end game" to Nero Jr's illegal acts.
Posted by euzoius at January 22, 2006 04:28 PMArticles of Impeachment:
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 04:34 PMWhen are you guys gonna give it a rest.
When they cart my ass off to the campms that when I give it a rest you fucking traitor.
Posted by rlp at January 22, 2006 04:44 PMNew Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as ‘Domestic Terrorism’ (12/20/2005)
Additional Documents Indicate FBI Scrutiny of Anti-war Gathering
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html
Now tell me again how all this is legal.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 04:50 PMRip, you may be closer than you think to that camp.
Given the fact that the threshold for obtaining warrants from the FISA court is extremely low, and the court has refused only a handful of such requests, generally granting them within a few hours, the decision of the Bush administration to proceed independently indicates that it deliberately sought to establish a precedent for unchecked presidential powers.
It also indicates an intention to target people so clearly without terrorist links that warrants might be difficult to obtain even from the compliant FISA court—including Americans whose only “crime” is political opposition to the war and other government policies.
By the logic of his arguments and actions, there is nothing to prevent Bush, as commander in chief, from suspending Congress altogether and ruling by decree. Under such conditions, the wire taps and data bases would be used to round up political opponents en masse.
--------------------------------------------------
I am beginning to wonder if the Democratic Party really is the Party of the people. This is pretty harsh, but difficult to turn away from.
The Democratic Party, from its refusal to expose the conspiracy behind the Clinton impeachment, to its acceptance of a stolen election in 2000, to its collusion in covering up the facts surrounding 9/11, to its collaboration in the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq has demonstrated conclusively its indifference to democratic rights. Whatever its tactical differences with the Bush administration, the Democratic Party fundamentally defends the drive of US imperialism for global domination, with all of its brutal implications for the American people and the entire world.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/bush-d19.shtml
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 04:57 PMJudith,
Thanks for the links.
The way I look at it, and I wrote this on Low and Left a while back, here in the blogs we're all canaries in the coal mine for each other. If the people that we're used to reading start disappearing then indeed the camps are literal and not just figerative. And yes, I expect some kind of bogus tie in between the blogs and the 'wor on tarra" before the midterm leections are due in November. Carpy did have one thing right, Bush I tried to use the war on drugs to centralize power in his hands. Bush II is certianly his father's son.
Posted by rlp at January 22, 2006 05:29 PMThanks rlp, its nice to recieve your "left-handed" compliment.
I'm trying to do my taxes, a Government intrusion into my privacy that dwarfs your whiny complaints about the NSA. If we had the fair tax, then my private books and life would be truely private, and all of these people working "under the table" would be paying taxes. Plus the cheating would be killed....but that another matter.
I must say that I'm totally amused by how you guys haven't responded to my posts about the SAME EXACT POSTS OF DESPAIR that liberals from 14 years ago posted.
That predictions from then ring true today. Woe is me, woe is me....
oh, and judith, (only one judith that time) perhaps liberalism is by its very nature a negative whiny lifestyle that encourages hate.
Oh another example of how liberals hate america
PROTESTING AT WALTER REED ARMY HOSPITAL...
I'll keep you apprised of my future examples. I just wish you would have renounced some of those I mentioned earlier, because your silence is deafening.
Carp,
What the fuck are you doing here?
Why don't you go to the freeper site and spew your shit where it is welcome?
Posted by Vinnie at January 22, 2006 06:00 PMPROTESTING AT WALTER REED ARMY HOSPITAL...
Yup. Protesting why they hide these guys under the cover of night. Yup. And protesting the fucks like you who support the cause that put them there. Oil. Black gold. Texas tea. All about oil. You're lousy with it. You reek of it.
And the pretzledent gets 15 days free spying after a war resolution. He was doing it before the war resolution. He lied about doing it, said there were only thirty instances, then changed his story again. Damn, if only it would have been lying about a blowjob. You seem to be able to wrap your brain around that one.
Posted by phidipides at January 22, 2006 06:12 PMBesides the issues raised so far, I'd also suggest two wild cards: David Addington and Karl Rove. I understand it is Addington who has relentlessly pushed Bush to use signing statements to undercut, if not subvert, the constitutional authority of Congress. Since he's not under any threat of indictment, like Rove, I don't see how Addington would ever counsel Bush to admit error of any kind to Congress. It would seriously undercut their unitary executive legal theory.
As for Rove, he actually might push Bush to work with Congress if Rove thinks he can tar Democrats as weak on national security in the upcoming election. However, Rove may be indicted and, if so, in theory he would be out of the picture.
Personally, I would not give an inch to the bastards in the White House. It's one thing if this were their only error, and if it had been made in good faith. But from Risen and others, it is clear that Bush lied about when this NSA spying started, soon after he became President and not when he said, after 9/11.
Add in Abu Ghraib and the arrogant incompetence of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and leaving our national security exposed to Iran and North Korea as well as domestic terror acts like blowing up chemical plans and ports, and I say f* them. As Chimpy says, bring it on. Let's have a real debate about the nature of our Constitution and what it means in a time of war. It's long past time.
Posted by Fred at January 22, 2006 06:47 PMDamn, if only it would have been lying about a blowjob. You seem to be able to wrap your brain around that one.
Posted by phidipides at January 22, 2006 06:12 PM
******
Heh
Phidipides, that is almost allusion that something intelligent comes out of Carpes hole.
Heh
Posted by Anjha at January 22, 2006 06:48 PM"I'll keep you apprised of my future examples. I just wish you would have renounced some of those I mentioned earlier, because your silence is deafening."
Carp, go to the Open Comment section and read my response. Unlike you, I don't take six weeks to answer a question or respond to an inquiry. Furthermore, I didn't ask the question to get into a pissing contest with you. I originally asked the question because I truly could not understand how you arrived at that conclusion, and I wanted to know. You have finally answered the question, none of which I agree with, but that's just the liberal in me.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 07:03 PMYeah crappy, paying taxes is a fate worse than having your illegally privacy violated by the government. Good to see that you have your priorities straight.
BTW, I bet I pay more in taxes that a non-lawyer like you do.
Posted by rlp at January 22, 2006 07:13 PMThat's "privacy illegally violated" of course.
Posted by rlp at January 22, 2006 07:14 PMRip, what we all forgot was when Bush said that the war against terrorists was the first war of the 21 Century, he meant those within the US that he deems terrorists, as well as those outside of the US. If PETA is a terrorist organization, then I also wonder if he is spying on Pro-Life Groups also.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 07:19 PM"The way I look at it, and I wrote this on Low and Left a while back, here in the blogs we're all canaries in the coal mine for each other."
Rip, I have had the same thought. At least we will know when the time to "disappear" has come before anyone else in the Country (if we don't disappear first as you suggested). However, with the scrutiny at Airports anymore, we may not be free to leave this Country.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 07:24 PMWorse yet, I have a very famous name. I don't have a chance.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 07:27 PMLet's have a real debate about the nature of our Constitution and what it means in a time of war. It's long past time.
Posted by Fred at January 22, 2006 06:47 PM
****
Unfortunately, Fred, the wrong wing won't debate about that. They will digress the argument to how Bush is protecting us against terrorists. See Crappy's arguments as an example. That's how they muddy the argument. When you remind them that Bush already has that power under FISA, they go to point #2. Clinton did it, too, which is bullshit, but they have muddied the argument to where you are defending Clinton and by that time, as I say, the argument has digressed. Classic bob and weave. Crappy is especially adept at it.
Posted by sf at January 22, 2006 07:46 PMUnfortunately, Fred, the wrong wing won't debate about that. posted by sf
*******
sf, I figured it out. The only facts they believe - no matter how much supporting evidence, charts and graphs and irrefutable proof and imperical evidence - are things stated by dur leedur. It is not a "fact" to the trolls, unless Bu$hCo says it.
Spooky, huh?
Posted by Anjha at January 22, 2006 07:56 PMFrom Steve: Fein argues that if after the Congress, and especially the Democrats afford the White House the chance at the hearings to seek authority and admit to going overboard, the White House instead says "forget it, you aren’t relevant here", then the Democrats are in a much better position to drum up issues for 2006 and impeachment discussions.
I'm reminded of John Murtha's interview last Sunday night on '60 Minutes.' He was asked why he hadn't gotten more support from top Dem's like Clinton, Kerry, etc.
He said he thought they were afraid - that they felt they could still 'think' their way through to a solution in Iraq.
I watched Bruce Fein testify before the Conyers Commission last Friday - and while I have a lot of respoect for his views - this idea of a 'trap' is another example of being too clever (or cute) by a half.
It would be much more effective and simple to take a stand and say these actions are immoral, against the democratic and American spirit, and most of all illegal.
Lies and liars have to be called out in simple, direct language. Bravo John Murtha.
Posted by Jim Faith at January 22, 2006 07:58 PMUnfortunately, Fred, the wrong wing won't debate about that. posted by sf
*******
sf, I figured it out. The only facts they believe - no matter how much supporting evidence, charts and graphs and irrefutable proof and imperical evidence - are things stated by dur leedur. It is not a "fact" to the trolls, unless Bu$hCo says it.
Spooky, huh?
Posted by Anjha at January 22, 2006 07:56 PM
****
Their hatred of "liberals" supercedes such things as rational, factual debate. Facts are just annoyances to parse and twist. When you say spooky, yes, but even worse than that. There's no point to engage them, it's impossible to defeat their blindness. When you present empirical evidence and factual debate, they always esort to "Try winning some elections,huh" or some such nonsense as if that validates their argument.
Posted by sf at January 22, 2006 08:10 PMDear rlp, I'll show you mine if you show me yours....1040's that is. Whatever you pay, even if more than I, its too much for what services we recieve. A fair sales tax would be more equitable.
As to Vinnie's question. . . . why am I around here?
Very good question, so I'll ask in light of the earlier comments about me and my need for a blow job...which I might add, I'm not denying...
I think that without trolls this list would turn into a 'circle jerk'. Yes one big circle jerk. You guys feed off of us trolls you would sufficate if weren't for us. (and I don't mean a circle jerk in the wholesome family way, I mean in the perverted way.)
And finally, I'll say this...
We live in a world that has blogs, you need us on those blogs, you want us on these blogs, you need me on this blog. , , , I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man/woman who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the freedom of speech that I help provide, and then question the manner in which I blog it.I would rather you pick up a laptop and write your comments in this blog, either way I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
yes, Steve it is really me crapface..err, crappy, err oh carpediem. so don't go checking my IP again.
Col. Jessup,
Every type of tax has its own bias. Sales taxes are highly regressive because the poor spend almost all of their income to survive, whereas an income tax can be made progressive, so that those who can afford to pay more do. Currently, our income tax is scewed to be regressive in that the wealthest 1% making over 250k a year do not pay as much as working people. Dispite this, the fact that an income tax can be reformed and made progressive leads me to prefer that the income tax be the main source of government revenue.
Posted by rlp at January 22, 2006 09:05 PMCarp, you are quite wrong if you think we want you here, or need you here, because we do not. In fact, your arrogance is overwhelming.
If you, as a conservative, neo-con, right-winger, or fundamentalist, whichever you are, were here to actually debate or discuss the differences we have, it would be fine. However, your steady drum beat of Bush is always right and we are all haters of America, turns off any civil discourse rather quickly. You know damn well that Bush has done things, that if it were a Democrat, you would be screaming. However, instead of saying that you cannot defend an action, you defend it until it becomes ridiculous. If you don't agree with us on the NSA, then fine. You have a right to your opinion, but you not only disagree with us, you attack us for not agreeing with you. No Carp, we do not need you here. Our discussions would be just fine without you, and we would probably stay on the subject better. However, if you insist on invading a liberal Blog, then at least have enough respect to not call us haters of America.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 09:29 PMWhat is desperately missing from the discussion of WH overreaching is the fundamental theoretical nature of their conduct. This is not a one-time misstep--this is a deliberate and systematic flouting of laws. It is based on some rather simple statements by Leo Strauss--and virtually every neo-con pol in WH is a Straussian--who essentially paraphrased Plato's Republic for the neo-con movement. In simplest terms, these people consider themselves outside the Cave and therefore not subject to the laws of the Cave. Their view is that Congress is simply a bunch of peons who have no idea how the world is run. They are meant to be ignored, no matter what the law says.
If you think this is a purely academic discussion that has nothing to do with actual politics, consider what Paul Wolfowitz is doing at the World Bank (check out, for example, TheWashingtonNote.com). Then go read some Strauss, and, finally, go back to The Republic. And don't forget that over the past five years, these bastards tried to convince us that the traitors are not the ones who break laws at the highest positions of trust, but those who expose the lawbreakers and lawbreaking to the public. It's not simply a slight of hand or a misdirection. They are genuinly upset--that some of THEM may be communicating with mere mortals, breaking the rule of the Cave. Those outside the Cave are supposed to rule through intermediaries and not interact with the peons.
Posted by buck turgidson at January 22, 2006 09:29 PMWhat is desperately missing from the discussion of WH overreaching is the fundamental theoretical nature of their conduct. This is not a one-time misstep--this is a deliberate and systematic flouting of laws. It is based on some rather simple statements by Leo Strauss--and virtually every neo-con pol in WH is a Straussian--who essentially paraphrased Plato's Republic for the neo-con movement. In simplest terms, these people consider themselves outside the Cave and therefore not subject to the laws of the Cave. Their view is that Congress is simply a bunch of peons who have no idea how the world is run. They are meant to be ignored, no matter what the law says.
If you think this is a purely academic discussion that has nothing to do with actual politics, consider what Paul Wolfowitz is doing at the World Bank (check out, for example, TheWashingtonNote.com). Then go read some Strauss, and, finally, go back to The Republic. And don't forget that over the past five years, these bastards tried to convince us that the traitors are not the ones who break laws at the highest positions of trust, but those who expose the lawbreakers and lawbreaking to the public. It's not simply a slight of hand or a misdirection. They are genuinly upset--that some of THEM may be communicating with mere mortals, breaking the rule of the Cave. Those outside the Cave are supposed to rule through intermediaries and not interact with the peons.
Posted by buck turgidson at January 22, 2006 09:29 PM
*****
Yes, Buck, you are correct. To refine your argument, it's arrogance and self-righteousness on the part of neo-cons that has me disturbed. There are many people on the right who feel this way, too. What did Brent Skowcroft say " Their not conservatives, there liberals with guns". It is a plan, manipulated and orchestrated, and carried out by minions like Crappy. And it's scary.
Posted by sf at January 22, 2006 09:56 PMWell written Buck. Your words are why I believe that no matter what Congress, or anyone else for that matter does, it will not stop this President and the goals of those behind the curtain. It is their skewed belief system that they are born to rule us bottom feeders, and therefore, like it or not, they will do what they want and when they want, and we have no right to question their rule. Try to stop then, and they will unleash hell on those who dare.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2006 10:16 PMSex Toys thanks alot for all the information http://sextoys.outride.com/