Goddamn it, now you're telling me I have to undertake a reappraisal of ASHCROFT of all things!?
Ah well, the facts are the facts.
And the reactionary right tells us we're overreacting to this little dictatorship thing.
Posted by euzoius at January 29, 2006 10:16 AMYou know what would be great? We should all support Hagel for president just to punish John Kerry for his IWR vote. Even if Kerry pulls off the Alito filibuster, and he's never going to do that, we should rub his nose in the dirt for ten lifetimes.
So what do you say? Let'd destroy any last shred of credibility we have and support Hagel for president! Yay!
(At the very least Hagel can get prominent mention on this site, while Kerry can't even get props when he does the right thing - which he promised he would do back in '04.)
Posted by Mr. Obvious at January 29, 2006 10:18 AMFor the record, the only thing I've ever slammed John Kerry for is his association with Mary Beth "Bug Eyes" Cahill, Bob "0 fer 8" Shrum, and Stephanie "Ubercunt" Cutter.
Hagel, on the other hand, is a BushCorp enabler and political opportunist of the worst stripe, a la McCain: All hat and no cattle. Plus, he's the ES&S guy, so that alone should tell you how he views honest elections.
Posted by God Of War at January 29, 2006 10:27 AMThe whole NSA program is illegal as hell... but this needs to be brought in a court of law, and not in some circus called a "hearing" where the Repugnanats are in charge. I fear all these "moderate" Repugs are coming out of the woodwork to smooth everything over. If Shrub broke the law-- and he did-- he needs to be impeached... not slapped on the wrist at some hearing. Have we learned nothing from the 911 "Commission" and Abu Graib investigation...
Posted by tjschill at January 29, 2006 10:54 AMIt's about power. Even (sane) republicans don't like having power previously theirs taken away by shrubCo.
Even Rove should have know better.
Posted by fly at January 29, 2006 10:58 AMUnilateraly authority?
Lets see the President has no unilateral authority outside what the legislative branch of Government gave him in writing the FISA law....hmmmmmmm....
So what authority does a President have in war time? Bilaterial authority with Congress, nooo Tri=lateral authority with the judiciary, and wait what about the DEMS they have no control over anything, they need a say in it too.
Have you ever heard of Commander and Chief? Should he ask Congress where to send Private Smith in "F" company stationed in Bagdah? Can he do anything without the complete oversight of the Congress? I'm not being rhetorical....
Now, I believe Bush has Unitary Authority to act within the confines of his presidential authority. Congress acts on its own all of the time... The question is what is his authority? Thats the debate, Bush says he has it, Democrats say he doesn't, but won't tell him to stop, and some Republicans "doubt" or "wonder" if he has it.
Again, I ask this over and over and over again...
If Bush is breaking the law, then you guys need to get Hillary and Kerry and Dean to stand up and say its illegal and he needs to stop NOW. STOP THE WIRETAPPING..
It seems that they are not against the wiretapping but only whether he gets a RUBBERSTAMP FROM THE FISA COURT. They say, only 5 warrants have ever been turned down in history, so that sounds like a Rubberstamp to me.
Something is wrong with FISA, but something is more wrong when you guys, I mean dem leadership, wont stand up and actually say what you are inferring. Instead, what you really, really mean is Bush is bad, bad, bad. He is a peeping tom, dont' vote for him, he's hitler.
How is a Rubberstamp Court anything but a symbol, nothing more?
Again, in my private practice of crim law. Warrants were applied for all the time. Depending on where you were at in the chain, determined how much you needed to get a warrant.
Local police, get a snitch to tell them about drugs, you call the magistrate, and he says, fine. Writes two notes, and thats it.
GBI- requires more detailed and Professional Summaries. Affadavits supporting documents supporting more and more junk. Finally, you can get a warrant.
FBI- a ton a paperwork is required with a chain of command. The feds are political tools so they are always watching to see if they are gonna get canned for doing something wrong, so they cross every T three times and dot every I fourteen times. Their work is impeccable. FBI agents spend 80% of their time behind a desk writing out memos rather than in investigating crimes.
FEDERAL NSA typically doesn't need warrants. But when FISA gets involved, dozens of attorneys have to approve, modify and then approve it. The paperwork for one wiretap takes hours and hours to produce.
I've worked in small town governments, local, and even State Governments, I've worked with the GBI and read many FBI reports. The level of paper work sky rockets the higher up the bueraucratic chain of command you go.
If FISA applies, it needs to be re-written to be somewhat less paper intensive and more effective in doing that which it is designed in doing and that is combating terrorism and crime.
Posted by carpediem at January 29, 2006 11:31 AMeuzoius, if it helps, you can say that Ashcroft was a wuss for bailing on the prez and his plans for dictatorship. Anyhow, he should never be forgiven for singing that awful song, ever. No need for reappraisal at all.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 29, 2006 11:35 AMNothing to see here, everyone just scroll past the troll, no matter how tempting it might be to correct a lie. As I said, it'll get more and more outrageous in an effort to tweak out a response. Fight it, you can do it, I believe in you all!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 29, 2006 11:38 AMCarpe:
Another reply by you that looks like it came from someone in a psych ward. Frankly, given the people who have spoken out against the NSA mess, and then comparing their education and backgrounds against that screed of yours above, I can only conclude that you are definitely a fringe character with moments of sanity, albeit too few such moments.
The point is that he hasn't been getting the warrants, when in fact his own administration argued that the FISA process wasn't too cumbersome back in 2002. Then, on top of that, his own DOJ recommended changes to the Patriot Act in 2003 that would have made what he was doing legal, a sure sign that the DOJ attorneys, as now evidenced by the Newsweek story, knew he was acting illegally as far back as 2003 and wanted the law changed to cover him.
They are hiding something, and yet the GOP wants everyone to believe falsely that the issue is that Democrats don't want terrorists to be monitored. That is an out and out lie, fostered by people who are trying to hide illegality and bully their way past another problem.
It may work on folks like you, who tragically have no problem with illegality when your guys are doing it to protect you from the big bad terrorists.
But I stopped wetting my bed years ago, and I stopped being afraid of Bin Laden the day Bush said Osama doesn't concern him anymore. If you want to cower in the corner and let Bush take away your rights, and those of Congress just so you won't be as afraid anymore, then go ahead.
But don't count me in. Unlike you, I know when I am being conned.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 29, 2006 11:46 AMSorry iamcoyote, I had to do it, just this last time.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 29, 2006 11:47 AMNow I know I just have to scroll over the longest thread post to avoid the bloviating.
Posted by Sharon at January 29, 2006 11:51 AMwell, well, well, yet another post encouraging our president not to do everything in his power to protect this country...
No wonder no one votes for the Democrat party anymore.
Let's try to make sure that Spector hauls all those lawyers before the Judiciary Committee to testify about their disagreements when the NSA hearings begin Feb. 6. That will be one of the best demonstrations of what Bush is doing wrong. Get those people up there--in front of cameras--even if subpoenas are necessary. We've GOT to start demonstrating all of this clsoet disagreement. Make them testify!
Charles
Posted by charles moore at January 29, 2006 12:07 PMwell, well, well, yet another post encouraging our president not to do everything in his power to protect this country...
No wonder no one votes for the Democrat party anymore.
Posted by AF ormer De mocrat at January 29, 2006 11:54 AM
*****
What he's doing IS NOT is his power, dumbfuck.
BTW, if CrappyShittoungue really is a criminal defense lawyer, its no wonder our prisons are overflowing.
Posted by God Of War at January 29, 2006 12:09 PMwell, well, well, yet another post encouraging our president not to do everything in his power to protect this country...
He doesn't need Steve's encouragement. As OBLs latest press release shows, he(Bush) is able to do very little to nothing all by himself.
Consider yourself punked you lying little bitch.
And I am tired of having to he(Bush) everything becuase you idiots have no comprehension skills.
Fight it, you can do it, I believe in you all!
I have taken the pledge!
Posted by at January 29, 2006 12:13 PMCharles has a good point. These lawyers are ready to talk, on the record. As are people like Hagel and Specter. This thing just will not go away, thank goodness.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 29, 2006 12:17 PMThat's okay, Steve, take it from me, quitting trolls is almost as hard as quitting smoking! Almost.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 29, 2006 12:18 PMFrom a current controversial movie: Garden manure fish: "I wish I knew how to quit you". By hiring blog-cloggers,at least we know Rove recognizes the power of blogs.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 29, 2006 12:51 PMOh I can't wait for the hearings! Please haul every LLL Lawyer, protestor, and detractor up to capital hill an let them vent before the committee for as long as they want. I welcome the chance to put on display the full fledged moonbats in their entire splendor. I hope that this is done as close to the midterm elections as possible so the American people can make a clear decision on which are the adults in this debate and vote accordingly.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at January 29, 2006 12:56 PMhagel is a snake, but probably has at least a little sympathy for retianing some power in the legislative branch. especially with such an unpopular president.
Posted by benjoya at January 29, 2006 01:03 PMbenjoya, I was wondering what it would take for some of the 'pukes to find their breaking point. This just may be it.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 29, 2006 01:14 PMLet our wingnut friends continue to believe that the all fear, all the time campaign is working.Gallup of all posters says that it's not.
Posted by rlp at January 29, 2006 01:19 PMHagel is probably trying to set himself up for a run in 08
Posted by bbtb at January 29, 2006 01:26 PMPlease haul every LLL Lawyer, protestor, and detractor up to capital hill an let them vent before the committee for as long as they want. I welcome the chance to put on display the full fledged moonbats in their entire splendor.
Why stop there? I welcome the chance to get George W. Bush under oath, a condition he avoids like it was somehow dangerous to him, and ask him a couple of questions under penalty of perjury.
After all, if asking Bill Clinton questions about his sex life under penalty of perjury is reasonable, SARGE (Hey, I was E-5 myself), surely a guy like George would be proud, in fact, would DEMAND to testify under oath, because like all the patriotic Americans who want their phones to be tapped to protect us from the boogeyman, he has nothing to hide.
But I digress. What I really meant to say is that George W. Bush is a cowardly, lying, criminal sack of shit who owes his second term to Osama Bin Laden. He is OBL's biggest fan, because without him, Bush would be clearing brush on a ranch in Texas -- someone else's, for minimum wage, and Jack Abramoff would not be returning his calls.
Posted by Repack Rider at January 29, 2006 01:28 PMI know it's some crazy tin foil hat shit...but did anyone know that when OBL message came out, 1/19, it's 9/11 in reverse. Sick, perverse shit if bu$h was in on it
Posted by bbtb at January 29, 2006 01:34 PMSo what authority does a President have in war time? … Posted by carpediemThe Constitution merely states "Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" Contrary to your ideology, it does not grant supreme unchecked executive power. The Constitution is an interesting document. It makes three co-equal branches of government. You should read it some time.
The Unitary Executive power is nonsense. Republicans now believe a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Only anti-Democratic right wing nutjobs think the president can make law and even then is above all law.
Some people would assume a crime has been committed without proof and without an examination of exactly what is being done. That won't wash in today's political environment. Saying that something is a crime without being able to prove the same is crying "the sky is falling" and, if incorrect, merely serves to enable worse acts in the future.
You may not know, but the Democrats do NOT have subpoena power and cannot call committee hearings. You are either clueless or a fool. Without such power, they cannot examine what you Dear Leader has been doing behind closed doors.
I welcome the chance to put on display the full fledged moonbats in their entire splendor. …Posted by Cyber Sarge
tin foil hat homey: The London subway was bombed on 11-9, Jack Cafferty was the only MSM member to mention it. Arabs have been "playing" with numbers for thousands of years. Still no rain.
Beautify America: Scroll past a troll.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 29, 2006 02:54 PMScroll past a troll.
Patent that! As GOW would say!!
TIKI AL, I got this numbers bug from masonic numerology. They are big on odd numbers. It's an American thing.
curious, sent a link last week on a Ghost Troop link. Anyway, I followed it and I ended up into all kinds of conspiracies.
In fact just google masonic numerology and you'll get a whole bunch of weird coincidences (?).
Keep pushing this line of thought, boys and girls. Some of the talking heads on today's news programs were hinting that there is precedent for President Bush's actions.
But, more importantly, when the enemy (radical Islamicism) is within the borders of the US and using cellular technology to communicate with enimies outside of the US -- contact information taken from Sheikh Khalil Mohammed's (sp?) laptop, and further information extrapolated from that information -- the American people will not support your efforts.
Again, you Lefties climb aboard a dead horse and (will) wonder why it does not move however hard you spur it's flanks. (Remember Fitzmas?)
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 05:42 PMBy the way, as I posted a couple of months ago, it appears as though Mother S has taken her show into the International arena: how will this support the "progrssive's" cause?
P.S. I am anxious to learn how much her fee was for pimping her son's corpse in the service of Hugo Chavez.
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 07:22 PMBeautify America: Scroll past a troll.
That's as good as RATS.
Posted by at January 29, 2006 07:30 PMSemi-OT, but nonetheless, has anyone considered that in both Canada and among the Palestinians, leaders were elected in direct reaction to cronyism and corruption within the ruling party? Democrats need to keep that in mind with the midterm elections and the 2008 presidential election. We will be seeing more criminal trials in the next couple of years with people closely aligned with the Republican party (Skilling, Lay, Abramoff.) We will see more investigation into crony appointments by Bush and more investigation into corruption (Fitzgerald's on-going investigation and whoever Abramoff gives up.) I hope the Democrat leaders are paying close attention to what people in other countries are saying through their elections.
Posted by ann at January 29, 2006 07:42 PMIt's great to see that we are finally stopping the mentally disabled trolls from sabotaging these threads. Maybe ignoring the trolls will encourage them to take their immature childish brainwashed comments to another site.
Posted by smooth at January 29, 2006 08:15 PMann, I hope so!
I was doing some more reading on Dobson at wiki; all the democratic senators voting no, who are up for re-election in 06 were threatened by Dobson. It claims that he will fight their re-election, coincidence, I think not. He has a mighty big base and is the same guy who cut a deal with Salazar.
I sure would have liked to have seen him hauled in front of congress to testify on what he and turdblossom talked about.
"It's great to see that we are finally stopping the mentally disabled trolls from sabotaging these threads. Maybe ignoring the trolls will encourage them to take their immature childish brainwashed comments to another site."
Ignore the other side of the argument at your own peril. Insult those who point out the disagreemnts at your own peril....
Oh, never mind. Wake up one morning and realize just how marginalized you really are....priceless!
"... at wiki...."
An authoratative source......funny, very,very funny!
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 08:36 PMThis Newsweek article provides a detailed account of how white house lawyers fought cheney's bulldog, david addington, to stop the administration from breaking existing laws. Finally, the ethical lawyers, that tried to protect the constitution were driven out of the administration by cheney’s fascist criminals.
Posted by smooth at January 29, 2006 08:56 PM"... cheney’s fascist criminals."
So much for reasonable discourse. So much for the "reality-based" community.
I think that I will buy stock in the companies that manufacture tinfoil....and anti-depressants.
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 09:03 PMI think that I will buy stock in the companies that manufacture tinfoil....and anti-depressants.
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 09:03 PM
****
I think that would be good for you Bagley, since you are obviously a current and future consumer of both.
Posted by sf at January 29, 2006 09:57 PM"Quitting trolls"? "Scroll past the trolls"? What that really means is that your response comes from a really weak position. Much easier to ignore.
Posted by Hank at January 30, 2006 04:31 AMBush only talks about healthcare, now that there's an election on the horizon. The stock market would love to handle all those health account transactions. Last year, despite the flat stock market, Goldman-Sachs paid out BILLIONS in bonuses. Its the transaction fees, stupid.
Conserve Energy: Scroll Below A Troll.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 30, 2006 10:41 AM