Raising the Issue of Impeachment

Posted by MASK 12/20/2005 @ 3:14pm

Feingold's in the Senate. You probably know that. What you don't know is how impeachment works.

It's interesting how you attacked me as "far left" for criticism of the moderate to right in the Democratic Party and now you're attacking the moderate to right in the Democratic Party for not being "far left" enough. Your earlier claim that you voted for Bill Clinton is . . . how could I put it delicately . . h-i-i-gh-ly suspect.

You often say that your only interest is "the truth" but "the truth" is always related to Democrats, never Republicans, and it is often something other than the truth with the balance usually falling into the category of highly-attenuated reasoning.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 01:34am

Representative Conyers is the left's buffoon and everybody knows it except him. His biggest fans are the total lunatics at Democratunderground.com which tells you who his base is.

Posted by PBSSSMITH 12/20/2005 @ 4:06pm

Yeah, he could have been a buffoon and grandstander like John Conyers. Or, John Conyers could have been "disingenuous" like Jay Rockefeller.

Republicans are the biggest bargeful of horse manure that ever floated down the Potomac.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 01:44am

The illegal domestic spying by the Bush Reich is clearly an impeachable offense. It is at least as bad as Nixon, if not worse. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 allows the government to intercept communications NOW and justify it to a secret judge later. That is more than flexible enough to allow the government to respond quickly to special circumstances. But that is not good enough for the Bush Reich. They don't want to have to justify their domestic spying to ANYBODY. They have disdain for the concept of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. They have disgust for the Fourth Amendment. When Bush signed the illegal orders to spy on U.S. citizens, he commited a criminal act. But the Republicans controlling Congress have more loyalty to their party than the Constitution. And so there will be no impeachment, no justice.

Posted by PHILBQ 12/20/2005 @ 4:47pm

You're getting warmer. They don't want to justify it later because of the simple reason that there is no justification for who they're spying on. You can bet there's a lot more worms in this can than anyone has guessed yet. Does anyone really think that the Republicans have exercised the least restraint when they could listen to anyone they wanted to and they thought no one would ever know?

Christ! Look at Tom Delay and Randy Cunningham. They were holding a sidewalk bake sale and the creampie was America.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 01:54am

FROMRED

Few points-

1. I DO know where "Senator" Feingold is. My point was there were no high-ranking Democrats in either legislative body supporting Rep. Conyers.

Just because articles of impeachment or a bill of censure starts in the House, doesn't mean a Senator cannot join with the Representative to endorse it. (Considering that the Senate is where the trial would be....See, I CAN remember back just 8 years!)

2. My "attack" on the "moderate to right" of the Democrats wasn't their stance on the issues. It was pointing out that IF THIS WAS SERIOUS, they'd be part of it. The fact it is Conyers alone (along with left pundits like Mr Nichols) shows that it is NOT serious.

And given the loathing of Bill Clinton by many on the Left (including many writers of "The Nation"), for his "triangulation" (i.e. selling out of the Dems & liberals)....I'm not sure why you are suspect of me voting for him. Why WOULDN'T I vote for a guy who gave us welfare reform (almost totally the GOP model), said "the era of Big Government is over", yet also gave us TWO pro-choice USSC Justices.

If we could get another Bill in the WH and 90s-brand Republicans in Congress (not the free spenders we have now)....I'd be a LOT happier.

3. If the "truth" is that Bush broke the law...impeach him. But the reason I'm a bit dubious about this, is because we've heard it SO many times before...and for "serious crimes" they tend to fizzle out (as THIS one appears to be doing now, with the revelations about Clinton and Carter) and then the "next bright, shiny object" "scandal" starts up a few weeks later and then THAT one is "the one that will bring down Bush".

But if you'd like some examples of analogous Republican silliness that I've criticized on other blogs....I thought the whole Terri Schiavo thing was hypocritical and stupid; I thought Clinton's impeachment was both stupid legally and politically; I OPPOSED the Bush USSC justice nominees (including John Roberts...something "The Nation's" beloved Russ Feingold didn't do!); and I find their pork-barrel spending an ideological sell-out.

If someone on "The Nation" wants to write on those...they'll get my full support on their blogspot.

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 07:25am

Interesting what is taken to be a crisis or a scandel, is it not, as it covaries with which party occupies the executive branch? All through the 1990s, rightwingers were apoleptic and apeshit over one alleged Clintonian assault on the Republic after another. Political crisis weather was conjured. Consider: During the 1990s, the public was exposed to endless hearings, handwringing, beard-pulling, junk lawsuits, editorial fist-waving on ... on what? A land deal in some backwater in which the Clintons got screwed and were subsequently exonerated of anything improper by 1995? A steaming load of semen blown in manly fashion onto a blue dress? A troubled aid who, tragically, killed himself in a park, travel office workers canned? This was part of the climate of crisis that furnsihed mood music for a stab at a constitutional coup against the twice-elected executive. The biggest FEMA scandel of the era? Whether Al Gore had correctly remembered on which particular occasion he had toured a particular disaster area with the agnecy's director; this "scandel" one had rightwingers shitting their pants and smearing the resultant "war-paint" on their faces, in fury. Or this one: The big military scandel of circa 2000 was ... (drum roll) .. whether the US military hats were being producedin the People's Republic of China. Seems rather quaint at the moment, does it not? In any event, rightwingers intellectual docility was embarrassing and total as they devoted the decade to having ritualistic seizures over these events of distinctly negligable import. But an atmosphere of crisis was partly accomplished.

And here, in the following decade? In contrast with Gore losing track of a trivial detail about it, FEMA's dysfunction is an internationally recognized disgrace starting with the Bush-appointed syccophant who behaved as it if disaster relief was a sinecure, Halliburton siphons billions off the public in outlandish billing, the biggest foreign policy disaster in the Republic's history is now in motion having been enabled by bald-faced lies, government workers are leaked on, the prelude to 9/11 ("Didn't have to happen"-Thomas Keane) was yawned at...and, subsequently, in a slap at the victims, the yawning at the incipient 9/11 plot by a complacent Bush team is now yawned at. And the rightwingers' response? Is there a crisis? Hell, no! Stay the course! Salute our flag! Get the ouji board out and seance with Vincent Foster! Save the Shavio people from ... from ... something liberal! Now! Nothing is awry except in the imaginations of those who disagree with us (and who, strangely, always have evidence for what they posit in contrast with the George Romero-esque subliterate zombies who cut and paste the fecaloid scribblings of York, Coulter, and Moonie-employed drunkards).

Where their favourite causes are concerned, rightwingers jerk off about fetuses and the chronically braindead (i.e., Ms. Shaviao) because their chosen "hero/es" can never talk back to them. If she could have lifted her head, Terri may have said, "Shut the fuck up, rightwing nuts, I'm not the instrumentalized mouthpiece for your retrograde lunges at authority, now let me drift off in peace". Stem cells also qualify since they are similarly docile, by (evolution-driven) design. But we are not, as we kick cowardly rightwingers back into the ashbin of history where they belong, and cleanse the streets of the town of their thuggish violence ...

Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 12/21/2005 @ 09:59am

Mask,

Are you really saying that because there have been so many accusations that it makes you less suspicious? Rove, Libby, DeLay, Cunningham, spying, cronyism, questionable intelligence distribution, etc., etc., and the more that gets revealed makes you more convinced that things are just peachy?

In terms of the Carter and Clinton situations, I'd like to find out (and will do a little investigating) to see what the laws at the time were, if the proper channels that existed at the time were followed, and the outcomes. And if there was warrantless, baseless spying of American citizens on American soil that circumvented the legal apparatus at the time, then I would be pissed. However, I have to believe that if, at least in the Clinton case, there were any legitimate concerns, the attack dogs in Congress would never have let it go - seeing as how they had to resort to lying (by Bill) about a blowjob to finally pin something on Bill.

Posted by Turk33 at 12/21/2005 @ 09:59am

Comments for "Raising the Issue of Impeachment"

What ever...

Impeach away oh ye homoerectus-democratis!

While you are spending time doing that, hopefully Bush will be continuing to prosecute the war on terror.

Grats Bush and crew on helping Iraq have their first governmental elections, keep up the great work.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 10:09am

TURK

Are you really saying that because there have been so many accusations that it makes you less suspicious?

Ahem...."Travel-gate", "File-gate", "Alma Arkansas Drug-running-gate", "Vince Foster 'Murder'-gate", "Kathleen Willey-gate", "Juanita Brodrick-gate", etc., etc.

All turned up NOTHING...and ALL we were told by the Clinton-hating Right were going to "finally bring Him and Her to justice".

So, sorry if I'm a little cynical about "Rove-gate", "Libby-gate", "Air Guard Service-gate", "NSA Spying-gate"...and claims by the Bush-hating Left.

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 10:19am

We've been beaten down too long to get particularly excited about any new revelation that may cause problems for Bush Inc.

All of us on the progressive side of the aisle have to admit that nothing will happen to this bunch when the overwhelming majority of what should be our base(working class types, like me,) don't care, don't know, and don't want to be bothered. Bad news is not on their list. They have enough to worry about in paying their bills(most are mortgage poor), picking up the kids, paying the daycare...blah..blah..blahhh... Do any of you elitist leftists who habitually write on this blog think there is any chance in hell that this country will change?

I write my right wing Republican Congressman down here in the great state of Florida. That is what I have been told to do to voice my concerns about the direction this country has gone. And what is the outcome ? A nice courteous form letter kindly disagreeing with my views. Whoopdee friggin doo! And he always has to end the letter with the " May God Continue to Bless America" line just to rub his disagreement in my face. And now I probably have to be concerned about being on some security " watch list " since I do write occasionally and give money to progressive organizations.

As I see it, until the military/industrial economy is broken or somehow diffused, nothing will ever change. The wingers have won. They have sufficiently brainwashed my "working class types" into not caring..or being angry with anyone who brings out a negative vibe. Throw in a dose of religion and good old macho ,feel good patriotism(in the guise of world dominance)and our side has lost. My guys only care about the wife, kids, getting drunk on weekends, and Sunday's game. They can not be penetrated. Any of you great New York Libs have any ideas on how to mobilize the masses ? I really need some ideas down here in the trenches.

Posted by wjfalcone at 12/21/2005 @ 10:24am

Every story and every event and all here run to the trough of impeachment. Amazing,...It is like a pavlovian response....anything happens with Bush, and it is impeachment.

The truth of the matter is most people don't give a rats ass about the spying issue unless it is their life being spied upon. At times of conflict I don't care if we spy on anyone or everyone who may be a terroist suspect. If we are wrong, then let them sue.

But when it comes down to a terrorist plot being stopped and the civil rights of a terrorist, I vote for screwing his rights. After all the ACLU will always sue for him. I am surprised the left hasn't represented Bin Laden yet and sued Bush for illegalitys not yet thought of...

The same goes for torture,...American rights are fought and paid for in American blood and are sacred. But for someone who has knowledghe about an event as 9/11 and can be pressured into talking, then make him talk. The protection of my rights won't mean shit if I go up in a mushroom cloud...especially one that may have been prevented,and doubly especially if the bomber is doing "God's" work,...... but was not because of ethical and intelecual giants like Reid..

This not a right wing opinion, but rather my own opinion, as everytime I return here to read, it is the same old story from Corn, et al and the same old response from the usuall suspects,...impeach...right wingers eating the constitution and endangering the world, Haliburton...

Win an election with your honest plans and people like me will listen, but for now, it is all emotional hysterics, as will soon follow my post.....

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 10:38am

WF,

"They have sufficiently brainwashed my "working class types" into not caring..or being angry with anyone who brings out a negative vibe. "

Ever stop to think it is YOU who is brainwashed, and all thre idiotic people you describe, have actually looked at your position and decided they are crap? Does the left have a message or a plan other than impeach Bush? Any thing other than NEGATIVE stories or opinions from the left(MSM). You are the negative ones..

Maybe they are smarter than you give them credit and as seems to be the left and progressive position(kook to many)that when ever they lose at the ballot box that somehow the voters were stupid and not voting there interests or they were cheated..it happens continuiously...take a second look at your reponse to elections....

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 10:45am

MASK,

You should explain why Conyer's investigation of the Downing Street Memo was "laughable." Laughable because he held it in the only available space allowed him by the GOP Majority? Laughable because you don't approve of him overturning those stones?

If you judge a person's performance based solely upon their venue then you probably will miss a very many great goings on in the world. After all, do we judge soldiers by the color of the uniform they wear or the cause they fight for?

Posted by hhemwm at 12/21/2005 @ 10:48am

John Maasch,

I would offer that the GOP's relentless investigation of President Clinton moved our country in the direction of "if you don't approve of the president, impeach him."

Personally, I think there is much this president and his administration need to account for and so I, for one, favor these investigations. However, it is sad to see how we have become so polarized and that everything has become a turf war. And you cannot say that responsibility for that lies solely with the Democrats. The GOP went to war with Clinton from the minute he entered office. And what exactly did they uncover?

Posted by hhemwm at 12/21/2005 @ 10:52am

Bird,

"Christ! Look at Tom Delay and Randy Cunningham. They were holding a sidewalk bake sale and the creampie was America."

Christ, look at thr Lincoln BVedroom, the idiot Al Gore at the monks shrine getting shopping bags of cash from group of avowed poverty monks, oh, and don't forget the Loral contract that gave Chia a 50 years leap on encryptic launch technology so Clinton could get more $ for re election. The list is endless...

Christ, wake up! You sound and post as if all the money and deals started with Bush...it is as old as man and agreements.

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 10:52am

Rio:

'The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

Perhaps it would behoove you to read and comprehend before you post. Does "homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers" equate to American Citizens, in America? Try to get it right the first time Rio. Your ignorance shines , as always.

Posted by doumer at 12/21/2005 @ 10:57am

HH,

You may indeed be correct, but Clinton was his own worst enemey. Dumb shit lied on taped and then with that what ever "is" means..my god............like Nixon, the truth would have saved him and us..Yes, I got a BJ from Monica and I should have done in the living quarters..it is my personal business and I am sorry you are involved. Case closed, after all,I am married to Hillary. Most people understand.

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 11:00am

Wait, wait...sshhhhh....just pretend it's all ok...sshhh... ahhh...more soma, thank you.

Ka-boom.

Posted by Flarney at 12/21/2005 @ 11:04am

WJFALCONE,

I've got an idea that'll motivate your masses. Accuse the President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, keep the heat on, and get the filthy bastard to resign. That'll got some folks' attention. Sure as hell worked in 1973.

Posted by MyParadigm at 12/21/2005 @ 11:07am

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 10:52am

John!

It only took you three posts to drag Clinton into a Gee Dubya discussion. But Mask still has you beat. He can generally do it in one post.

It's nice to see that you are adopting Rio's "If everybody else jumped off the bridge, then it's Ok that Gee Dubya took the plunge" argument.

From this and your earlier affirmation of torture and general lawbreaking , I guess we can assume the republican party no longer supports the rule of law, the US Constitution, etc.

Hey that would make a good campaign issue!

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 11:11am

Maasch:

Bird said:

"Christ! Look at Tom Delay and Randy Cunningham. They were holding a sidewalk bake sale and the creampie was America."

Can't you ever respond to a comment/opinion with your own take, staying within context.Bird made a point about Delay and Duke. You respond with shit about bedrooms, monks, Gore and Clinton. As you have not rebutted Bird's opinion, I will take it then, that you agree with Bird.

Good, you're coming around.

Posted by doumer at 12/21/2005 @ 11:18am

Mask writes,

Ahem...."Travel-gate", "File-gate", "Alma Arkansas Drug-running-gate", "Vince Foster 'Murder'-gate", "Kathleen Willey-gate", "Juanita Brodrick-gate", etc., etc. All turned up NOTHING...and ALL we were told by the Clinton-hating Right were going to "finally bring Him and Her to justice". So, sorry if I'm a little cynical about "Rove-gate", "Libby-gate", "Air Guard Service-gate", "NSA Spying-gate"...and claims by the Bush-hating Left.

Mask appears to have been imbibing from some rather hard-core postmodernism to a point far beyond intoxication. To wit, he is telling us that all claims against authority are equally with or without merit, that is all just noise in a great cacophony, a universal solvent of meaninglessness & equivalence, full of the proverbial sound and fury signifying nothing.

Mask, why do you not believe that it is possible, via rational investigation and argumentation, to discover which propositions are true, partly true with respect to given propositions, or false? On this view, the rightwingers devoted eight years to sliming the Clintons with junk law suits and media flak and they came up with nada; their evidence was considered and it amounted to nonsense on the order of congressmen shooting at watermelons in the backyard --- y'know to "simulate" Vincent Foster's "murder". I recommend David Brock's BLINDED BY THE RIGHT for the inside account of the nauseating right wing underworld of drunks and 'hos; creeps like Ted Olson did not even believe what they were peddling, as long as it maintained the heat on Clinton who was proving to be superior in governance to their own party in every regard. By contrast, consider the quantity of insiders --- people from establishment backgrounds that eschew publicity and criticism of the organizations that they devoted themselves to --- who have raised hair-on-fire alarm bells about the Bush team's strategies and practices; it is without precedent when people like Wilkerson speak of a government lacking in fundemental legitimacy.

Or do you insist on equating the testimony of a psychotic hack like Anne Coulter with people who have made careers of service (e.g., Richard Clarke), with all of the corroborating evidence on the ground that supports the position of the critics?

Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 12/21/2005 @ 11:28am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge has resigned from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-Domestic-Spying.html

And (old rubber hoses, drowning and electric wires)Chainy longs for the Dick Nixon years when fascists really had power man. And if we don't let BC have it-- they'll let the US get 911ed again! They're blackmailing the USA. BC let 911 happen and now they're using it to blackmail us into giving up our rights. And you know how blackmailers work; they're out to suck us dry.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - The limited oral briefings provided by the White House to a handful of lawmakers about the domestic eavesdropping program may not have fulfilled a legal requirement under the National Security Act that calls for such reports to be in written form, Congressional officials from both parties said on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21intel.html

Apparently trying not to leave any evidence of the crime isn't working. And Sin Pad Robbers keeps saying the same BS about dems ability to move leg on secret spying through repub controlled committees-- sure, that'll fly. Looks like the 'TIMES' are a changin'.

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 11:32am

Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 12/21/2005 @ 11:28am

Nicely said!

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 11:34am

John Maasch, or whatever the hell he is called, is more than a raving kook; he presents a species unfit for democracy. This John Maasch creature writes,

The truth of the matter is most people don't give a rats ass about the spying issue unless it is their life being spied upon. At times of conflict I don't care if we spy on anyone or everyone who may be a terroist suspect. If we are wrong, then let them sue. But when it comes down to a terrorist plot being stopped and the civil rights of a terrorist, I vote for screwing his rights. After all the ACLU will always sue for him.

It is embarrassing to have to say it, but: If someone is suspected of a crime, charge that person with a recognizable breach of the law and present the evidence. The laws are in place to enable the State to carry out its central function: Sheparding the resources to protect the populace. Has the US met this standard, John Maasch? As for torture: Once again, we see that rightwingers relate to reality through the dense and foggy medium of over-ripe fantasy, with child-like conflations between Chuck Norris movies and the world of brute reality. As for torture: Under this form of duress, people's heads get spun around and they will say ... whatever. Military intelligence is generally against it for this very practical reason, putting aside any further questions of rights and lawful conduct.

John Maasch, why don't you wipe the ejaculate off your hands and head to that paradise of the right-wing Statism that you so admire ... namely, take a hike to sunny Saudi Arabia. It would present an ideal locale for someone like you with your wierd right-wing fanatasies of what constitutes justice and law (for example, "accusation equals guilt"). Moreover, someone with your tendencies toward repressive de-sublimation would probably get off on stonings and knowing that woman could get their tits cut off if they were to get uppitty and display them. That show the bitches, right John Maasch?

John Maasch: he is of the species that viscerally "loves" (is primitively aroused by) and jerks off over violence and disorder (terrorist acts, for example) since it confirms with abundance his dark visions of humanity and provides cover for his gross and anti-social fantasies of torture, abusive incarceration, and the State crushing people rather than enforcing rights, among other hideous enterprises.

Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 12/21/2005 @ 11:50am

Actually Glenn...

"John Maasch: he is of the species that viscerally "loves" (is primitively aroused by) and jerks off over violence and disorder (terrorist acts, for example) since it confirms with abundance his dark visions of humanity and provides cover for his gross and anti-social fantasies of torture, abusive incarceration, and the State crushing people rather than enforcing rights, among other hideous enterprises."

You seemed to be the one getting very aroused as you were writing this.

Maybe you're the one who needs to wipe the ejaculate off of your hand.

But I digress....

Here's the bottom line Glenn.

Maasch is correct, in his premise that the majority of the public is "ok" with spying on suspected terrorists regardless of whether an authentic search warrant issued by a federal judge has been authorized or not, in the hopes that the spying will possibly keep said suspected terrorist from flying more planes into buildings and killing more innocent people.

I know I'm ok with it...

I have nothing to hide.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 12:10pm

The same goes for torture,...American rights are fought and paid for in American blood and are sacred. But for someone who has knowledghe about an event as 9/11 and can be pressured into talking, then make him talk.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 10:38am

And, if he doesn't have knowledge you'll find out when he dies or is maimed because he can't talk about something he doesn't know.

Even better, you'll feel validated when he just makes up what he thinks you want to hear to avoid the torture.

Or even better yet, it's a great tool for a corrupt government to get someone to say what they want them to say, re: the torture-manufactured lie that Saddam Hussein trained al-Qaeda in use of poison gas.

Seriously, JOHN MAASCH, do you honestly consider that your statements meet the minimum requirement to be either intelligent or moral?

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 12:11pm

HHMENW

The "laughable" part isn't so much Conyers held his "hearing" in a basement...but the fact that NONE of the Democratic leadership in Congress either....objected too strongly to his relegation to a basement....ATTENDED the "hearing"...or cared to respond to its findings.

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 12:11pm

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 16-18, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about George W. Bush."

........................Favorable............Unfavorable......Never Heard Of.....No Opinion

12/16-18/05............46 .........................53.....................-.............. ......1

7/25-28/05..............48..........................50.................. ...-....................2

4/1-2/05..................54.........................45................. .....-....................1

2/25-27/05...............56 .........................42.....................-....................2

2/4-6/05...................59..........................39 ...................-...................2

11/19-21/04..............60 .........................39.....................-..................1

But I keep reading it's poll numbers are moving up. Apparently depends on whom you're polling... My opinion can't get any lower of the Boo'sh't. (Since you've not seen it here before, the 't' has reemerged in it's name, was in hiding, the old inside out and upside down routine and being fake to boot, stands for texas 't'. Rather fitting I feel.)

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 12:12pm

Isn't it something? When the current levels of criminality- which defy credulity-are esposed, the argument from the "conservatives" and righties here is "it didn't start with Bush". Which, of course, makes it okay. When criticisms past conservative support of the thug Hussein are put out there, the line is " but he was on our side, and every government has to peform in such a manner". Realpolitik. And now, domestic spying is conducted to protect you and I from terrorists, and the line is national security.

So at the end of the day, all it comes back to for these "conservatives" is a question of who is able to seize and retain state power, and position in the world. No matter how cynical the program, how vicious its practice, how corrupt it is in essence. The first thing is power, which, as the right is always willing to demonstrate, comes out the barrel of a gun.

Posted by Legba at 12/21/2005 @ 12:15pm

John Maasch,

..."ever stop to think it is you who is brainwashed...looked at your position and decided they are crap"?

If I think that Social Security Benefits, Unemployment Comp, and Pell Grants(of which I needed to further my education) are pretty good programs that truly do help those in need...then call me brainwashed.

If I think that poor country white boys and inner city Blacks and Latinos are getting the shaft by believing their only economic choice in life is to join the military...then call me brainwashed.

I don't really think that the guys I know and am referring to "look at my position and decided they are crap". I have many a conversation(usually over a few beers) with those types(of which I am one). I am not belittled for a radical opinion. I've never really gotten that response.(They usually nod their heads in agreement before forgetting everything I said in the next days hangover.)I don't belittle the common folks for their brainwashing. It(brainwashing) is an on-going attack with governmental and media collusion. It is a pretty difficult beast to resist. That's why I pose the question of what can be done. The question is not posited towards you. It appears you think the system in place is just peachy. My opinion is that as long as we have the tremendous military expenditures and an enemy(now terrorists-formerly Communism)combined with a docile citizenry, the military/industrial beast will rule for many years. The losers are always the working class. And yes I do think the "enemies" are part creation.

And concerning MYPARADIGMS "high crimes and misdemeanors". Really matters to the average Joes with bills up ther asses working second jobs on weekends. Try listening to Lynnyrd Skynnyrd.."Watergate doesn't bother me, does your conscience bother you, tell me true."

Posted by wjfalcone at 12/21/2005 @ 12:17pm

GLENNC

Take ONE example from Clinton...."File-gate"....900 FBI files that "just happened" to end up at the White House via a "lone staffer's request" but wasn't part of any "attempt to intimidate the people the files concerned."

Would YOU accept that explanation from the BUSH Administration?

Would you have accepted FORGERIES showing that Clinton had faked his deferment?....now, any problem with Bill Burkitt and the CBS "Bush Air Guard-AWOL" story?

There IS analogy here....both sides, who HATE the President and could NOT defeat him electorally, trying to use "scandals" and not caring about the seriousness of them (as seen by their ABANDONMENT of the "charges" if it doesn't get enough press) and who ALWAYS claim that "This one, yea, THIS one will be THE ONE that brings down (insert Presidency here)!!!!"

And both sides claim that THEIR charges are "true" and mocking them is merely "too much post-modernism" (or "blindness to Clinton's crimes").

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 12:17pm

Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 12/21/2005 @ 09:59am Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 12/21/2005 @ 11:28am Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 12/21/2005 @ 11:50am

Yea...what he said.

Posted by malcontent3 at 12/21/2005 @ 12:18pm

Are you really saying that because there have been so many accusations that it makes you less suspicious?

Ahem...."Travel-gate", "File-gate", "Alma Arkansas Drug-running-gate", "Vince Foster 'Murder'-gate", "Kathleen Willey-gate", "Juanita Brodrick-gate", etc., etc.

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 10:19am

MASK, your comparison of the Clinton "crimes" to the Bush crimes is laughable. The former are either relatively petty infractions or complete falsehoods given life only by a Republican Congress. The later are real crimes smothered and suppressed only by a Republican Congress.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 12:23pm

Excellent post's GlennC.

Why is it that those who believe that their opinions are more factual than reality perceive they have the moral ground.

They trive on being afraid of everything. In the past our leaders have quietly handled the terrorist attacks and the results were that we the people were safe to a point for then as is now we can never be totally safe from everything.

Yet now we are driven to a frenze by the mear thought of being attacked, the attacks that we are now induring are more henious than the attacks made by the terrorists (whom we havn't even caught yet) these have been made against us by our own leaders in the guise of protecting us.

It is totally irrational that those on the right believe that by mearly having an election will to create democracy in a country that hates us.

Our forefathers fought tryanny because they felt they needed to the Iraqi people are sheep following whomever will leave them alone, they endure because they have not come to the point where they are willing to band together to fight their common enemy.

The fact that the majority of the Iraqi people don't understand what, who or why they are voting is evident in their ballot they have 7500 people running for 275 seats. 11 mil out of 22 mil voted.

How many would have voted if there was an "ask the US to leave" vote on the ballot.

Posted by dycel8r at 12/21/2005 @ 12:24pm

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 12:17am

Independent Counsel Blames Filegate on a Mistake, Not Political Retribution

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House aide obtained confidential FBI background files on Republicans from past administrations by mistake, not to collect derogatory information on political opponents, according to an independent counsel report released on Friday.

The report by independent counsel Robert Ray said the low-level aide, Anthony Marceca, requested the background reports in the erroneous belief that the individuals still were employed at the White House and needed access.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/stonewall_filegate.html

Oh well

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 12:26pm

....in the hopes that the spying will possibly keep said suspected terrorist from flying more planes into buildings and killing more innocent people I know I'm ok with it... Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 12/21/2005 @ 12:10am

..then, those people are ignorant of their rights and their govts. rights. That this is OK with them (or you), is irrelevent to the actual facts at hand.

It is NOT legal. And it is NOT alright with most educated Americans, who've read some history and are actually paying attention.

Seriously, is ignorance and complacency sufficient excuse for you to allow your country to be raped?

Posted by malcontent3 at 12/21/2005 @ 12:29pm

re: the above; on second look I wouldn't consider file-gate a petty infraction. However, that still got nowhere even with a Republican Congress. The rest are relatively petty infractions if not complete falsehoods.

Someone said recently that there was no infraction in the Clinton administration too small to be investigated by a Republican Congress and that there was no crime too large to be ignored by a Republican Congress. That sums it up.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 12:31pm

I see my post of MY OPINION has produced the predicted rant.

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 12:40pm

Todd

the majority of the public is "ok" with spying on [the general public and or semi-arbitrarily chosen groups to ascertain if they might actually be] suspected terrorists regardless of whether an authentic search warrant issued by a federal judge has been authorized or not

Does my modification of your line to reflect reality make it as palatable? ...and "authentic search warrant"? Then disregarding the laws on the books is ipso facto an "unofficial" but acceptable substitute? What you are saying is the Excutive Branch has the authority to disregard the law as they see fit and/or to write and/or re-write laws to a given situation. I'd be willing to place money on the potential fact that any number of fascists and despots have done this throughout time....like Uncle Adolph for example...

For the record, I personally know of NO ONE who agrees that spying in such a manner is acceptable. Of course, I suspect our ring of acquaintances is quite different.

The FISA was there. If it was not utilized for the purpose it was created for, why have it? Why indeed? To provide checks and balance against the very situation which has already occurred - an illegal electronic fishing expedition.

Todd, I have nothing to hide either. But I'll be damned if I'm willing to give up that right do so if I so desire. It's called freedom, and Dubya has been whittling away at the timbers of it with a blade called 9/11 for some time now. If left unchecked that timber will soon be a toothpick...one that he uses to pick his teeth before discarding.

Posted by leftofcenter at 12/21/2005 @ 12:41pm

I see my post of MY OPINION has produced the predicted rant.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 12:40am

Wouldn't it be great if you could like, post an opinion and everybody just had to, like, you know, keep their mouth shut.

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 12:44pm

Malcontent,

"..then, those people are ignorant of their rights and their govts. rights. That this is OK with them (or you), is irrelevent to the actual facts at hand.

It is NOT legal. And it is NOT alright with most educated Americans, who've read some history and are actually paying attention."

Then we are arguing different points.

I do not address the legality issue.

It may or may not be illegal, I'm not a lawyer and do not profess to know enough to debate the issue.

I'm arguing the point, that PEOPLE ARE OK WITH SPYING ON SUSPECTED TERRORISTS in the hopes that more terrorist bastards will be caught and/or killed.

Now..perhaps we understand each other... let me know if you need further clarification = )

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 12:45pm

Someone said recently that there was no infraction in the Clinton administration too small to be investigated by a Republican Congress and that there was no crime too large to be ignored by a Republican Congress. That sums it up. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/21/2005 @ 12:31am

FROMREDBIRD This is a great and very accurate comment. I applaud your efforts to thwart a fanatic like Mask. However, guys like this will cling to whatever floats in the water as the ship is sinking and the sea of justice rises ever higher. King GWB I believes he is simply "the law unto himself" responsible to no one, ironically, not even a Republican-infected Congress! And Cheney is so far out in right field it would take a fleet of B-2 bombers to lasso him and drag him back to reality. My sincere hope at this point is that the Dems can generate some fire and light from a Motion of Censure.

Posted by DownWithW at 12/21/2005 @ 12:49pm

Unbelievable comparisons being made by pathetic Bush apologists. Filegate? Two file boxes are mistakenly put into a closet instead of being moved across the street. And, this absurd argument that we wouldn't let Bush get away with something like that??? Hey, "filegate" was fully investigated by congress, ahole. What has congress investigated with regard to Bush? Travelgate? Two employees of the Whitehouse travel office may have been fired for political reasons? Full investigation. Watergate? A 20 year old land deal in which the Clintons lost money. A full investigation. Today, we have a missing $9 Billion in taxpayer money and no investigations. We have $700 million illegally diverted from Afganistan to Iraq. We have the breaking of federal wiretapping laws and the possible breaking of the Intelligence Identities Act with the associated purgery and obstruction charges associated with the attempted coverup. We've got an administration lying about the cost of legislation and then threatening public servants who attempt to tell the truth to Congress. We've got the fixing of and manipulation of intelligence to make a case for war. We've got witholding information from congressional committees. We've got the failure to live up to the terms of a war resolution. We've got the administration's top procurement officer led away in handcuffs and the nation's top republican lobbyist under indictment implicating over 33 republican lawmakers.

And, these bastards are trying to compare this to absurd things like filegate, travelgate, Whitewater and lying about a blowjob. If you bastards are serious, you're just plain crazy.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 12:49pm

But if you'd like some examples of analogous Republican silliness that I've criticized on other blogs....I thought the whole Terri Schiavo thing was hypocritical and stupid; I thought Clinton's impeachment was both stupid legally and politically; I OPPOSED the Bush USSC justice nominees (including John Roberts...something "The Nation's" beloved Russ Feingold didn't do!); and I find their pork-barrel spending an ideological sell-out.

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 07:25am

Your main problem with the Democrats seems to be that they're not Republican enough. Also, your claim that you voted for Clinton because he was an economic Republican and a social liberal doesn't hold water. George H.W. Bush wasn't a vociferous anti-abortionist, nor was Bob Dole. The Terry Schiavo thing isn't very convincing. Kindergarten kids thought that was stupid.

Another one of your M.O.'s is to continually try to convince liberals that their efforts are hopeless. It looks to me that your intention is to place yourself behind the ideological lines in order to sow defeatism from within.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 12:52pm

Doumer,

My point is the objections you site are not new. Stop acting as if the corruption and scandels were invented by the GOP and Bush.My only point.

Willc!!,

How are old sport,

"It only took you three posts to drag Clinton into a Gee Dubya discussion" Only to point out it was not invented since 2000, it is always here. Clinton makes it so easly since they are still cleaning out the bath tub ring from him.

"From this and your earlier affirmation of torture and general lawbreaking , I guess we can assume the republican party no longer supports the rule of law, the US Constitution, etc. "

NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. Republican Party was never mentioned and I am not a member. This is my opinion. It is not an affirmation on torture or lawbreaking.

WF,

I have no doubt that your drinking buddys agree with you...trouble is there are not enough of them voting your views into policy. Why? didn't get message out?..also, have seen LS in concert. Great music..

Sportsguy,

You have stated my opinion corrrectly on the post with my reference.

Mal, "Seriously, is ignorance and complacency sufficient excuse for you to allow your country to be raped?"

No, but neither do I want to view NY as a crater while people like you say," well, at least we protected their civil rights"...

See, the rants I inspired? Most of the country inspires the same rants. Yor inspire the other half. It is the same old story..

Off to lunch, my work is done here.

I can come back next week, and I don't even know the story or issue yet,

but, ..

It will be Bush fault and he should be impeached, then some long winded post by the ever ignored RESE, and then the emotional hysterics begin anew,...Haliburton, Cheney, Liddy, DeLay,....

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 12:56pm

Willc,

No, like post away,like.. evryone like needs entertainment like....

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 12:58pm

And, these bastards are trying to compare this to absurd things like filegate, travelgate, Whitewater and lying about a blowjob. If you bastards are serious, you're just plain crazy. Posted by BBATTEN 12/21/2005 @ 12:49am

Right. Don't forget that the Whitewater investigation (remember the infamous Ken Starr?) wracked up $70 million in legal and investigative fees before it was all over. All for zip on the Clinton's part as you point out. Now THERE is the true Whitewater scandal!

If all of that doesn't shout out just how desperate the Bushites are at this point nothing else ever will.

Posted by DownWithW at 12/21/2005 @ 1:02pm

"Christ! Look at Tom Delay and Randy Cunningham. They were holding a sidewalk bake sale and the creampie was America."

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 10:52am

What I'm saying is a fact and what you're saying is pure puppy poo as evidenced by the fact that what I'm talking about has resulted in an indictment and lead cinch finding of guilt in one case and a guilty plea in the other while what you're talking about has resulted in nothing even remotely approaching that, both under a Republican Congress.

The Republican Party is a bargeful of horse manure and somehow they got you to be their publicist. Given your displayed brilliance when discussing torture they probably didn't have to be the greatest salemen in the world to get you to do the job of cleaning out the stables.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 1:03pm

Warping Cause and Effect

Aboard Air Force 2 following a trip to Pakistan, the Veep told reporters that Watergate had eroded the powers of the presidency.

What a sick fucking perspective.

Posted by drhammer at 12/21/2005 @ 1:03pm

LofC,

I always enjoy our exchanges = )

Let me address some of your points.

"Does my modification of your line to reflect reality make it as palatable?"

Yes, I'm completely ok with your changes, and for the most part agree with them.

"For the record, I personally know of NO ONE who agrees that spying in such a manner is acceptable. Of course, I suspect our ring of acquaintances is quite different."

Yes, I'm sure our circles are different = )

Mine are the ones who drive trucks with gun racks in the rear window filled with a rifle, and a shotgun. The trucks have stickers on the back that have pictures of the American Flag, and the words below "These colors don't run". They also have slogans like "If you don't like the way things are done in America, then go back to what ever country you came from!" etc.

"Todd, I have nothing to hide either. But I'll be damned if I'm willing to give up that right do so if I so desire."

And I think that points out one of the big differences between progressives and conservatives. Conservatives tend to believe in right and wrong, black or white and thus are more concerned with one's motives or values than their "rights" as you put it. You just said you don't want to give up "your right" to hide stuff if you so choose. To me that makes me think less of you because you are more concerned with rules, laws and "rights" than doing the morally right thing, and/or having morally right values.

Anyway.. always respect your opinions, we just differ on this issue.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 1:09pm

It is not an affirmation on torture or lawbreaking.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 12:56am

John!

Let us read shall we

The same goes for torture,...American rights are fought and paid for in American blood and are sacred. But for someone who has knowledghe about an event as 9/11 and can be pressured into talking, then make him talk. The protection of my rights won't mean shit if I go up in a mushroom cloud...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 10:38am

A clear affirmation of torture! You don't care what is done to a suspect as long as you feel safe.

Christ, look at thr Lincoln BVedroom, the idiot Al Gore at the monks shrine getting shopping bags of cash from group of avowed poverty monks, oh, and don't forget the Loral contract that gave Chia a 50 years leap on encryptic launch technology so Clinton could get more $ for re election. The list is endless... Christ, wake up! You sound and post as if all the money and deals started with Bush...it is as old as man and agreements.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 10:52am

A clear affirmation of general lawbreaking! Hey it's ok, everybody's doing it.

John, I'd really appreciate it if you'd played your denial games with someone who can't read English.

Thank you

Thank you very much

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 1:09pm

Warping Cause and Effect

Posted by DRHAMMER 12/21/2005 @ 1:03pm,

True. The only thing eroding the Office of the Chief Executive these days is the Cowboy corruption of Bush and Cheney. They have dragged it down to its lowest levels ever. For evidence, just look how the rest of the world views the U.S. right now. For all they know 100% of the U.S. voted GWB back into office in 2004! Man, we gotta' set the record straight on that one . . . .

Posted by DownWithW at 12/21/2005 @ 1:12pm

Willc,

No, like post away,like.. evryone like needs entertainment like....

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/21/2005 @ 12:58am

Like, you mean like, predicting people will respond to your posts.

and then it happened

and it was almost like, majic.

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 1:14pm

"We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority," says the letter, which was signed by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, as well as GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/wiretaps/index.html

Once again the news media has to throw in the threats from the BC regime that thousands of lives would be lost if we're not willing to lose our rights-- blackmail. Or perhaps, what they really mean, in the upside down inside out translation needed to interpret BC BS is that the thousands of lives being lost are actually the ones that had their rights squashed by BC! It would make perfect sense in their world of re/dis/misinformation. They are threatening us with us! We are our enemy they're fighting!

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 1:17pm

Should U.S. president George W. Bush be impeached and removed from office? [tinyurl.com]

Yes 32% No 58%

Hear those drums? The natives are getting restless.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 1:17pm

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/21/2005 @ 12:23am |

Sorry FROMRED, despite DOWNWITHW's boosterism..."I am right and you are wrong...and that's that!" is not a "great" retort.

as to-

Your main problem with the Democrats seems to be that they're not Republican enough....

and... Another one of your M.O.'s is to continually try to convince liberals that their efforts are hopeless. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/21/2005 @ 12:52am |

A. Yes, you're right. I DO want the Democrats to be more like Republicans (as Clinton was) and the Republicans to be more like the Democrasts (i.e. pro-choice and pro-gay rights)...Have I not been clear in my politics?

B. How much "convincing" does it take? Did Enron win back Congress in 2002?....Did "no WMDs" and a poor economy win 2004 for Kerry?...Did Rep Conyers' LAST "impeachment hearing" result in impeachment?....Did the first wave of Fitzgerald indictments include Rove (as we were told endlessly by Mr Corn and others)?

In other words....where's the "hope" in ANY of the past "efforts" and why should we believe in the NEW ones now?

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:19pm

... let me know if you need further clarification = )

Todd

Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 12/21/2005 @ 12:45am

who defines "suspected terrorists"?

Posted by malcontent3 at 12/21/2005 @ 1:19pm

John Maasch is a classic. He continues to site phony hoaxes perpetrated on the masses regarding the Clinton administration and Al Gore. They investigated all that stuff to hell, Maasch, and found nothing. If you're going to cite phony investigations into nothing as a reason why we shoudn't blame Bush for everything, expect people to see you as a pathetic partisan hack.

Al Gore and the Buddhist temple???!!! Hey Maasch, maybe you didn't notice (I'm pretty sure they haven't told you this on FOX), but the FBI agent in charge of that investigation had to resign in disgrace after it was proven that he was having an affair with a republican fundraiser who turned out to be a Chinese double-agent. Her name was Katrina Leong if you want to educate yourself on reality. An investigation proved that Gore had done absolutely nothing wrong, but you're still citing this bullshit as evidence of corruption. Maybe you should pay attention before blowing bullshit out of your blowhole.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:20pm

Mask, I've got only one thing to say to your contention that you voted for Clinton: bullshit.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:23pm

Todd,

From the BBC, Dec. 18

The US has been criticised by human rights groups over its treatment of detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Some detainees said they were shackled in a manner that made it impossible to lie down or sleep, with restraints that caused their hands and wrists to swell up or bruise."

The classic image of torture is being chained to a wall in a dungeon. And accusations keep surfacing that we here in the good old USA are guilty of exactly that.

How does this fit into your concept of right and wrong? Does this behavior reflect "morally right values" as you put it?

Posted by MyParadigm at 12/21/2005 @ 1:23pm

Yukon school group found on U.S. threat list

"I think it just indicates the level of paranoia [tinyurl.com] that's at work and that's a current concern," he said.

JOHN MAASCH, are these the terrorists that you're talking about torturing? After all- they might have information that could prevent a MUSHROOM CLOUD in our hometown. Just like Iraq might have nuclear weapons. Which could produce MUSHROOM CLOUDS in our hometown.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 1:25pm

I'll say one thing about this "NSA Spying" scandal that I really like...and hope to see more of, from "The Nation" and its supporters....

Strong, vigorous, and GENERAL defense of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, abiding no nuances and pushing for FULL protection of the right against illegal search and seizure.

I just wonder if...

A. That will apply to the Government being able to access our MEDICAL records under a nationalized health care system?

and B. If that same vigorous defense would apply to attacks upon our....SECOND Amendment rights or even the rights of the states and the people under the TENTH?

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:26pm

In other words....where's the "hope" in ANY of the past "efforts" and why should we believe in the NEW ones now?

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 1:19pm

Because that's what we do.

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 1:28pm

Mask, I've got only one thing to say to your contention that you voted for Clinton: bullshit.

Posted by BBATTEN 12/21/2005 @ 1:23pm |

Why, BBAT?....ask around, think ALL the Left LOVED Clinton and ALL the Right hated him? Who was more p.o.'ed at Bill in 1996 over welfare reform, NAFTA, "era of Big Govt is over"...the Left or Right?

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:28pm

OKSportsguy: "Conservatives tend to believe in right and wrong, black or white and thus are more concerned with one's motives or values than their "rights" as you put it."

Interesting analysis. Is that why Bush said if anyone was involved with the outing of a CIA operative they "wouldn't be in my administration anymore." Is that why Bush lied on tape about seeking court orders for wiretaps? What about Bush's chief procurement officer, Donald Safavian, who was indicted and led away in handcuffs? Did he have that conservative passion for "right and wrong?" Duke Cunningham is a conservative. He called John Kerry a traitor while he was accepting bribes for defense contracts. Does Duke have this conservative love of right and wrong?

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:29pm

Mask, I just don't believe you because of your current posts. I don't believe anyone holding your beliefs voted for Clinton. It doesn't matter, but I suspect you say you voted for Clinton to try to add more credibility to your posts around here.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:31pm

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/21/2005 @ 1:28pm

All VERY familiar FROMRED...heard it from 1993 and the "nanny Attorney Generals" until the very end with the pardons of Mark Rich and the PR terrorists in 2000.

and just like "before", we'll keep seeing THIS stuff until January 2009...and probably (given the vitriole) talk of the "legality of a post-Presidential retroactive impeachment" (Remember, folks...you heard it from me first!)

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:32pm

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 1:26pm

Once again you are confusing potential criminal behavior by the executive with the fundamental rights that the laws he is breaking are designed to protect.

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 1:35pm

BBATTEN....want WHOLE voting record....ok

1980- Reagan 1984- Reagan 1988- Bush-41 1992- Clinton (almost went Perot, like a lot of people, til he showed how nuts he was) 1996- Clinton (his sell-out....I mean "triangulation" cinched it) 2000- Bush-43 (couldn't trust Gore and his "lock-box") 2004- Kerry (no strong hit against Bush, but with Rehnquist sick, wanted pro-choice justices on the USSC....and knew that, like Roberts, the GOP could find some 'acceptable' conservatives...though I never guessed they could win over FEINGOLD!!!)

2008?----Depends....Richardson, maybe Warner, or a pragmatic, centrist (here it comes) D.L.C. Democrat....they get my vote...especially if the GOP is stupid and nominates a Hard Rightie like Brownback. If it's McCain...dicey, as he's "pro-life", but given his penchant to kowtow to the Media and the Dems...maybe not bad.

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:38pm

Mask: "All VERY familiar FROMRED...heard it from 1993 and the "nanny Attorney Generals" until the very end with the pardons of Mark Rich and the PR terrorists in 2000."

See, this is the kind of post that makes me sure you're lying about voting for Clinton. George HW Bush pardoned four co-conspirators who had been scheduled to testify as to his role in a constitutional crime, he pardoned the head of Occidental Petroleum who had made illegal campaign contributions to him, he pardoned a heroin smuggler who was 2 years into a 55 year sentence and spirited him back to Afganistan in the middle of the night. The NYT published one article on HW Bush's pardons and 17 on Clinton's. Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Mark Rich after a personal request from the Prime Minister of Israel and all hell broke loose.

And, the fact that you're citing this hoax of an issue is further evidence that you never ever supported Clinton.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:40pm

Coudn't trust Gore???? What a load of crap. There is just no way you voted for Clinton if you "couldn't trust Gore."

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:43pm

WILLC

If an Administration violates the 4th Amendment...go after them, even if they have some "nuanced" or "need to deal with terrorism" rationale for it....let the courts and legislature decide if it's a crime or not.

But my point was....would there be AS MUCH (or even ANY) uproar on the Left, if the Executive was attacking the 2nd or 10th Amendments using the same rationales?

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:44pm

All of this "I voted for Clinton" crap is irrelevant anyway. You support a lawless, constitution shredding, lying administration now. That's all that matters. You overlook things that you know would have triggered national scandals when Clinton was in charge.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:46pm

I'll say one thing about this "NSA Spying" scandal that I really like...and hope to see more of, from "The Nation" and its supporters.... Strong, vigorous, and GENERAL defense of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, abiding no nuances and pushing for FULL protection of the right against illegal search and seizure. I just wonder if... A. That will apply to the Government being able to access our MEDICAL records under a nationalized health care system? and B. If that same vigorous defense would apply to attacks upon our....SECOND Amendment rights or even the rights of the states and the people under the TENTH? Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 1:26pm

MASK: I am just curious here . . . why do you constantly muddy the waters with unrelated issues and expect someone with a logical mind (i.e. someone unlike you) to sort it all out? Could it be that all you really want is to blame them for not being able to unscramble your scrambled eggs? Is NOT the real (and only) issue here probable violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?

Posted by DownWithW at 12/21/2005 @ 1:47pm

BBATTEN

I cited the "Pardon-gate" example as an example of the Clinton-haters not letting go, even to the very end.....which is what I predict of the Bush-haters upto and BEYOND January 2009. I wasn't saying they WERE "crimes"...I was pointing to examples of CLAIMED "crimes" by those who wanted to "get Clinton".

I think what troubles you is...you and I probably voted for the same guy...but your "reasons" were different than mine, and some of mine conflict with your idealized view of BC.

Odd too, you say that if I "didn't trust Gore" I wouldn't have voted for Clinton....given that (I assume) you vote for Gore....and maybe then (atleast NOW) "don't trust LIEBERMAN"!

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:47pm

DOWNWITH

It sure is.....but again, I just wonder if there wouldn't be some "picking-n-choosing" among the Left as to WHICH Amendments they'll protest violations of....and WHICH they'd tacitly (maybe strongly) support violations of.

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:49pm

Mask: "But my point was....would there be AS MUCH (or even ANY) uproar on the Left, if the Executive was attacking the 2nd or 10th Amendments using the same rationales?"

Actually, they should be questioning the use of the 2nd with respect to the 50-caliber sniper rifle. Allowing for the unregulated sale of this weapon during a "war on terrorism" is nothing short of insane. Thousands of these weapons have potentially gotten into the wrong hands. With one of these rifles, a terrorist can fire through metal walls from miles away. One can penetrate the fusilage of a commercial jet and potentially bring it down from the ground. Doing something about that weapon would be a positive step in fighting terrorism, but your NRA buttboys will hear none of it.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:50pm

Posted by BBATTEN 12/21/2005 @ 1:50pm

Thanks for making my point.

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 1:52pm

What does it matter whether a poster voted Repub or Dem? "If voting really changed anything it'd be illegal." Either way you look at it, the majority doesn't "vote" until the minority nominates. This is a mere selection, a chance to affirm the decisions of your betters, your masters. But what I really want to say is, everyone knows MASK is full of shit.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2005 @ 1:52pm

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 1:44pm

Sorry dude. You can't make any "point" on a hypothetical attack on the amendemnts you chose without giving us an example of a specific law that might be violated. The case we a discussing now is centered specifically on the FISA statute and if you want to include it, Executive order 12333 that RIO introduced yesturday.

I know you like asking pointless what if questions to confuse and misdirect and here you are doing it again.

What if frogs carried 45's.

Would you find their legs on the menu?

Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 1:55pm

Gore had an 8-year record from which to draw conclusions. If you knew anything about what Gore did as VP, you would have known that the accusations against him were hoaxes. Lieberman was Gore's choice for VP and I didn't agree with that choice then, but I still voted for Gore. But, knowing what I did know about Bush, there was no way I ever could have voted for him. I knew he was a crook and a crony capitalist. I knew he was an incurious man who had led a life of leisure and never accomplished anything at all. I knew that he was the classic "born on third and thinks he hit a home run" kind of guy and I knew he was committed to destroying Social Security because of what he had said earlier in his career. I also knew that he had a long-running business and family relationship with wealthy Saudis and I didn't want someone in bed with the Saudis running the country. The fact that you didn't care or know about any of that stuff, or that you knew it and still voted for Bush, leads me to my conclusions about you, but like I say, it's irrelevant.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 1:59pm

BBatten,

"Interesting analysis. Is that why Bush said if anyone was involved with the outing of a CIA operative they "wouldn't be in my administration anymore." Is that why Bush lied on tape about seeking court orders for wiretaps? What about Bush's chief procurement officer, Donald Safavian, who was indicted and led away in handcuffs? Did he have that conservative passion for "right and wrong?" Duke Cunningham is a conservative. He called John Kerry a traitor while he was accepting bribes for defense contracts. Does Duke have this conservative love of right and wrong?"

I don't know... Bush in my opinion isn't a good example of a conservative. He has done nothing to close down the Illegal imigration from Mexico, he has allowed the federal defecit to sky rocket, he has handled the war in Iraq poorly in my opinion. So, give me a better example of a "real" conservative and we can talk.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 2:00pm

Myparadigm,

"The US has been criticised by human rights groups over its treatment of detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq."

Oh.. were you under some delusion that conservatives, like me, give one crap about what the BBC reports or what "human rights" groups have to say about our treatment of detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq?

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 2:02pm

Okay, I've got this MASK/Clinton problem solved thanks to my NSA secret decoder ring.

MonicAlewinSKy

Another true identity revealed.

Posted by MyParadigm at 12/21/2005 @ 2:03pm

Malcontent,

"who defines "suspected terrorists"?

Anyone in the administration, the military or any civilians for that matter like myself that see something suspicious going on that could possibly be terrorist activiy.

You might respond.."Well what if someone reported YOU as a terrorist suspect"

My response would be GO AHEAD, I have nothing to hide.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 2:04pm

Todd,

In a word, no. I have other delusions. Merry Christmas, by the way.

Posted by MyParadigm at 12/21/2005 @ 2:05pm

OKSportsguy: On this we agree. Bush is not a real conservative, he is a crony capitalist. But, remember all republicans call themselves conservatives and the republican party is currently run by crony capitalists.

But, why wouldn't you have thought of Duke Cunningham as a conservative. He had a 100% conservative voting record, he was a combat veteran and he was a darling of the defense department. I believe Donald Safavian was a Heritage Foundation guy -- they certainly call themselves conservatives. Abramhoff was the leader of the Young Republicans and has been a republican and a self-styled conservative all his adult life. If you're looking for Teddy Roosevelt or even Barry Goldwater, you won't find him today. You made a sweeping, broadbrush statement that implied that conservatives have a deeper appreciation for right and wrong. I'm saying that current events make that statement kind of laughable. Your answer to that is that none of them are really conservatives. Well, why do you vote for them, then?

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 2:07pm

OKSportsguy: "Oh.. were you under some delusion that conservatives, like me, give one crap about what the BBC reports or what "human rights" groups have to say about our treatment of detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq?"

I wonder if the next American soldier who is captured and being held by hostiles will have statements like that shown to him by his captors. How little today's conservatives really care about the well-being of our troops is astounding. Especially in the light of how much they bray and honk about "supporting the troops."

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 2:09pm

TODD,

Of course you don't care about the way the detainees are treated. I doubt you care about the way anyone is treated by the US, which is why it should be no surprise to you when more and more US citizens and soldiers find the rest of the world more and more hostile towards them. Maybe if you had a kid being held captive in Iraq or Afghanistan you might actually be able to put yourself in someone eles's shoes and see why so long as we continue the abuse, our enemies will always seek revenge or try to one-up us.

As far as the immigration problem, what's your great solution?

Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2005 @ 2:10pm

We citizens of the US of A should not be cowered by the BC regime and their threats to 911 us again. They should be the ones cowering in fear of our enlightened mass retribution of their crimes against us. We should resolve to march by the millions on DC scaring the hell out of our reps in the leg to do the right thing by us. It's our country. BC BS'ers want to relive the Dick Nixon years-- well alrighty then, lets give it a try and get some exercise in DC. Wasn't it thousands camping outside the WH in protest? What would millions look like? Wouldn't that restore all the patriotism and honor stolen from us by this lying bunch of fascists? I'm ready for a change of heart, a change in direction that this once great nation needs to be going in. Wouldn't be grand to be living in a country looked up to as an example of honor, law and trust. I'm tired of being angry at the do nothing media and do nothing congress, do nothing public. I want to see/feel/do something meaningful that's real and not a lie. I'm tired of living with this sick BC absurdity. What say we get mad as hell and don't take anymore. They work for us, not the other way around-- lets fire the assholes.

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 2:15pm

Pretty amusing that Mask is taking so much heat on this. What is it that people have a problem with here? That Mask is looking at the politcal realities of the situation? That he/she is lying about voting for Clinton? News flash - many people of Mask's political bent voted for Clinton - that is why he won!

Posted by Hman23 at 12/21/2005 @ 2:20pm

BBatten,

"Well, why do you vote for them, then?"

For the same reason that many democrats voted for Kerry, even though they didn't think he was far enough to the left, they knew they would be wasting a vote and only helping empower the Republican party (and thus Bush) by voting for someone like Kucinch (spelling?). I voted for Bush, only because of the lessor of two evil syndroms as neither Ted Haggard, nor James Dobson, nor Jesus nor Goldwater, nor Reagan, was running for the Oval Office in 2004 = )

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 2:26pm

Chimechanga,

"As far as the immigration problem, what's your great solution?"

A large fence with armed national guards with shoot to kill orders sitting atop it.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 2:27pm

I wish there were more people thinking like BUSHFOOLS, but the Washington Cartel has gotten so out of control while becoming more and more hostile to the people it is empowered to serve, that people are afraid to speak their minds, much less actually take to the streets in peaceful mass protest. Hell, just look at how the Dixie Chicks were attacked and smeared. The Dixie Chicks? Who the fuck cares about the Dixie Chicks and some random comment they make in another country? Imagine the response to millions of angry Americans screaming and yelling at the foot of the White House. All those newfangled non-lethal weapons for crowd control would get their big debut, in addition to more invasive methods of spying and monitoring every aspect of communication as we know it. No doubt this would be used to whip the country into fearing the next terrorist threat - that of domestic terrorism by US born citizens, radicals, extremists, communists, whatever. What better way to advance the next phases of the Patriot Act and its oppressive brethren than to have popular acts of democracy on the streets made to look like attempts at subversion, hence giving the regime the ability to label all the real patriots with some balls as terrorists as well? This is what it's coming down to. The word "opposition" will soon become "enemy". True democracy is a real threat to this government...

Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2005 @ 2:30pm

Hman,

Clinton won because more people voted for Perot and not Bush 1. combined. 6 out of 10 voters voted for some OTHER than Clinton, in both elections. :) Just for fact.

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 2:32pm

Maasch, how many people voted for someone other than Bush? that sword swings both ways.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2005 @ 2:36pm

John Maasch, what you just posted has been shown to be a conservative lie. According to two national polls and exit polling in '92, the Perot vote was split 50-50 between those who would have voted Repub or Democrat.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 2:39pm

OKSportsguy: "A large fence with armed national guards with shoot to kill orders sitting atop it."

Yeah, kind of like that fence in "The Great Escape" that Steve McQueen tried to jump. Say, who built that fence anyway?

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 2:40pm

JR, In 2000 more voted for someone else and Bush won...exactly, and he won as we are set up..

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 2:41pm

You know me...conservative liar, I live to lie...

Posted by john maasch at 12/21/2005 @ 2:41pm

More people voted for Gore nationally and more voted for him in Florida. The election was stolen and it will always be remembered as a selection by the Supreme Court in it's most shameful decision in electoral history. Don't even try to compare '92 and 2000.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 2:44pm

John Maasch: "You know me...conservative liar, I live to lie..."

I wasn't implying that you are a liar. I was saying that you believe conservative propaganda and nothing I've seen you post leads me to any different conclusion.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 2:45pm

TODD,

Great idea. And I guess your ragged, grimy, impoverished, ignorant ancestors who scrounged up all the coins they could to take a ship over the ocean to the US were somehow better and more entitled to settle here as foreigners and work 16-hr days for pennies? I'd like to see your punkass even try to step up to some of the hard-asses in Chihuahua or Juárez. Face it, you're a minority, and will be part of an increasing minority every year you continue to pollute the air with your mindless comments.

Note how once again, a tough, loose-tongued neocon expects someone else (The National Guard in this case) to realize their brilliant plans. I'd love to see you in a room full of Mexicans or better yet, Colombians. Then maybe you'd realize what a craven pussy you really are. Go burn some crosses, Big Man.

Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2005 @ 2:51pm

Chimichenga,

"Great idea. And I guess your ragged, grimy, impoverished, ignorant ancestors who scrounged up all the coins they could to take a ship over the ocean to the US were somehow better and more entitled to settle here as foreigners and work 16-hr days for pennies? I'd like to see your punkass even try to step up to some of the hard-asses in Chihuahua or Juárez. Face it, you're a minority, and will be part of an increasing minority every year you continue to pollute the air with your mindless comments.

Note how once again, a tough, loose-tongued neocon expects someone else (The National Guard in this case) to realize their brilliant plans. I'd love to see you in a room full of Mexicans or better yet, Colombians. Then maybe you'd realize what a craven pussy you really are. Go burn some crosses, Big Man."

What ever...

The reason I suggest the National Guard do the work is because MY TAX DOLLARS pay for the national guard, unlike all the damn wetback that cross the boarder and PAY NO TAXES becuase they get paid cash under the table.

If you don't like America Chimchenga YOU can go back to Mexico too.

If people want to enter the U.S. do it legally, LIKE MY ANCESTORS did, pay the price, register for the green card and do it legally.

Don't sponge off of MY TAX DOLLARS by living here illegally.

Now what you got to say "Big Boy" ?

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 2:58pm

Well, let's sum up MY "crimes" this time around....

1. I have no faith that John Conyers, acting with NO support from the Democratic leadership in Congress, will get Bush censured or impeached.

2. I voted for Clinton twice, because in 1992, I was ready for a "Third Way" and in 1996, I got it.

3. I didn't vote for Gore and therefore failed to let Joe Lieberman become Vice-President and the presumptive 2008 Democratic nominee.

and 4. I questioned whether those who LOVE the 4th Amendment (as I do), but HATE the 2nd and IGNORE the 10th (as I don't)...are the best "defenders of the Bill of Rights".

So..."no faith in Congressional Dems"..."voted twice for the 'lesser of two evils'"...."stopped that sell-out, pro-Israel, Republican-lite Joe Lieberman from gaining power"...and "want to fully defend the Constitution"?

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 3:05pm

BTW, BBATT

Anything in common with the World War-II "Swiss-German border" and the Berlin Wall....that is NOT in common with a fence along the Mexican-American border?

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 3:09pm

to those of you engaging Todd in discussion, his point of view has been described, by me, as grrr, kill, kill. nothing has changed

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2005 @ 3:27pm

Johanne,

"grrr, kill, kill. nothing has changed"

Glad to see you again my old friend! Glad you could join in the discussion.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/21/2005 @ 3:44pm

by Peter Daou

New The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade) - The third button on the Daou Report's navigation bar links to the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution many Americans believe is on life support - if not already dead. The cause of its demise is the corrosive interplay between the Bush administration, a bevy of blind apologists, a politically apathetic public, a well-oiled rightwing message machine, lapdog reporters, and a disorganized opposition. The domestic spying case perfectly illuminates the workings of that system. And the unfolding of this story augurs poorly for those who expect it to yield different results from other administration scandals.

Here's why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours...

1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.

2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004).

3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.

4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.

5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.

6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.

7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.

8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.

9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.

10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democrat leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...

Rinse and repeat.

It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future.

http://daoureport.salon.com/

Ok, this is just proof we all need to turn off our TV's, like NOW, start working out, get back into shape, lean up, get hungry-- because we all have a hell of a lot of work to do. We'll feel better about ourselves, our country and our kids will thanks us later.

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 3:56pm

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 3:56pm

er, don't know what happened to the second post... Am I already being monitored??

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 3:57pm

As for the likelihood of impeaching Emperor Caligula Bushimus, I have this to say...

John Stewart: "If only lies left cum stains"

Posted by Robespierre at 12/21/2005 @ 4:01pm

Uhhh, Toddy? I think Chimichenga has already acknowledged that he does not live in the US.

Posted by skeletonman at 12/21/2005 @ 4:15pm

Maasch - you are assuming, of course, that if Perot was not in the race, those voters would have gone for Bush and Dole. Not sure that is accurate.

Posted by Hman23 at 12/21/2005 @ 4:18pm

BUSHFOOLS....Thanks.

Wow...I mention Numbers #6 and 7 and get castigated for being a Bush sychophant!

Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 5:08pm

Every time I see (rubber hoses, drowning, electric wires, whips and)Chainy smerking because he just screwed America again, I can't help but picture the Penquin swacking "Go fuck yourself", squawk squawk, "Go fuck yourself" squawk squawk. As the poor scamble to move out of it's way. We really need to impeach those sick fucks.

Posted by Bushfools at 12/21/2005 @ 5:11pm

Well, let's sum up MY "crimes" this time around....

Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 3:05pm

And you're the one that criticizes the Democratic Party for it's mixed message.

But you never mention any mixed message in the Republican's "advance of democracy" that consists of death squads, torture, and puppet governments.

And, when someone makes an issue of the 4th Amendment that you say you love all you have to say is:

"And why? Because this is merely red meat to the Liberal Base to "prove" that Democrats are "standing tough" and "willing to hold Bush's feet to the fire and even impeach him".

But now...especially after Conyers' laughable "inquiry" in the BASEMENT of the Rayburn Building over "Downing Street"....to play this card AGAIN...and Mr Nichols acting SERIOUSLY about it...is just beyond humorous and into pathos."

Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 6:21pm

Maasch, your constant harping on Clinton, as well as promoting half truths and outright lies show a paucity of mind and an intelligence perverted by propaganda. the Clinton era has been finished for five years, get over it. we are discussing current events here, if you'd like to participate, be my guest

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2005 @ 7:06pm

Hey Mask, it must be easy to knock those strawmen off their high horses. Kind of easy though, don't you think. It's much harder when you let the challenges come to you rather than invent silly ones no one has presented. Nobody "hates" the 2nd Amendment. That's just your mind repeating NRA conditioning. What many lefties say about the 2nd Amendment is that it applied to militias and that our version of those these days is the National Guard. What some other lefties might say is that the 2nd, like any other part of the constitution was meant to adapt to changing circumstances -- I really doubt that any Founder, in today's circumstances, would say everyone has a right to a bazooka or a machine gun. But, no lefty I know of "hates" anything in the Bill of Rights. The only people I know of today who are systematically acting like they "hate" the Bill of Rights are the people you support.

Posted by BBatten at 12/21/2005 @ 7:36pm

Frank

Brav-o!

Posted by leftofcenter at 12/21/2005 @ 7:45pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

MSNBC Poll:

Live Vote

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

88%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."

3%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.

8%

I don't know.

1%

Posted by plunger at 12/21/2005 @ 8:48pm

I'll second that Braaavo Frank!! And I'll also refer back to page (1) on Rainman's statement. Just let a little time pass, yep,, the herd is still out. Nothing will come of it. Just like ALL the rest....and,,, he's feeding on everything he gets away with. How do you think it got to this? And laughing in our faces as he does it.

Posted by Murphy at 12/21/2005 @ 11:15pm

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent . . . .

You know, a guy I saw I Texas a short time ago appeared to have these symptoms. One physical manifestation of the disease is that a recipient can morph into a complete ass hole. This particular Texan is presently, I believe, in a terminal condition, rapidly spiraling downward.

Posted by DownWithW at 12/21/2005 @ 11:26pm

7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 12/21/2005 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person

Bushfools,

I agree with Peter Daou's outline as you've posted here. In my opinion, the key – for Bush's success OR for our hope to resuscitate democracy – is the phrase in point 7 "America's political apathy."

Our apathy has permitted erosion of the two-party system in America. The Republicans and Democrats have morphed into one party and, in the absence of an opposition party, the Constitution has been raped and our civil liberties assaulted.

What is needed now is real leadership. It is unlikely to come from the top down. Elected people aren't really leaders – Senator Feingold is a possible exception – because they reflect popular sentiment rather than shape it. It seems to me that this leadership will come from our fellow citizens. It will be someone(s) among us who can state the grievances, stay focused on the Constitution, and articulate the solutions which will include the restoration of legal respect for the Bill of Rights and restraint of power by the Executive branch of government. If such a group would emerge, then Democrats in Congress might find their spine and a revival of democracy would occur.

A starting point might be to encourage everyone to re-read our Constitution. I find it difficult to believe that these abuses of our civil liberties by Bush would be tolerated if we all were literate in the words of that sacred old parchment.

Posted by seattlescribe at 12/21/2005 @ 11:59pm

yes, Frank, that's very good

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2005 @ 12:29am

Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/21/2005 @ 6:21pm |

FROMRED....the "red meat" is the Conyers "resolution/censure/impeachment" move. And it's just "red meat" because there's no SERIOUS Democratic push for it.

I think what you miss is that my criticism of the Conyers "move" is its lack of seriousness...not that he's "going after Bush for violating the 4th Amendment".

As far as the political parties and their hypocrisies...I'd invite you to look at all those on the Left who seem to have no problem with governments that use political oppression, as long as they provide "free health care" and "free education"...one example is about 90 miles from Key West.

Posted by Mask at 12/22/2005 @ 09:46am

Posted by BBATTEN 12/21/2005 @ 7:36pm |

Actually by "hate" the 2nd, what I mean is their attempts (like you did) to use the STRICTEST possible interpretation of it ("It only means militias, not private citizens")....

a standard they hypocritically REJECT when it comes to the 1st ("free speech also means flag burning"....which by the way I agree with)...or when using the WIDEST possible latitude with the "equal protection clause" to include abortion (which I also agree with).

It was Michael Kinsley (now of Slate...and a progressive) who said "If the Left used the same Constitutional standards they use for abortion, and applied it to the 2nd Amendment....gun ownership would be mandatory!"

Posted by Mask at 12/22/2005 @ 09:51am

Bush and Cheney have committed numerous impeachable offenses. Spying on American citizens is only the most recently exposed. For this reason, they will do ANYTHING not to lose control of Congress in 2006. We can expect the dirtiest, cheatingest election in American history. We can also expect the mainstream media to ignore the dirt and cheating until it is too late.

Posted by robgo2 at 12/22/2005 @ 10:19am

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-11-chertoff-side_x.htm

Chertoff played key role on 9/11 By Kevin Johnson and Mimi Hall, USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- In the minutes after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, while Attorney General John Ashcroft was rushing back from Milwaukee, Michael Chertoff was calling the shots.

Chertoff, then chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, breached the prickly territorial lines that have long divided the Justice Department from the FBI. From a fifth-floor office at FBI headquarters, above the streams of panicked people who flooded Pennsylvania Avenue, he set up shop in the bureau's crisis center. For the next 20 hours, he directed the government's initial response to the most lethal terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Chertoff would spend the next two years serving as a central figure in formulating U.S. anti-terrorism policy -- from the effort to secretly detain hundreds of Middle Easterners in the USA, to increasing the FBI's authority to conduct domestic surveillance at religious gatherings and other public events.

Civil rights advocates say Chertoff's record raises serious questions about his fitness for the job. Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office, said Chertoff's tenure at Justice is the most troubling. Chertoff was one of the architects of the USA Patriot Act, which provided law enforcement broader surveillance authority.

"Michael Chertoff's record suggests that he sees the Bill of Rights as an obstacle to national security," Nojeim said. The nomination "should spur a search of his entire record on civil liberties."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR200512 2102327_5.html

The White House and the FBI Killed Operation Greenquest, Michael Chertoff's Faux Search To Track The Funding For 9/11

The strongest pushback came from the Justice Department, where the mention of DHS inspired jokes about duct tape and chartreuse threat levels. Justice officials believed DHS had "too much focus on marketing and not enough on substantive delivery," in the words of one aide to then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. "They were consumed with their public perception," said Mark Corallo, an Ashcroft spokesman.

Indeed, one of the new department's biggest intramural furors was a branding fight with the FBI. It began when the director of a new DHS agency known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- or ICE -- decided to keep the catchy acronym but change the name to Investigation and Criminal Enforcement. The FBI, it turned out, had some proprietary feelings about the word "investigation."

At the FBI's insistence, the White House had already forced ICE to give up its Operation Greenquest program investigating terrorism financing -- and forced Ridge to sign a memo pledging to keep his department away from similar investigations. But Ridge thought this spat was just silly; nobody was going to mistake ICE for the FBI.

Nevertheless, the White House told Ridge to back off.

http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government's 9.11 investigation.

"But in a hint of the gravity of his legal predicament, he was represented in court by Michael Chertoff, the former U.S. attorney in Newark and counsel to U.S. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato's Whitewater investigation." Link

Yes, the soon-to-be Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff represented a known bin Laden operative. Perhaps more troubling, Chertoff also headed the U.S.'s investigation into the September 11th attack. From the New Jersey Law Journal, August 4, 2003:

"The Sept. 11 investigation was supervised by Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, head of the U.S. Criminal Justice Division, who is now a Third Circuit judge." Link

More on Chertoff from the New Yorker, November 5, 2001:

"Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, Chertoff's office has become the funnel for what is probably the most important criminal investigation in American history, as prosecutors and F.B.I. investigators pour in to seek the boss's approval. What leads can we use from the search of a hijacker's car in Portland, Maine? Where do the hijackers' credit-card records lead?… For day-to-day decisions, Chertoff has the last word"…

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

Chertoff allowed scores of suspected Israeli terrorists and spies to quietly return to Israel. In several cases, Israeli suspects working for phoney moving companies, such as Urban Moving Systems from Weehawken, N.J., were caught driving moving vans which tested positive for explosives. On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, which was found to be a Mossad front company, fled to Israel after FBI agents requested a second interview.

One group of 5 Israelis was seen on the roof of Urban Moving Systems videotaping and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. These Israeli agents were returned to Israel on visa violations.

These Israeli suspects, and others, who had apparently transported explosives in the New York area, were allowed to return to Israel without being properly interrogated or their presence and activities in the United States having been vigorously investigated.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86989

Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/05-23-05/discussion.cgi.39.html

The Assistant Attorney General in charge of criminal investigations at the time was Michael Chertoff, the current head of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Chertoff, the son of the first hostess of Israel's national air carrier, El Al, is thought to be an Israeli national.

One of the Israeli agents later told Israeli radio that they had been sent to "document the event" - the event which took the lives of some 3,000 Americans.

Despite the fact that the Israelis arrested in New Jersey evidently had prior knowledge or were involved in the planning of 9/11, the U.S. mainstream media has never even broached the question of Israeli complicity in the attacks.

http://planetquo.com/Bad-Company

ICTS UK Ltd is another Israeli-run 'transportation security' company with offices in London. Although the company's registered address is listed as 8 Baker Street, they operate, however, from an office on the first Floor of Tavistock House South. Curiously, this is the exact same location that Fortress GB operate from. More curious still, Tavistock House is the exact location where the number 30 bus exploded on 7th July.

Given that both companies provide 'transportation security' services, operate from the same floor of the same office complex, and given that both are owned and run by Israelis, only a hardened 'coincidence theorist' would deny that there is evidence indicating tangible links between the two. Indeed, one could be forgiven for believing that the same people are behind Fortress GB Ltd and ICTS UK Ltd.

As Christopher Bollyn points out, these companies merit being investigated because "they provide 'security technology' for the tube lines that were bombed." Bollyn also points out that these Israeli companies perfect their 'security' skills in Israel and Iraq and then apply them in Britain and the USA.

ICTS International were the company who ran the security arrangements at ALL the airports from where the hijacked airliners departed from on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

http://planetquo.com/Bad-Company

US Nuclear Weapons Being "Guarded" By Israel

American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems - owned in part by the government of Israel - is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.

The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) - which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.

What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the Security of America's nuclear weapons.

And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties - even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel-Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries - will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.

Posted by plunger at 12/22/2005 @ 10:27am

Posted by PLUNGER 12/22/2005 @ 10:27am

A few million wingnut crazies with guns running around the countryside armed to the teeth and we need to go to Isreal to find security for our nuclear arsonal.

Hmm, a few million wingnut crazies with guns running around the countryside armed to the teeth.

We do need to go to Isreal to find security for our nuclear arsonal.

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 11:08am

Will:

what if they have the launch codes?

Posted by plunger at 12/22/2005 @ 11:18am

Actually by "hate" the 2nd, what I mean is their attempts (like you did) to use the STRICTEST possible interpretation of it ("It only means militias, not private citizens")....

Posted by MASK 12/22/2005 @ 09:51am

You know its funny you say that because since the civil war only two second amendment cases have been argued that I know of: Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The second was a Klan case and is no longer valid but the first the Supreme Court argued that "Basically they decided that the 2nd amendment was not a right to form or be part of a militia. It related to people (individuals, it seems) bearing arms for the use of the US government, and as part of the militia as called up by the government."

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/supreme_cases. html

It's interesting that with all the NRA hype about gun control, they always seem to make commerce clause arguments rather than second amendment arguments. Some champions of the second amendment they turned out to be.

Limp!

And this might explain why the wingnuts have a problem with the "Liberal" interpretation of the commerce clause.

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 11:25am

Plunger

Who the wingnuts or the Israeli's?

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 11:26am

Will:

uh...I guess we're hosed either way, huh?

Posted by plunger at 12/22/2005 @ 11:41am

re: "impeachment" of the unholy Dubya....

Be careful what you wish for......

Posted by leftofcenter at 12/22/2005 @ 11:45am

WILL C

Yes, but the political debate about the 2nd Amendment is always those on the Left want the STRICTEST and most LITERAL interpretation of it....something they eschew when it comes to the 1st Amendment or the equal protection clause.

and let's not forget the 10th, which says that all rights not specifically given to the Fed or the Constitution, go to the States and the people. Hardly a "fan favorite" of the new American Left either.

Basic point was....that there is some "pickin-n-choosin'" going on by those who claim to love the "Bill of Rights", or to paraphrase a famous British author's allegory..."All Amendments are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Posted by Mask at 12/22/2005 @ 11:51am

I keep thinking of what Thomas Paine would do in response to revelations that the Bush Administration once again has authorized itself to disregard the U.S. Constitution. And I recall how, when issuing his revolutionary call for independence and the making of a democratic republic, Paine pre-empted those who would have proposed the creation of a monarchy in America by declaring:

"But where say some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is". Common Sense (January 1776)

Harvey J. Kaye author, Thomas Paine and the Promise of America (FSG 2005)

Posted by radical at 12/22/2005 @ 11:53am

Plunger,

Let me jump on that before you answer. First please accept my apology. My sarcasm wasn't directed at you but rather at the idea that we have to outsource our nuclear security to a foreign security company.

I reread my post and realized you might have thought I was slamming you. I wasn't.

From my understanding of US Nuclear launch protocols, the security codes are maintained at the civilian level in the executive branch. People guarding a nuclear base or storage facility wouldn't have access to them.

Things may have changed since I was in the military but from my memory, to launch an entire wing of nuclear missiles all you need is two air force officers with two launch keys in the same control center pushing the launch buttons at the same time.

We work on the assumption that no US servicemen would want to launch our nukes. The launch codes only give authorization for a launch but don't actually activate the launch system. That is done manually at the facility.

Me personally I'm more worried about the evangelic infusion into the US air force academy. Imagine a scenario where we have a couple of rapture maniacs on duty at a nuclear missle facility after a terrorist nuke detonation in an American city and they decide to take it upon themselves to retaliate.

I'm not entirely sure that the other nuclear powers would just sit there and wait to see where the missiles landed.

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 11:53am

of course impeachment solves nothing concrete as Cheney would become president. however his poll numbers are worse than Bush and he would have an even harder time ramming his agenda down the throats of the american people. justice demands that illegal acts, even those committed under the best of motives, be punished

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2005 @ 11:55am

Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/22/2005 @ 11:45am

A point I made earlier...a real impeachment move could be disasterous for the Democrats.

If it fails, they get tarred with the same "out of control" brush that the Repubs rightly deserved in 1997, and unlike the GOP, they have no "cushion" of lost seats in Congress they can afford to lose over that.

If it succeeds, they get "President Cheney" for atleast a SHORT duration, and his Constitutional right to appoint a Vice-President...who MIGHT be "the first black and female Vice-President". Then, if they "get Cheney", history forever marks that the first African-American AND first female President....was a Republican! (something Dem historians PROBABLY won't be too keen on, despite having a "Bush/Cheney impeachment" under their belt!)

Posted by Mask at 12/22/2005 @ 11:55am

Yes, but the political debate about the 2nd Amendment is always those on the Left want the STRICTEST and most LITERAL interpretation of it....something they eschew when it comes to the 1st Amendment or the equal protection clause.

Posted by MASK 12/22/2005 @ 11:51am

Take it up with the supreme court.

They support our definition.

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 11:55am

Andrew Johnson: Impeached but not convicted for refusing to adopt many provisions of the Radical Republican faction in Congress

Richard Nixon: Undoubtedly would have been impeached and convicted (and subsequently pardoned by Jerry "The Tumbler" Ford) for ordering, aiding, and abetting in felonious crimes.

William Clinton: Impeached but not convicted for perjury related to his affair with a White House intern.

George W. Bush: Not impeached, nor convicted, despite ordering an aggressive war against a foreign power, widespread systemic deception of the (opposition) legislative branch and the American public. Condonement of several provisions of the Geneva Convention, of which the U.S. is a charter signee.

I'll tell you what, if Johnson was impeached because of Dixie, Nixon because he was a dick, and Clinton because he was guided by his dick... and then Bush (and Uberreichsfuhrer Cheney) get away with being dick-tators... we don't deserve to be a country anyways.

And someone keeps brining up the Bill of Rights as if the Republican Party wrote it and thus has the right to interpret it... even aristocratic slaveholders like Jefferson and Madison would commit hari-kari before they'd agree with your interpretation. Fascism is as fascism does.

And I WISH the States had some actually power. I never understood the South Carolina Nullification Crisis of the 1840's and the secessionism that preceded the Civil War. Now, I'm all for it. If I woke up tomorrow and found that my state had seceded from the United States and the grasp of the conservative cabal in Washington, I wouldn't shed any tears. The South seceded so they could keep their slaves... the blue states should secede so they won't become slaves.

Posted by Robespierre at 12/22/2005 @ 12:12pm

"during war time truth is the first casualty" W. Churchill

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2005 @ 12:16pm

Since we are now quoting famous war vets from the past...

Here's my favorite..

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country"

General G. Patton

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/22/2005 @ 12:33pm

Robes,

"And I WISH the States had some actually power. I never understood the South Carolina Nullification Crisis of the 1840's and the secessionism that preceded the Civil War. Now, I'm all for it. If I woke up tomorrow and found that my state had seceded from the United States and the grasp of the conservative cabal in Washington, I wouldn't shed any tears. The South seceded so they could keep their slaves... the blue states should secede so they won't become slaves."

I love the idea of succession and consider myself to be a federalist. My state could then be happy with our banning of Gay marriages, allow Christianity to be taught in public schools and continue to institute the death penalty.

Let the south go!

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/22/2005 @ 12:48pm

My state could then be happy with our banning of Gay marriages, allow Christianity to be taught in public schools and continue to institute the death penalty.

Let the south go!

Todd

Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 12/22/2005 @ 12:48am

So you banned gay marriage but you're still not happy about it.

That's too bad.

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 12:52pm

.

Those Peachy Impeachment Preachers

The people of this country are waking up to the severity of the lies, crimes, and abuses of power committed by this president and his administration," says Jon Bonifaz, a co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition

The Jon Bonifazes and John Nicholses are political Elmer Gantries. They anguish over the wickedness of the govt. They hurl hell and brimstone at its evil. They fear for the liberties of Americans. It is all rubbish.

They are not afraid of big govt. Be the issue crime, health insurance, right to life, rifle ownership, the economy, the environment, they want MORE govt. Wherever the citizen looks to his privacy, his wallet, his rights, they are for flaying and fileting him in fuller and fatter federal power.

But up pops 9/11, the US is bombed for the first time ever, thousands die, hundreds of thousands are at risk, we are at war: now they believe the president, in defending the nation, is acting criminally.

Let us be clear, Nixon and Clinton stood accused in connection with illegally protecting their selfish political and private interests. President Bush is accused of illegally protecting the nation. No one has suggested his actions have advantaged him personally, or any administration member, or that any American has had his personal liberties injured.

The administration has had the temerity to listen in on phone conversations in the US, when Al-Qaeda was on the other end. It ignored 1978 warrant procedures, dealing with tens of thousands of weekly telephone calls, only three or four of which were threatening, and those would frequently switch to new numbers.

If the 1978 rules could have been practicably applied, why would the administration have lazily ignored them? Why forgo the warrants it was empowered to request?

Sure, the maker of law must not be the breaker of law. Govt must obey the rules. It must be forced to accept restrictions to its power and be restricted more. It must be watched like a hawk and not trusted for a moment. Power can corrupt conservatives as well as liberals. There are SOBs in every party. Once in the control room people are ever tempted to get away with whatever they can, whatever the party.

But if there is a single time when govt deserves the benefit of the doubt, it is in time of war. And particularly a war where the enemy targets our liabilities as an open society. Communications between Al-Qaeda and people in this country need to be overheard. One intercept might decide the fate of thousands. The enormous, fast moving screening which that requires, is an ominous civil liberties development, yet clearly unavoidable. I don't believe that, could the 1978 rules have been efficiently applied, they would have been cavalierly ignored. Why for God's sake? Whom did that omission advantage?

The howls for impeachment are cheap and partisan. Republicans like Arlen Spector are grandstanding; they cannot resist any display of virtue.

I don't fully understand the 1978 law, or the technical reasons it was no longer efficacious. And perhaps the legal aspect had a better solution. But the opposition party was periodically briefed, and The NY Times knew and sat on the matter for a year. Evidently, people across the spectrum saw justification for that procedure, or lack of procedure. Bad faith was not involved, nothing was truly hidden, except from our foreign enemies.

A Bonifaz, with his Downing Street Memo cavil, is transparently a cause without a case, or rather, with an obviously stupid and phony kwetch. He and Nichols are not wailing as genuine civil libertarians. Theirs is not a concern over malfeasance. The Nation crowd is focused on rancor, ideology and partisan politics, not on protecting the individual American, or the life and the future of this nation.

Yet that really is what is at stake.

.

Posted by nacl at 12/22/2005 @ 1:07pm

JOHANNES.....

Actually it was Lord Arthur Ponsonby

"When war is declared, truth is the first casualty."

This famous statement is similar to one attributed to Hiram Johnson: "The first casualty when war comes is truth." said to have been declared in 1917 or 1918, and also to one by Samuel Johnson: "Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages." from The Idler (1758)

Posted by Mask at 12/22/2005 @ 1:38pm

Will,

"So you banned gay marriage but you're still not happy about it.

That's too bad."

Oh no, we are ecstatic about it here locally, I'm referring to all the negative crap we get from other states regarding the "infringements on personal rights and freedoms" crap.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 12/22/2005 @ 1:49pm

Oh no, we are ecstatic about it here locally, I'm referring to all the negative crap we get from other states regarding the "infringements on personal rights and freedoms" crap.

Todd

Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 12/22/2005 @ 1:49pm

So now you are happy about.

Why didn't you say so the first time? And since when did you wingnuts care what anybody else thought about you or your policies.

Your not getting soft on us are you Todd?

It's ok, your secret is safe with us.

Posted by Will C. at 12/22/2005 @ 2:06pm

if Lincoln had let the south go, as many have suggested, they would have to pay their own way, instead of relying on the tax money from the blue states.

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2005 @ 2:07pm

I could die a very, very happy man if I could watch one day as the stars representing the southern states were torn off the American flag and thrown away. While you "rebs" were busy building yourself a little Christian theocracry in Dixie; hanging gays and minorities from trees, burning books, and putting crosses and Confederate flags on top of your state houses, the rest of us could get back to being a real nation again. After tearing off the southern stars, we could also tear up the Patriot Act, the NAFTA treaty and every other free trade agreement, and every piece of ridiculous legislation inflicted on the United States by southern legislators/evangelicals. We'll buy our oil from Canada and Venezuela, while the South embarks on whatever new Crusade in the Middle East they want. One condition: the South will have to take Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the cabal along with Bush when they go.

In essence: The South is free to go whenever they want. I just wish we hadn't wasted the heroic lives of hundreds of thousands of Northerners trying to get back what we should've told "good riddance" to in 1860. Britain would've made the rebs free the slaves, anyways.

Posted by Robespierre at 12/22/2005 @ 2:08pm

NACL:

"But if there is a single time when govt deserves the benefit of the doubt, it is in time of war."

Is that what you call it...a war? Which one? War on christmas, War on Drugs, the duck shoot in Iraq?, the city state called Kabul?

Bush knowingly created this "war on terror" and is reaping full benefit. He's got people like you and all those "security moms" out there, cowering and hiding from every unknown boogeyman. Bush wants you to be afraid, very afraid. The more fearful you become, the easier it is for him to undermine your rights, one after another. One at a time.

We are not fighting for our very survival NACL. This is not WAR. Bush is no War-time president as he fancies himself. Conducting surveillance and gathering intelligence is not WAR. Taking action with reliable intel and going after the numerous isolated pockets of fundamentalist cells is nothing but good police work. It is not WAR.

And, no, I will never give this govt the benefit of doubt.

Posted by doumer at 12/22/2005 @ 2:55pm

the biggest lie is the war on terror, amorphous, open ended, with no "metrics" as to whether we are winning, losing etc. I don't want to see Bush etc impeached, I want to see them at the Hague, next to Milosovitch's cell. but that's just me

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2005 @ 5:10pm

This passage is from Salon; you have to click through an ad to get the whole piece.

Y es Virginia, it is against the law! [salon.com]

"Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law...It was bracing to see impeachment mentioned as a possibility in the mainstream media. But experts say it's not unreasonable. According to Turley, there's little question Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The act authorizes a secret court to issue warrants to eavesdrop on potential suspects, or anyone even remotely connected to them, inside the United States. The bar to obtain a FISA warrant is low; more than 15,000 have been granted, with only four requests denied since 1979. In emergency situations, the government can even apply for FISA warrants retroactively. Nevertheless, Bush chose not to comply with FISA's minimal requirements.

"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

Posted by Turk33 at 12/22/2005 @ 7:30pm

And I hate to bring up Bill, but since he's the Koolade Brigade's eternal whipping boy, I'm fighting fire with fire.

Posted by Turk33 at 12/22/2005 @ 7:37pm

For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

they have long ago shown that they have no principles, something they share with some of the posters on this site, you know who I mean

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2005 @ 9:24pm

I think at this point many are ready to impeach Bush for breathing

Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2005 @ 3:49pm

The ReTHUGlicans have consolidated enough power and money, that they arrogantly ignore the rule of law. They obviously believe that no one can or will hold them accountable.

Bush said, it's OK to spy on Americans without a warrant. The doesn't need one people we label terrorists. Even though we can immediately start surveillance legally without one, and have 72 hours grace period to file for the warrant.

Cheney has illegally withheld documents from his Energy Task Force, the DoD continues to withhold photos illegally, the DoJ has impeded investigations into election fraud [truthout.org], and the Kean Commission covered-up important leads into the 9/11 investigation. BTW an investigation the WH did not want. Specifically, questions did not address the five war exercises that were being conducted on 9/11 and the one scheduled in NY on 9/12 with FEMA, which was called TRIPOD II.

The media continues their role in disinformation management. The CIA and law enforcement has been given the green light to detain, render, and torture individuals without due process. This INCLUDES American citizens.

The GOP continues to defraud the taxpayers, by appropriating defense funds to shell corporations, such as MZM, The Wilkes Corporation, and their associated divisions. Here is a small list:

www.Acousticalcs.com www.Adcs.com www.Akamaiinfotech.com www.Archerdefense.com www.Archerlogistics.com www.Asap-catering.com www.Aztecclassic.com www.Aztecgolf.com www.Bbqranch.com www.Cdpsa.com www.Edge-catering.com www.Electharman.com www.Groupwadvisors.com www.Groupwevents.com www.Groupwholdings.net www.Groupwmedia.net www.Groupwoutfitters.com www.Ict-sa.com www.Libertydefensetech.com www.Mailsafeinc.com www.Mirrorlabs.com www.Ocdllc.com www.Perfectwavetech.com www.Pkmi.com www.Powaymafia.com www.Powaysc.com www.Primevector.com www.Pureaquatech.com www.Sandiegoheroes.org www.Sdheroes.org www.W-catering.com www.Wilkesclan.com www.Wilkescorp.com www.Wilkesfoundation.com www.Wilkesfoundation.org www.Wilkestechnologygroup.com

These "businesses" have connections to Abramhoff, Scanlon, Delay, Cunningham, and others.

This said, "Constitution in Crisis" report by Conyers staff took over six months to generate. It is filled with undisputable facts and law. Which unlike the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq", is filled with cotton candy. Read the report first before offering bu11$hit comments.

By characterizing this as ineffective mewling letter writing and "liberal meat" is exactly how the ReTHUGlicans feel about the law and documentation of this sort. They don't care and have no use for it. I suppose the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are ineffective mewling letter writing and "liberal meat" also?! They ignore them too!

We are(or were) a nation that believes in justice and the rule of law. Writing letters, submitting petitions and reports, forms an important chain of documentary evidence. It provides proof of mens rhea and criminal behavior. Without it, arguments for war crimes, fraud, murder, and treason all become hearsay in a court of law.

Just imagine where we would be today if the Downing Street Memos, just more mewling ineffective letters, had not surfaced? A majority of Americans would still be behind the Tyrant in the oval office, the current fight over the renewal of the Patriot Act would not exist, and the minority voices would be branded as traitors and unpatriotic cowards by a majority. The path to fascism would also have been all but assured.

At least now, a majority Americans realize that we were lied to so we could attack Iraq, but yet, they don't realize their contempt to be held accountable against the rule of law. They are greedy power hungry dictators.

We MUST be patient and we need to ensure that we document and expose all of their criminal behavior. Then, we must ensure that fair and untampered elections occur in 2006. Because, even with all of the exposure and allegations, 2004 taught us that the fix is still on in OH. And, they got away with it!

The short term mission is quite clear; Democrats must establish a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections. If this is not accomplished, the United States Of America should be renamed the Republiech de Amerikanna.

Posted by wolverine06 at 12/23/2005 @ 4:11pm

Shallow be thy name...

Posted by USAPRIDE at 12/23/2005 @ 5:49pm

Stupid shall be your name...

Enjoy.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 12/23/2005 @ 5:56pm

FREEDOM = Kick'n ASS.

Any ?

Posted by USAPRIDE at 12/23/2005 @ 5:58pm