Gore to Address "Constitutional Crisis"

It sounds as if Al Gore is about to deliver what could be not just one of the more significant speeches of his political career but an essential challenge to the embattled presidency of George W. Bush.

In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

Aides who are familiar with the preparations for the address say that Gore will frame his remarks in Constitutional language. The Democrat who beat Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the 2000 presidential election has agreed to deliver his remarks in a symbolically powerful location: the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution. But this will not be the sort of cautious, bureacratic speech for which Gore was frequently criticized during his years in the Senate and the White House.

Indeed, his aides and allies are framing it as a "call to arms" in defense of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in a time of executive excess.

The vice president will, according to the groups that have arranged for his appearance -- the bipartisan Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy -- address "the threat posed by policies of the Bush Administration to the Constitution and the checks and balances it created. The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration's efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review."

Coming only a few weeks after U.S. Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and to explore the issue of impeachment, Gore in expected to "make the case that the country -- including the legislative and judicial branches and all Americans -- must act now to defend the systems put into place by the country's founders to curb executive power or risk permanent and irreversible damage to the Constitution."

Don't expect a direct call for impeachment from the former vice president. But do expect Gore to make reference to Richard Nixon, whose abuses of executive authority led to calls for his impeachment -- a fate the 37th president avoided by resigning in 1974.

Gore's speech will add fuel to the fire that was ignited when it was revealed that Bush had secretly authorized National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants. Gore will argue that the domestic wiretapping policy is only the latest example of the administration exceeding its authority under the Constitution.

With a Congressional inquiry into Bush's repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act scheduled to begin in February -- and with Bush already preparing to pitch an Nixon-style defense that suggests it is appropriate for the executive branch to violate the law when national security matters are involved -- Gore will articulate the more traditional view that reasonable checks and balances are required even in a time of war. And he will do so in a bipartisan context that will make it tougher for Republican critics to dismiss the former vice president's assertion that the Constitution is still the law of the land.

Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who served as one of the most conservative members of the House, plans to introduce Gore. Barr, an outspoken critic of the abuses of civil liberties contained in the USA Patriot Act critic who has devoted his post-Congressional years to defending the Bill of Rights, refers to the president's secret authorization of domestic wiretapping as "an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws."

Count on Gore, who has pulled few punches in the speeches he has delivered in recent months, to be at least as caustic.

Comments (300)

1. (I should be more excited about this.)

   These guys have driven my expectations into the dirt.

   Posted by drhammer at 01/13/2006 @ 12:18pm

2. Like the old saying, "if a tree falls in the forest, will anyone hear?", I am confident that Gore's "call to arms" will ring just as silently to an American public that has already correctly deposited Gore in the trash heap of American politics.

   He would do better to just leave his public awareness by left to reruns of his Saturday Night Live appearances. Now those were funny and worth watching.

   Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 12:23pm

3. Hey Love Liberty, speaking of reruns that were funny and worth watching...how did you like the anti-war protests last weekend? Oh, and another blast from the Vietnam era past: another chopper goes down. Keep up your war-whore ways, good buddy...

   Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 12:29pm

4. LL

   Do you find the SNL Dubya spots as amusing I wonder....

   Posted by leftofcenter at 01/13/2006 @ 12:30pm

5. Hey,

   I just found these links to some of LL's sermons. Talk about being full of hot air...

   http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/fartingpreacher5.html

   http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/fartingpreacher4.html

   Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 12:39pm

6. Nathan HALE

   There were war protests last week? Where? Camp Sheehan? Good luck with that.

   Oh interesting you use the example of a chopper going down, both pilots hurt but alive, to advance your view. And they call you guys anti-american?

   Oh why do you think a chopper going down is newsworthy? Because its so DAMN rare. Keep up with your anti-US terror appeasing tactics...good buddy

   Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 12:42pm

7. It's kind of funny in a tragicomic kind of way, but Love Liberty is just sure the American people will not hear any of Gore's message and, at the same time, thinks the media is liberal.

   Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 12:42pm

8. Oh to stay on topic...GORE??? Gore who?

   Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 12:43pm

9. BBATTEN

   The media is liberal....just not a DailyKOS kind of liberal

   Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 12:44pm

10. CPT: "Oh why do you think a chopper going down is newsworthy? Because its so DAMN rare."

    Right. They hardly ever happen, only about once or twice a week, and there effect is minimal, only 3 to 30 deaths per crash.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 12:44pm

11. CPT, if the media is liberal, why do you think nobody hears or cares about Gore? If the media were liberal, wouldn't they be giving lots of airtime to Gore and discussing what he has to say?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 12:45pm

12. well, good for gore. i've always liked him, even when straddled by the worst sort of meely-mouthed-try-not-to-offend-anyone-til-i-look-like-a-double-talking- goob handlers in the 2000 election. of course the privatly owned right wing propaganda machine muffled anything relevantly manly and twisted truthful statements of his into exagerations and lies. i have seen some fight in him since, and some fire has burned away his usual stilted, over-rehearsed style. he is a good man, though, probably his weakness, though it has been my contention for some while that sans buttkissing doublepeak and politics as usual pandering, such a quality (decency, goodness) could actually resonate - if backed by sincere rightous indignation...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2006 @ 12:45pm

13. "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing."---Billy Preston

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/13/2006 @ 12:47pm

14. CPT,

    Am I a terrorist-appeaser just because I'd like to see a helicopter crash into your recruiting station?

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 12:49pm

15. CHIMICHMENGA

    Allow me to pre-empt you hate filled attacking rant that is undoubtedly coming my way from you.

    You are the petulant 4 year old child screaming "You are a loser" "I can beat you up" to..........

    Me the 6'4 220 pound man...your insults mean just as much.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 12:50pm

16. CPT, if you're paying attention, you have recently found out that the New York Times knew the Bush administration was breaking Federal wiretapping laws before the last election but didn't report it. You also might remember that Time Magazine knew that the Bush administration was lying about its involvement in the Plame affair and didn't publish that information until after the election. And, you might have missed the little ditty about how both the New York Times and the LA Times spiked a story about how a NASA imaging expert had conclusive evidence that Bush cheated during the debates because it was too close to the election.

    Surely, these bastions of liberal media would have published these stories before the election if they were truly liberal, don't you think?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 12:50pm

17. Zero, to anyone who is paying attention with an open mind, multiple constitutional crimes have been committed, many more worthy of impeachment than any of Nixon's articles. Gore will most certainly catalog many of these crimes. My prediction is that television media will either totally ignore him or somehow attempt to marginalize what he says. The corporations which own and run television media do not want this man impeached and they do not want democrats to retake congress. They know they will be re-regulated and they know some democrats will push for a new fairness doctrine if they re-take power.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 12:54pm

18. ZERO

    No one is trying to hijack anything, these things often go off on minor tangents. Its a minor inconvience, thats all.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 12:55pm

19. Another was "using the nation's intelligence apparatus for political purposes."

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 12:59pm

20. CPT, I keep asking you because you flatly state that "the media is liberal." Wouldn't a "liberal media" trumpet Gore's words all over the place? Wouldn't a liberal media try to force the nation to discuss what Gore brings up tonight? Wouldn't there be round-table discussions involving liberals to discuss the liberal ramifications of what Gore presents?

    It tell you what: you tune in after Gore's speech to any political discussion show on television, count the number of conservatives and liberals discussing it, if they're discussing it at all and listen very carefully. Try to discern any liberal propaganda and report it to us here.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 1:03pm

21. Dont' bother arguing the spying issue with CPT. If he had his way, he'd employ the same COINTELPRO practices the FBI used to monitor, menace, sabotage and subvert the AMA and Black Panthers, killing scores of innocent people in the process, stamping a boot on the threat of democracy emerging in the 60s and 70s, and sending Native and African Americans reeling while sending a message to the rest of the populace. Democracy in practice is quite a dangerous thing...

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 1:03pm

22. I meant AIM instead of AMA.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 1:04pm

23. BBATTEN

    None of your accusations of law breaking, have been PROVEN in court.

    You are repeating a common Liberal theme that PRECEPTION IS REALITY. And that the appearence of wrongdoing, is the same thing as ACTUAL misdeeds.

    Every DEM Senator asked Alito this question in one form or another

    "Can the President spy on Americans in direct contradiction of statued?" They NEVER asked if the President can "spy" on Americans who talk to AQ. Clever ruse.

    The Consitutional question will be settled, much to liberals dismay, because when they discover that the POTUS CAN spy on Americans talking to AQ.

    Because under article 2 since the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and in a time of war. He is CONSTITUTIONALLY allowed to conduct war against an enemy of the USA. AND gathering INTELL on AQ, FALLS under that subset. REGARDLESS of any other statued, that says to the contrary, and PRECEDENT backs this up. And your almighty polls back him as well. So get ready to be upset and decry a foul.

    That is seemingly what todays Gores like to do.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:08pm

24. BBATTEN

    No, because even though the media slants left, as with GORE, they dont slant THAT far left. And that is what GORE has become, far LEFT, his role is to be in Dean mode of attack dog

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:11pm

25. ZERO

    Why do you assume tribunals are a kangroo court? You think the outcome is pre-determined, you would be incorrect.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:12pm

26. ZERO

    "The people have stood still in the face of torture, spying, warfare, and all manner of other egregious offences."

    How about asking yourself, honestly why you think this is?

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:14pm

27. But is there any mention of following the other end of the line to whatever country the other caller is on? And who's to judge what caller may or may not be a member of AQ? I feel bad for anyone in the US with relatives in any Arab or Muslim country, because they are in for some serious disturbances.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 1:15pm

28. BBATTEN piqued my interest with that "NASA imaging expert" thing. Here's a link:

    http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2004/november/nasa_scientist_sh ows_bush_wired_in_debate.htm

    Anyone who thinks the media is liberal is an idiot. And anyone who thinks the media is anti-war is insane. It's the best story they've got.

    Enough of that.

    What did Al Gore ever do but stand in the shadows? If he knew shit, George Bush would still be just another asshole from Texas. Okay, his speeches the last couple years have been increasingly good. But so what, he has no stature. When will Pelosi and Reid make the same speech? Then we'd have something to discuss.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/13/2006 @ 1:18pm

29. Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 12:42am | ignore this person

    CPT, if you were following along, last Friday LL was looking forward to the nostalgia of anti-war protests that The Nation advised were to occur last weekend: reminded him of the protests of 35 years ago. As you say, downed choppers are rare (although wmd in Iraq are even rarer), but I thought it ironic that while LL was looking forward to the nosalgia of a bygone era, there was a spike in American casualties that added a bite of realism from the war front.

    Perhaps you're right, and I shouldn't have mentioned that this country is still taking casualties so long after our mission was accomplished in Iraq.

    My reply to LL should have been along the lines of: "Dude, talk about comedy... I'd trade all my Cheech & Chong tapes for video of you getting out of your old beat-up ministry station wagon and giving a sermon on how Jesus Loves This War.... That's gotta be fucking hilarious...."

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 1:18pm

30. Nichols seems to take a little pride in the fact that a rightwing nut like Barr is introducing Gore. While I think it is fine for the Barr (and I imagine Buchanan) wing of the GOP to get an issue correct for once, where are the Democrats to serve as Gore's backup or warmup band? Or is everyone planning on running for president in '08 and unwilling to assist another potential candidate?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/13/2006 @ 1:29pm

31. CHIMICHENGA

    CPT,

    Am I a terrorist-appeaser just because I'd like to see a helicopter crash into your recruiting station?

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/13/2006 @ 12:49am | ignore this person

    I am sorry missed this one, well if your fellow brothers in amrs in Afghan couldnt kill me in 10 months, and they did try, I doubt this dream of yours will become a reality.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:29pm

32. ZERO

    "What if not all of the spying had to do with anything Muslim or Arab? The identities of all people spied on must be made public, along with the reasons why."

    Posted by ZERO 01/13/2006 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person

    Is that a serious proposition? This will NEVER happen, nor should it, I think we helped them enough by the programs disclosure.

    Is national strategic secrets to be sacrificed for the sake of openess? Why do WE, the US, have to plead for the right to defend ourselves against AQ.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:36pm

33. NATHAN HALE

    If I took you out of context, my apologies, I have said before it is a web blog and much is often lost, in the "translation"

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 1:38pm

34. CPT

    Me the 6'4 220 pound man...

    Trouble is, you're riddled with disease, likely to prove terminal.

    Posted by inveresk at 01/13/2006 @ 1:49pm

35. Hey CPT, a question for the boots that were on the ground: I hear that 4000 Marines were in the Tora Bora theater when Osama was holed up there (geez, was it really over three years ago?). Why didn't we have the best damn fighting force in the world go in and take that weasel out? Did I hear wrong? Whose mistake was it to rely on the locals?

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 1:50pm

36. I am confident that Gore's "call to arms" will ring just as silently to an American public that has already correctly deposited Gore in the trash heap of American politics.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/13/2006 @ 12:23am

    But the issue here is the message, not the messenger! From one who denounces "the Left" for circumventing the constitutional ammendment process to achieve its agenda through the courts, your silence on the issue of Bush's circumvention of the same constitution is deafening.

    Instead, you resort to ad hominum attacks, or to put it another way, you don't like the message so you kill the messenger.

    Your opinion of Al Gore is irrelevant. The issue here is Bush's abuse of power, and all patriotic americans should favor at least censure, if not impeachment and trial. Otherwise you're just playing partisan politics with our civil liberties.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/13/2006 @ 1:55pm

37. Hey Love Liberty, speaking of reruns that were funny and worth watching...how did you like the anti-war protests last weekend? Oh, and another blast from the Vietnam era past: another chopper goes down. Keep up your war-whore ways, good buddy...

    Posted by NATHANHALE 01/13/2006 @ 12:29am

    Nathanhale,

    Thanks for reminding me that it occurred. I never saw a mention of it on the news, did anyone show up? Perhaps Bush took over the network and cable TV, plus the radio stations and blocked all efforts to report the millions who turned out?

    LOL

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 1:55pm

38. CPT, if you were following along, last Friday LL was looking forward to the nostalgia of anti-war protests that The Nation advised were to occur last weekend: reminded him of the protests of 35 years ago

    Posted by NATHANHALE 01/13/2006 @ 1:18pm

    NathanHale,

    Conservatives can always count on libs like yourself to totally misrepresent what we say (just witness the scurrilous and empty-headed attacks by dimwits like the adulterous, drunken murderer, Ted Kennedy). What is obvious from my remarks shown again below, is that Peter himself reminds me of my youth.

    Welcome back Peter; I almost always disagree with you but you are a throw back to my younger days so there is a certain nostalgia when reading your postings.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/05/2006 @ 11:46pm

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 2:03pm

39. LL, I'm not sure whether I misrepresented what you said or whether your post last week was too vague (I'll leave out the comparison of Bush to Kennedy, since one is an adulterer and the other a fornicator). In any event, I'm sure you know that using absolutes like "always" don't serve to move along a dialog.

    That being said, I'm sure your video that I referred to is absolutely fucking hysterical

    LOL

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 2:24pm

40. blog degenerating

    not complaining, cause obviously i'm part of the problem...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2006 @ 2:27pm

41. My reply to LL should have been along the lines of: "Dude, talk about comedy... I'd trade all my Cheech & Chong tapes for video of you getting out of your old beat-up ministry station wagon and giving a sermon on how Jesus Loves This War.... That's gotta be fucking hilarious...."

    Posted by NATHANHALE 01/13/2006 @ 1:18pm

    Wasn't going to respond but since you have repeated your assertion:

    1)don't have a beat up station wagon

    2)I never street preach on anything but God's love for mankind demonstrated in His Son, Jesus. That God's thoughts toward man are to give him/her a future and a hope (Jeremiah 29:11)

    3)The necessity of repentence and believing in the person, sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ to receive the gift of life.

    Jesus does not "love" any war. However He certainly does authorize government to use the sword against evil (Romans 13) and will Himself one day lead the ultimate battle against evil and it will be a bloody one (Revelation 19)

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 2:52pm

42. I see that most on this board have automatically judged the NSA wiretapping program as illegal. Not so fast my friend. It is possible that the law requiring the court order is unconstitutional. It has not been brought before the Supreme Court. Actually this whole arguement has been with us since the very beginning of our nation---How much power should the President have and does the amount of power belonging to the President change in time of war? I am sure that the learned posters on this board are familiar with all of the examples of Presidents suspending personal liberties during times of war so I will not bore you by listing them. But partly because of these past actions you can make a fine Constitutional arguement that Bush has the power to take such action and the Congress has no right to impose limits. There has been an longstanding discusion on the powers of the President--the question boils down to; should the President be subserviant to the Congress or is he/her equal to the legislative branch (it can also be argued that in time of war that the President surpasses the Congress in power and authority). I personally hope for some compromise on this issue---but to think that Bush will be impeached on such grounds is ludicrous.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/13/2006 @ 2:53pm

43. 3)The necessity of repentence and believing in the person, sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ to receive the gift of life.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/13/2006 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person

    u make me a cake with all the finest ingredients, prepare it lovingly and expertly from scratch...then u throw in a little dab of deadly poison, bake it up, and get all uptight when i refuse to eat it and thank u and appreciate what a wonderful cake u baked.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2006 @ 3:00pm

44. Love Liberty: "adulterous, drunken murderer, Ted Kennedy"

    You know, I've never heard any lefty refer to Laura Bush as a drunken murderer even though she killed her first boyfriend with her car.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 3:04pm

45. It's fascinating to watch people who passionately believed that Bill Clinton was not above the law argue that Bush IS above the law.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 3:05pm

46. "However He certainly does authorize government to use the sword against evil (Romans 13) and will Himself one day lead the ultimate battle against evil and it will be a bloody one (Revelation 19)"

    Amen!

    Preach it LL!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/13/2006 @ 3:11pm

47. CPT

    Here's a update for you, two American Soldiers died in the helecopter crash. Two more soldiers died for the your illegal war.

    OKSPORTGUY,

    Don't you hate to teach somewhere?

    Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 3:15pm

48. Oh, LL, you do make me LOL.

    I must apologize if I mis-remembered your vehicle situation...is it a van, not a station wagon? But what you preach is nothing next to that which you have in your heart, vile man. Remind me again, LL, how is it that the Pope got it wrong about the war in Iraq?

    Surely you can't both be right, you with your cheerleading support for the war, and him in opposition to it....

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 3:18pm

49. Correction for OKSPORTSGUY

    I was in a hurry, but what I really wanted to say, please go and teach your hate somewhere else.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 3:19pm

50. Love Liberty: "adulterous, drunken murderer, Ted Kennedy"

    You know, I've never heard any lefty refer to Laura Bush as a drunken murderer even though she killed her first boyfriend with her car.

    Posted by BBATTEN 01/13/2006 @ 3:04pm

    I somehow missed the part where Laura left a dead boyfriend in her car, swam back to a party and didn't tell anyone what had happened, and then didn't tell anyone until someone said the next day that her car was found.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 3:32pm

51. I am glad that someone of Gore's stature will speak out on this matter. Surely many will criticize him for his words and no doubt the usual suspects will call him "shrill" "unhinged" "strident" and "extremist." But this won't matter because everyone who is deeply concerned about civil liberties will want to take note. If civil liberties don't matter that much to you, don't listen.

    Posted by hhemwm at 01/13/2006 @ 3:32pm

52. It is no small matter that a former vice president is speaking out about an imbalance of power in Washington. If Dan Quayle spoke out during the Clinton years, that would have mattered to. People may not all like Gore, but a man who did win the popular vote in 2000 is no "fringe figure."

    Posted by hhemwm at 01/13/2006 @ 3:33pm

53. Remind me again, LL, how is it that the Pope got it wrong about the war in Iraq?

    Surely you can't both be right, you with your cheerleading support for the war, and him in opposition to it....

    Posted by NATHANHALE 01/13/2006 @ 3:18pm

    I guess he forgot to read the Bible, which I encourage him to do.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 3:33pm

54. It is no small matter that a former vice president is speaking out about an imbalance of power in Washington. If Dan Quayle spoke out during the Clinton years, that would have mattered to. People may not all like Gore, but a man who did win the popular vote in 2000 is no "fringe figure."

    Posted by HHEMWM 01/13/2006 @ 3:33pm

    HH,

    Show me any poll where even among Democrats he is considered a top or key figure?

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 3:34pm

55. "However He certainly does authorize government to use the sword against evil (Romans 13) and will Himself one day lead the ultimate battle against evil and it will be a bloody one (Revelation 19)"

    Amen!

    Preach it LL!

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/13/2006 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    oh man - He is going to get the wicked? the first shall be last and the last first, right? watch out w!!!! here He comes!!!

    watch out yourself, todd. all your smug surety won't mean a thing to HIM when the time comes from what i've read.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2006 @ 3:36pm

56. Hey LL,

    Why do you assume the US is on the side of good? Why would 9-11 happen to such a great nation of crusaders against evil? And how is it that more people in the world think the US is the greatest threat to world peace than any other nation on earth? I guess until they hear you preach, they'll remain in the dark.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 3:36pm

57. Notice this line?

    "Don't expect a direct call for impeachment from the former vice president."

    So...even GORE won't join the "mass movement" towards impeaching Bush?

    Posted by Mask at 01/13/2006 @ 3:39pm

58. Correction for OKSPORTSGUY

    I was in a hurry, but what I really wanted to say, please go and teach your hate somewhere else.

    Posted by BUTTERFLY 01/13/2006 @ 3:19pm

    Todd,

    You see, we conservative Christians are promoters of hate whenever we point out that God has spoken out on a wide range of human behavior. If they think that makes God and us haters, then as Jesus said, "if they hated me they will hate you"

    Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 3:39pm

59. Don't be a coward, Love Liberty, tell us all, what's the disconnect?

    How do you, on religious grounds, support a war that the Pope rejected?

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 3:40pm

60. LL,

    For someone who claims to be a global missionary, you sure do spend a lot of time sitting in front of a computer screen manipulating the word of God to suit your own crazy belief system.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 3:43pm

61. "However He certainly does authorize government to use the sword against evil (Romans 13) and will Himself one day lead the ultimate battle against evil and it will be a bloody one (Revelation 19)"

    Amen!

    Preach it LL!

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/13/2006 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    Unfortunately Jesus didn't make this reference. The Apostle Paul did. Jesus died without ever lifting so much as a finger against his enemies. Jesus my friend believed in something very few people believe in these days. That is that life is eternal (he proved that by returning after being crucified, remember that little tidbit of information) and that God is greater than fear. That LOVE is more powerful than hate.

    Posted by christiandem at 01/13/2006 @ 3:43pm

62. Admit it LL, you're just a bathtub preacher with a chip on his shoulder and a penchant for 1930s Germany.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 3:45pm

63. And LL, if you are a Christian, why are you so afraid of dying? We've been promised an eternal life if we believe in the Word of God and that he is our Savior haven't we? I know my life is saved. Is yours?

    Posted by christiandem at 01/13/2006 @ 3:51pm

64. Al Gore was right, and George Bush has been proven to be disastrously wrong.

    Al Gore came out against Bushs war, before Congress voted on it, Al Gore was absolutely correct.

    Bush said he would restore honor and dignity. We didnt have honor, we didnt have dignity, Bush was going to give us the honor and dignity we lacked.

    Bush was going to restore strategic planning to the military. Conservatives werent happy that the ethnic cleanser Slobodan Milosevic - the dictator - was taken out of Serbia. Bush said we need an exit strategy - now Donald Rumsfeld has admitted they dont have an exit strategy for the disaster in Iraq - they have a fantasy strategy.

    Bush told us we better not pay down the national debt too fast - we might incur penalties. Thats the big concern, we gotta worry that we dont pay down the debt - Bush has increased big government spending while presiding over the greatest loss of American power and influence the world has ever seen.

    Al Gore was absolutely right, Al Gore leads the charge. The rest of the Democrats know deep in their hearts that they will ultimately follow the lead established by Al Gore. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt - the establishment choices - are toast, and they are toast because they did not have the courage to follow the courageous example set by Al Gore.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/13/2006 @ 3:56pm

65. All that final judgement is just a bunch of holy roller nonsense. Pull the mask aside and it's just us, humanity, looking for yet another reason to dump on each other. But the highest commandment, according to Christ, was that you love your neighbor as you love your God, with all your heart and all your soul. Judgement, wrath, self-righteousness, those are all anathema to the teachings of Christ. Those are privileges reserved to God, but people assume them all the time.

    Posted by bkarloff at 01/13/2006 @ 3:57pm

66. I will listen and read with interest what Al Gore has to say. I have had the privilege of meeting him in person and he is a great patriot.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/13/2006 @ 4:01pm

67. Al Gore is PO'd about the Bush Administration? NO WAY. Next thing you'll be telling us is that George McGovern and Jimmuh Carter are bent, too. Nice going, Democrats- please continue to marginalize yourselves by rolling out jokers like Al Gore and Ted Kennedy to be the face of your party. You embarrassed yourselves at the Alito hearings, and I'm SURE that Al Gore will put you right back on the radar screen... LOL!!

    Posted by windwalker at 01/13/2006 @ 4:09pm

68. It always seems that when the topic turns to Jesus' teachings, the right-wing ideologues tend to edit the verses from the Bible that support their beliefs, but in fact have nothing to do with the teachings that He Himself is credited with making. Do the Gospels sound familiar to anyone out there?

    Posted by christiandem at 01/13/2006 @ 4:10pm

69. Windwalker, great post! Sounds like you're playing the same tune that Bush was playing on guitar while Gore was delivering relief supplies to Katrina victims...

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/13/2006 @ 4:25pm

70. Butterfly,

    "I was in a hurry, but what I really wanted to say, please go and teach your hate somewhere else."

    No thanks, hanging out at redstate.org is boring and very analogous to preaching to the choir.

    It's more fun, and controversial here. I really enjoy the exchanges and responses from liberals.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/13/2006 @ 4:28pm

71. "I guess until they hear you preach, they'll remain in the dark. "

    Exactly, now you liberals are getting it.

    Ding, ding, ding!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/13/2006 @ 4:32pm

72. This latest madness by Gore confirms the suspicion that he has been under mind control for many years. The question is who sits at the controls of the MKultra transmitter sending high frequency signals to the implants in Gore's head to cause to him continuously make a public ass of himself. Obviously they have a wonderful sense of humor. Any ideas?

    Posted by Celerator at 01/13/2006 @ 4:36pm

73. Butterfly,

    "I was in a hurry, but what I really wanted to say, please go and teach your hate somewhere else."

    No thanks, hanging out at redstate.org is boring and very analogous to preaching to the choir.

    It's more fun, and controversial here. I really enjoy the exchanges and responses from liberals.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/13/2006 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person

    At least now he's on record as saying he's preaching hate. Not a very Christian thing to do, now is it?

    Posted by christiandem at 01/13/2006 @ 4:37pm

74. Oh wait a minute. Has he ever REALLY said he was a Christian? Just seems that he's able to quote the Bible.

    Posted by christiandem at 01/13/2006 @ 4:41pm

75. Lemme guess... Love Liberty loves working for Karl Rove and the name of the game is to distract us from discussing the real issues. Why I would not be surprised if one or two of you who are attacking LL are also LL. Nice way to keep the ball rolling. Do us all a favour and click the "ignore" button on these jerks, as I have, so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

    Posted by Germanicus at 01/13/2006 @ 4:46pm

76. I am sorry missed this one, well if your fellow brothers in amrs in Afghan couldnt kill me in 10 months, and they did try, I doubt this dream of yours will become a reality.

    Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 1:29pm

    Kill you?

    How could they get a clear shot at you with all that blogging you were doing back in the rear with the gear.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 4:47pm

77. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 01/13/2006 @ 1:55pm

    Physics!

    Your back! It good to see you again bud.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 4:49pm

78. CPT "Can the President spy on Americans in direct contradiction of statued?" They NEVER asked if the President can "spy" on Americans who talk to AQ. Clever ruse.

    The Consitutional question will be settled, much to liberals dismay, because when they discover that the POTUS CAN spy on Americans talking to AQ.

    Because under article 2 since the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and in a time of war. He is CONSTITUTIONALLY allowed to conduct war against an enemy of the USA. AND gathering INTELL on AQ, FALLS under that subset. REGARDLESS of any other statued, that says to the contrary, and PRECEDENT backs this up. And your almighty polls back him as well. So get ready to be upset and decry a foul.

    Not a ruse at all. We have only the administration's word that they are only spying on Americans who are talking to al-Qaida. Without an independent magistrate reviewing warrant applications, that is a dubious claim. Further, the administration is making this claim based on an inherent power. There is no indication that the claim is limited to al-Qaida overall, therefore the question is accurate.

    Secondly, the Supreme Court held in the Steel Seizure cases that the President's inherent powers are at their lowest ebb were Congress has legislated on a subject. I would argue that is enhanced when we're talking about a wiretap that includes Americans. The Constitution makes him Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not the country.

    As to the precendents, you're wrong there too. The FISA Court of Review opinion relied on case law (Truong, et al.) that didn't deal with the President's inherent power regarding FISA but rather in a pre-FISA environment. They are not applicable once the inherent power has been put into its lowest ebb by the promulgation of FISA.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/13/2006 @ 4:50pm

79. Thanks WILL C., It does seem like CPT spends more time on this site instead of being with his troops. In militay terms, he would be pencil pusher back in the rear.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 4:55pm

80. (just witness the scurrilous and empty-headed attacks by dimwits like the adulterous, drunken murderer, Ted Kennedy).

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/13/2006 @ 2:03pm

    Liberty!

    Was Teddy convicted of Murder? Did I miss something?

    Nope, I didn't miss anything. All your self righteous double speak about a man being innocent until proven guilty is just another Liberty lie.

    Keep bearing false witness baby. It is a core family value of the Evangelic church.

    And you're one of its pastards.

    Hallelujah

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 4:58pm

81. NATHAN HALE

    Hey CPT, a question for the boots that were on the ground: I hear that 4000 Marines were in the Tora Bora theater when Osama was holed up there (geez, was it really over three years ago?). Why didn't we have the best damn fighting force in the world go in and take that weasel out? Did I hear wrong? Whose mistake was it to rely on the locals?

    To put it simply, No American forces, were in a posture to go in that area, in the numbers that we would have needed in a TIMELY manner. The local militia were the only conventional forces in the area. Timely manner is the key.

    Yes there were US forces there, but at that time we were still getting strategically placed throughout the country. In order to bring our combat power to the decisive place, would have taken too long to be effective.

    Franks and more specifically Major General Haganbeck, used what he had at the time. There were SF in certain blocking positions, but at the time we were still assessing the worth of the militias.

    The way were are dispersed throughout Afghan now, has eliminated that problem from occuring.

    So looking back, Haganbeck or Franks had a problem they were faced with:

    Course of action 1: Let local militia take the lead, supported by US Special Forces and Air Forces and have a chance at getting UBL.

    or

    Course of Action 2: Wait for reliable US ground forces to get into a position, delaying the time to go in by at least 24-48 hours and having virtually no chance at getting him.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:04pm

82. Butterfly

    lolololol

    Thanks, that was the funniest thing you have said.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:05pm

83. For anyone who hasn't seen the footage of LL in action, spouting his hot air and holy bullshit...

    http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/fartingpreacher5.html

    http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/fartingpreacher4.html

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/13/2006 @ 5:05pm

84. GO GET EM AL

    Need Extra Ammunition Al... Use these in Image form at...

    http://www.RogerART.com

    Free 2 Copy, Down load, Paste Send

    Posted by RogerARTcom at 01/13/2006 @ 5:06pm

85. Len: "It is possible that the law requiring the court order is unconstitutional. It has not been brought before the Supreme Court."

    The legislation enacted under FISA has been around since 1978. If the law had been found lacking, would it not have been brought before SC before now?

    Not good enough Len. FISA is straightforward in what is required to electronically spy in the US. As previously noted in this, and other threads, 5645 warrant applications were submitted to FISA detwen 2001 and 2004. Only four were rejected. These four were later approved after ammended by the applicant.

    Given the fact that warrants can be submitted for approval 72 hours after the internecine activity has been initiated, the argument for urgency is not viable.

    Given the track record for overwhelming approvals, I only have one comment: Who the hell was he spying on and was Bush (or whoever) cognizant of the fact that FISA would never have approved these warrants. In so far as this administration's credibility is concerned, there is none.

    Your argument doesn't hold. See Gonzalez's defense stature today. Very different from the Asst AG's argument two weeks ago.

    Plain and simple: they ignored established statute as mandated by congress.

    Posted by doumer at 01/13/2006 @ 5:08pm

86. WILL C

    "Kill you?

    How could they get a clear shot at you with all that blogging you were doing back in the rear with the gear.

    Posted by WILL C. 01/13/2006 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person"

    I have told once before, I know you are jealous, but displaying it all the time on a public blog is really quite unbecoming.

    If you cannot manage your time, read a book, I certainly can.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:08pm

87. I would also like to know how do you get the time. Again, only pencil pushers have the time, mainly because they do not have troops to worry about, Also, my comment was not meant to be funny. What is funny is the way you responded.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 5:12pm

88. To put it simply, No American forces, were in a posture to go in that area, in the numbers that we would have needed in a TIMELY manner. The local militia were the only conventional forces in the area. Timely manner is the key.

    Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:04pm

    We could have had most of the eighteenth airborne corp. in country if old RumDud wasn't getting his jollies leaving the most technically advance army in the world in it's bases and instead sending in Special Ops guys on horseback to do the fighting.

    Yes! RumDud is a super genius.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 5:13pm

89. I have told once before, I know you are jealous, but displaying it all the time on a public blog is really quite unbecoming.

    If you cannot manage your time, read a book, I certainly can.

    Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:08pm

    CPT!

    Yes, I am jealous. I want a job where I can sit around all day and BLOG on the tax payers dollar.

    PS. It's nice to hear that you can read. I'm sure that skill will come in handy for you.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 5:16pm

90. BRUNOWE

    Congress cannot create statutory laws that undermine the POTUS CONSTITUTIONAL authority, inherent in Article II. Where the two come into conflict, the Constitution WINS.

    That is the question, that will be decided upon, and with Alito on the Court. There is NO WAY they rule what Bush did;

    Spying on Americans calling AQ numbers...no way will they hold that that is illegal.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:20pm

91. WILL C

    TIME MANAGEMENT!!

    Every Army school, I went to, Infantry Officers Basic Course, Infantry Captains Career Course, Combined Armed Services School, Ranger School, Airborne School, Mechanized Leaders Course, they all stressed it.

    Sorry buddy, some of us mastered the concept, others do not

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:25pm

92. WILL C

    We could have had most of the eighteenth airborne corp. in country if old RumDud wasn't getting his jollies leaving the most technically advance army in the world in it's bases and instead sending in Special Ops guys on horseback to do the fighting.

    Yes! RumDud is a super genius.

    Posted by WILL C. 01/13/2006 @ 5:13pm | ignore this person

    Only persons who have never been there make statements like that. Truly ignorant of the enviroment we are operating in.

    The terrain did NOT support it. Hard to drive hummvees over mountians. Mountain tops that went up to 20,000 in the hindu-kush region along the Afghan/Pak border.

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:30pm

93. WILL C

    The Special OPS guys WANTED to ride horseback. They fit in better and the horses didnt need spare parts or fuel

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:31pm

94. Sorry buddy, some of us mastered the concept, others do not

    Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:25pm

    CPT

    Unless there are WIFI connections blanketing your area, then you're sitting around the office BLOGing. And that means you're not out recruiting.

    But I'm highly confident that your BLOG time is well managed.

    Maybe you can offer your skill set to the White House. They don't seem to have the time to walk across the street and get that FISA warrant they so desperately need.

    It just seems like such a waste of your time to sit here bullshitting at the computer when our country is in such dire peril that the president has to trash the Bill of Rights.

    Such a waste.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 5:34pm

95. CPT

    You are right, they do stress time management, they also stress how not to waste military time, like blogging when you should be leading.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 5:35pm

96. CPT: "Congress cannot create statutory laws that undermine the POTUS CONSTITUTIONAL authority, inherent in Article II."

    Where did you get that idea. Congress enacts legislation and the Executive Branch executes that legislation. There's no language in the constitution that says that the president doesn't have to follow the law. That's nonsense. The president has the power to veto legislation. That is his check on the legislative branch. You're making up rules as you go along in a desperate attempt to make a case that Bush is above the law.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Clinton had to allow himself to be depositioned in a completely personal matter while Clinton, as Commander in Chief, was engaged in a shooting war. The Congress was actively trying to remove him from office in the midst of a shooting war and attempts to kill Osama bin Laden. On the day he missed killing bin Laden by 45 minutes, he had spent the entire morning in deposition answering questions about oral sex. I suppose you were very concerned that congress was undermining Clinton's constitutional authority back then, right?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 5:36pm

97. The terrain did NOT support it. Hard to drive hummvees over mountians. Mountain tops that went up to 20,000 in the hindu-kush region along the Afghan/Pak border.

    Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:30pm

    The 101st air assult has helecopters that can lift both humvees and troops, light artillery. Where did you want to be dropped again?

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 5:37pm

98. The Special OPS guys WANTED to ride horseback. They fit in better and the horses didnt need spare parts or fuel

    Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:31pm

    Great! They wanted to play cowboy. That is wonderful strategic reasoning.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 5:39pm

99. Butterfly

    Well, here is how it works, officers are rotated ti fill slots that need a particular time and grade.

    Gen Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff, put out a call for more "capable" officers mid-grade to fill command slots in recruiting, he did this about a year ago.

    So my number was called, you wonder how I have time?

    With anything else I make time, often its not much, five minutes here and there. Again that goes to my time management comment.

    If you are organzied, efficient, and give clear and concise guidance and periodically follow-up, things in your unit improve.

    When that happens professional NCOs (Sgts) take the ball and run with it, because they already know what and how you want them to accomplish a task. Then you can get you foot off their neck and allow them to the job. Once that happens, they trust you, and you trust them. It shows because they appreciate the greater independence you allow them. The result is better performance making my job easier.

    Thats how. In a nutshell

    Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:42pm

100. I am amazed that Republican apologists would try to spin the idea that Bush didn't commit a crime by violating FISA. Given that the law is quite CLEAR, and even allows for the "emergency tapping" that he keeps talking about, he has no excuse for not filing. What we would undoubtedly find if we were allowed to know is that the Republicans have been spying on POLITICAL enemies, not AQ, and that is why they couldn't/wouldn't go to FISA.

     For goodness sake, FISA has been around since the 1970's as a reaction to Nixon's overreaching of Presidential powers. It is NOT unconstitutional, except as a Bush-stacked SCOTUS might declare it in a "this time only" case because they are the most hypocritical bunch of butt-kissers to ever sit on the court.

     The least Republicans could do is ADMIT that their guy is a criminal, but that they control all the modes of holding him accountable, and thus he will get away with it. At least progressives have the clear vision to see that.

     It's sad that Republicans must not just DO evil, but feel compelled to also SPIN evil into good, so that they can believe they stand on the moral high ground.

     This Republican Administration is like a drunkard father, who is supposedly responsible for taking care of the family, but who instead goes out binge drinking, beats up mom, lets the kids go hungry, loses his job, wracks up huge credit card bills, and lays around on the couch watching TV. The Republicans have failed in their responsibilities to the nation, and all they have now is wedge issues to keep the public from coming to their senses.

     It's really quite sad.

     Lying is the new honesty, white is the new black, and war is the new peace.

     Welcome to 1984, slightly delayed but eventually delivered as promised.

     Now, pipe down and consume your products as advertised. Go into debt as instructed. Vote as prescribed, we'll count them as we see fit. Watch what you are told to watch, believe what you are told to believe, and for heavens sake, don't rock the boat -- that would only give aid and comfort to our enemies.

     Charlie L Portland, OR CLL2001@gmail.com

     Posted by CyberChas at 01/13/2006 @ 5:45pm

101. CPT, you claimed that congress cannot enact legislation which "undermines POTUS authority." I want to know where in the constitution you found that steaming pile of nonsense. I think you're just making stuff up to make a case that Bush is above the law.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 5:48pm

102. Too bad nobody told Clinton that congress couldn't enact legislation which undermined his authority. Maybe he could have killed Osama without congress harassing him day and night.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 5:49pm

103. WILL C

     The 101st air assult has helecopters that can lift both humvees and troops, light artillery. Where did you want to be dropped again?

     Posted by WILL C. 01/13/2006 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person

     Will I thought that too, until I got there, the helios dont operate that well at above a certain altitude for a PROLONGED period of time, my first Chinook ride in country proved that. The mountains in the region are dense and high. And remember Afghn is land locked, everything fuel is has to come via 15 hour drive from Pak. or flown...and the ability to fly stuff in is limited. Certainly not enough to supply the 101 ABN (air assault) for too long.

     And actually the SF did like the horses, part of what they do, they like to blend with the population. Though I did ask one, "hey man how many Afghan are 6 ft 200 plus pounds, no matter how long you grow your beard or hair" He didnt have a good answer, personally, I think they didnt want to bother shaving

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:49pm

104. BBATTEN

     Its in Article II, Commander in Chief of Army. Inherent in that he conducts war, and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, intellignece gathering is a FUNCTION of war powers.

     But again that is the question they will discuss next week, and maybe even rule on.

     Its not my line, its Article II

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:52pm

105. Yes, Article II gives the President power as Comander in Chief of the Army and Navy to wage war. It gives him no power over Congress unless you would like to read minds and discern something that wasn't written. Again, you're simply making up stuff in this hysterical attempt to prove this president is above the law. Six years ago, you were probably arguing that no citizen, not even the President, is above the law.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 5:55pm

106. Will I thought that too, until I got there, the helios dont operate that well at above a certain altitude for a PROLONGED period of time, my first Chinook ride in country proved that. The mountains in the region are dense and high. And remember Afghn is land locked, everything fuel is has to come via 15 hour drive from Pak. or flown...and the ability to fly stuff in is limited. Certainly not enough to supply the 101 ABN (air assault) for too long.

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:49pm

     Dude, you're just making excuses now. Our modern rotary wing aircraft have service ceilings in excess of 15000 ft. And the units they are in have remote hot refueling capability. And the airforce is quite capable of fiying in the fuel we need.

     Instead of burning all your time on time management you should have been investing it in learning US Weapons Systems capababilities and their employment.

     But you're a crunchy. And it's painfully obvious that you think like one.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 5:59pm

107. BBATTEN

     PS

     Dont forget WHO they were listining too and WHEN they did it, 2002.

     Listening to AQ numbers and those who are calling them. You can wash over this part, but the Supreme Court wont, its actually key to the argument

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 5:59pm

108. CPT

     I think I know how it works, so your line is a bunch of bull. NCOs do take the ball and run, but at the same time, the commander, platoon leader are what ever position your are in also have other related assigments that should override bloging on the tax payers money. Thats all I'm saying.

     Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 6:01pm

109. WILL C

     Alright think what you want. Its the truth, go to afghan and see for yourself.

     But you are a civilian and its painfully obvious you lack any contextual understanding and you dont even want to try to understand practical difficulties, but ok

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:02pm

110. But you are a civilian and its painfully obvious you lack any contextual understanding and you dont even want to try to understand practical difficulties, but ok

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 6:02pm

     I am a civilian, who was a captain, and aeroscout/attack helicopter pilot and a division level assistant G-3 air.

     But if all you have to come back with is that I'm a civilian, then you don't know we what the fuck you're talking about regarding either me or air mobility.

     Do you captain?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:07pm

111. ButterFLY

     Ok, but tell everyone in the Army, they do periodically like me, maybe not here, but hunting and fishinf and sports web blogs.

     Just so your mind is at easy, the taxpayers money is well spent, and not wasted, as a matter a fact you guys get one of the greatest baragins ever in terms of labor costs. Every Soldier in the US Army, who has served at least 4-5 years, could take off for the next year, recieve their full pay, and the govt would still be in the black.

     But in any event, so noted

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:07pm

112. Course of action 1: Let local militia take the lead, supported by US Special Forces and Air Forces and have a chance at getting UBL.

     or

     Course of Action 2: Wait for reliable US ground forces to get into a position, delaying the time to go in by at least 24-48 hours and having virtually no chance at getting him.

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 5:04pm

     I expect no less from you CPT. Straight party line. Here's what those who actually took the time to investigate had to say about Tora Bora:

     "We chose to fight using the Afghans who were fighting to regain their own country," Colonel Thomas says. "Our aims of eliminating Al Qaeda were similar."

     Or:

     "In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.

     Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named "Jawbreaker" in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.

     He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden was able to escape.

     His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora."

     Or the following:

     "Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them. "The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet." The battle was joined, but anything approaching a "siege" of Tora Bora never materialized. Ghamsharik says today that he offered the US military the use his forces in a "siege of Tora Bora," but that the US opted in favor of his rival, Hazret Ali."

     Is this another of those 'conspiracy theories" CPT. That perhaps UBL is much more useful alive than dead? You tell me. In the meantine, do some research before you post your ridiculous misinformation. Save it for your ignorant cohorts and MBB's middle american joe six packs.

     Posted by doumer at 01/13/2006 @ 6:07pm

113. Article II does not permit the President to spy on communications in this country.

     How is it that one unremarkable jerk can have swung from enabler to enabler? It's bad enough that the yuppie crusty crowd of New England coddled our president as a boy and the good ol' boys deep in the heart coddled him as a young feller. But how is it that the American people have been coaxed into this sham? I've got better things to do than to defend a congenital liar, a man who cowers when faced with adversity (see his recent or any trip to New Orleans), and a man who has no regard for the lives of anyone outside his sphere. But go ahead, Righties, give him a hand, a boost, a donation--whatever he wants. Trust him, the feeling is mutual.

     As for Gore and Barr, I understand the message that is sent by having a certified conservative like Barr do the intro. Colin Powell--this would be an impressive MC. But who follows Barr? Does he bring that much credibility to this cause? This is the man who didn't fail to give me the creeps every time he opened his mouth while in office. And, Zero, do we know Barr's opinion on impeachment or just his opinion on privacy (an opinion which gets a little wiggly and shaky the more he discusses it).

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/13/2006 @ 6:08pm

114. CPT: "Dont forget WHO they were listining too and WHEN they did it, 2002."

     How the hell do you know who they were listening to. Under FISA, they can go listen to anyone they want immediately and then get permission in the next 72 hours. I'd like to know why they needed to bypass the FISA court. I'd like an elected representative that isn't part of the administration or in his party for that matter to see the calls they tapped without authorization and hear an explanation for why. NBC thinks they were listening to Christianne Amapour. Her husband was capaign manager for Kerry. The Bush campaign sure did seem to know what Kerry was going to say before he said it. I'd like to know if the Bush administration used intelligence apparatus for political purposes as Nixon did. Rove worked for Nixon, you know, so that's not such an unreasonable feeling.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:09pm

115. WILL C

     Good to know, but you have NEVER operated in Afghan, thats all I am saying. As a pilot you should know then, call CJTF-76 in Afghan and talk to the aviation cell. They can tell you the unique problems the enviroment poses

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:10pm

116. The only constitutional law issue related to Afganistan that I know of currently is the illegal transfer of $700 million from Afganistan to Iraq. This was a violation of the constitution. Does the fact that the president states that we are at war mean he does not have to follow the budgetary restraints set forth in the constitution? CPT, is that another section of the constitution Bush doesn't have to respect?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:14pm

117. Good to know, but you have NEVER operated in Afghan, thats all I am saying.

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 6:10pm

     And all I'm saying is you've never been anything more than a sand bag when it comes to Army Aviation.

     I've flown lots of you guys around. When they weren't puking, they were lost.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:14pm

118. Thanks again WILl C. CPT thinks his is the only one who straped on the boots. This why I'm concerned about his blogging on tax payers money. I know he should be earning his keep. Like finding out he could recruit more soldiers, we all know that the ARMY has failed to meet its goals.e

     Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 6:15pm

119. DOUMER

     We chose to fight using the Afghans who were fighting to regain their own country," Colonel Thomas says. "Our aims of eliminating Al Qaeda were similar."

     How is that different than what I said, for brevity sake I didnt go into that detail sorry, doesnt change what really happened. REGARDLESS of what the CIA guys said, the CIA are not the US military.

     It boils down to an old adage

     "Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics"

     The CIA does NOT command the military. Thats why a military General is in charge of all US forces in the theater. And that includes the "other govt agencies."

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:18pm

120. BUTTERFLY

     We met those GOALS SEVEN months in a row!!!! You twit, as to my company, well we did it again, we met our goal. I guess I am doing something right

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:20pm

121. WILL C

     Well you guys kept dicking around with the flying, thats why we puke. Getting lost, well excuse us, we dont have MANDATORY crew rest like precious fly boys.

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:23pm

122. BBATTEN

     If you want to believe that he was spying n DEMs fine, good to have dream

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:24pm

123. "Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics"

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 6:18pm

     Who talks horse cavalry?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:26pm

124. CPT, maybe you are doing something right, but I can tell you what you are doing wrong: discovering presidential powers in the constitution which are not there. By your reasoning, all a president has to do is declare that we are at war and then congress cannot do anything that "undermines his authority," whatever that means. Maybe you fell asleep that day in civics, but that's not the system our Framers had in mind. They were all about limiting executive power because they didn't want kings.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:26pm

125. Ok

     Household 6 says time to go out to dinner, have a good evening all, yes even you Butterfly and WILL C

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 6:26pm

126. I don't believe anything of the sort, jackass. I said I want to know because I don't trust these people at their word. They broke federal wiretapping laws. I want elected representatives to check up on them and see what they were really doing.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:28pm

127. I apologize for the long post. Sometimes it is necessary to make a point. In summary, CPT, if CIA spooks knew where UBL was,and he informed commanders per protocol, and given the hi-tech/mobile nature of your armed forces......why the fuck was this area not cordoned off and ALL available firepower directed to flatten this terrain. Surely, we have the technology and intel.

     Come on, with the sat/heat seek/intel shit we have, we couln't even find a mule train sneaking off in the night.

     Kinda makes your military seem pretty lame, CPT.

     This leaves me with nothing other than ulterior motives on the part of Bush and his handlers. Iraq sound familiar?

     Posted by doumer at 01/13/2006 @ 6:28pm

128. You know the fact that a lying, misdirecting imbicile who knows nothing about the constitution and what it means is selling kids on going into the military does not fill me with a great deal of confidence.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:29pm

129. Well you guys kept dicking around with the flying, thats why we puke. Getting lost, well excuse us, we dont have MANDATORY crew rest like precious fly boys.

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 6:23pm

     That mandatory crew rest must be part of that super genius RumDud doctrine.

     I never had one.

     And I was always under the impression that you guys puked from swallowing all that shit you consumed when you bent over to kiss your ass good bye.

     You pussies could never handle tactical flying.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:31pm

130. Iraq sound familiar?

     Posted by DOUMER 01/13/2006 @ 6:28pm

     Doumer!

     RumDud was using horse cavalry. And I guess Old Paint just couldn't make it up those steep Afgani mountains

     those suckers are high too.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:34pm

131. Household 6 says time to go out to dinner, have a good evening all, yes even you Butterfly and WILL C

     Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 6:26pm

     CPT!

     that was an awful long winded way to sound the retreat.

     I wonder if the terrorists take dinner breaks?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:36pm

132. Maybe I'm off base here, but I don't think we should have citizens who are too cowardly to respect the constitution selling kids on joining the military. I mean they have to take an oath to uphold the constitution. They don't take an oath to uphold it unless we are at war.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:40pm

133. CPT

     "In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off its target."

     What months are you talking about? Also, Twit, only people who wears a sweater over thier shoulder would use that word. Again, please provide that stats!

     Posted by butterfly at 01/13/2006 @ 6:40pm

134. Hey Frank, Bush also said, "this would be easier if this were a dictatorship. As long as I'm the dictator."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:41pm

135. Butterfly, CPT is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:42pm

136. The pattern is that television media will ignore Gore's speech. If they mention it at all, it will be to marginalize Gore and his message. If the political talk shows discuss his speech, the panels will be primarily republicans.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:43pm

137. I think he was "kidding on the square."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:45pm

138. "with the US at war" -- is it really? did the congress declare war? Isn't the fighting in Afganistan and Iraq another police action like Viet Nam was? And if it is another undeclared war, how does the constitional provisions for increased presidential power apply without a declaration of war?

     I've studied the US constitution but am no expert. Anyone have any insight into this?

     Posted by CONSLIE at 01/13/2006 @ 6:46pm

139. Clinton will state flatly on Nightline that he never authorized any wiretapping without FISA approval. He will admit that they went ahead and wiretapped under FISA guidelines without approval a number of times when it was necessary, but he will say that they always went back to FISA within the 72 hours to get their approval.

     Conservatives: your news people and pundits have no respect for you. They lie in your faces.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:49pm

140. International opinion has been relegated to something other than the back burner per:

     "If states reserve the right to act unilaterally or on the basis of actually existing coalitions -without waiting for obtaining the approval of the Security Council - then such logic represents a substantial challenge to the principles on which peace and security in the world were based"

     Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General

     We will live with this stigma for years to come, courtesy of our esteemed leaders. To CPT, Maasch, LL, OK, Frei, NACL and company, it is of no consequence. To me, it makes all the difference.

     Sad and deplorable times.

     Posted by doumer at 01/13/2006 @ 6:55pm

141. We'd be in a lot better shape if the 2000 election wasn't stolen from Gore. Right On Al

     Posted by ZombyWoof at 01/13/2006 @ 6:56pm

142. I've studied the US constitution but am no expert. Anyone have any insight into this?

     Posted by CONSLIE 01/13/2006 @ 6:46pm

     Article five lays out the amendment procedure. In it it states that amendments become part of the constitution. Nowhere does it state or imply that they are regulated to second class status.

     Nowhere in article two, five or the individual amendments does it state that the president can ignore or modify any part of the constitution in Wartime.

     In article one however, it does state the congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of insurrection or invasion.

     But only congress has that power

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 6:56pm

143. Zombywoof, your name reminds me of something I had wanted to relate to Love Liberty:

     "Foolish rules from ancient date Designed to make you all feel great While you bend, fold and mutilate Those unbelievers from the neighboring state."

     -Zappa

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 6:57pm

144. More evidence of the liberal media on television:

     "Democrat" Chris Matthews in '98: "Nobody, not even the president, is above the law."

     "Democrat" Chris Matthews in '06: "Maybe breaking the law is part of the job."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 7:06pm

145. "Democrat" Chris Matthews in '06: "Maybe breaking the law is part of the job."

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/13/2006 @ 7:06pm

     Yeah, I saw when he said that. I get the feeling sometimes that my boy Chris thinks that if he gets too cozy with the liberals, the republicans will stop coming on his show.

     then he's out of a job.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 7:12pm

146. Matthews is one of the biggest phonies on television. He hated Clinton and Gore and he hates Hillary. That would be fair in my mind if he didn't sell himself as a democrat. All he is is a big fat whore. According to some reports the CEO of NBC talked openly at parties of "turning" Matthews with a big $5 million contract. Matthews sold his soul. He's a disgusting person and a bad American.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 7:19pm

147. Matthews has the intelligence of a newt, whatta creep

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/13/2006 @ 7:20pm

148. Not that I wouldn't do the same for $5 million. It's just that after a while, I would think he would have enough money to stop bullshitting.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/13/2006 @ 7:20pm

149. We will live with this stigma for years to come, courtesy of our esteemed leaders. To CPT, Maasch, LL, OK, Frei, NACL and company, it is of no consequence. To me, it makes all the difference.

     I honestly don't know why you didn't include Mask in that list. Honestly, outside of not actively foaming at the mouth and spewing inanities, and claiming to have voted for Kerry (or was it Gore), when has he ever seriously criticized anything Bush has done?

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/13/2006 @ 7:48pm

150. Off-topic, but it's Friday, and all. I would like to encourage everyone to visit The Ministry of Unknown Science's Web page and watch the installment called, "Addressing the Clones." It takes a bit to load, but it's worth it. Laugh? I thought I'd die. Then I pulled a Mrs. Alito, because it hit a bit too close to home.

     To view it, go to the Web site below and scroll to near the bottom. Click on the associated iamge to run the video in QuickTime. "If there's one thing an army of clones is good for, it's invading the sun. But they're not really good for that either." Snrrk.

     http://www.tmous.com/

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/13/2006 @ 7:53pm

151. Um, typo. But I think you folks are smart enough to figure out that by "iamge" I meant "image."

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/13/2006 @ 7:56pm

152. Lisa: Ok Mask is a dedictated member of the cabal. However, if you have had a good look-see at his more recent and honourable posts, i see a little of a good thing in the oven. Prety much the same for Freiheit when you dissect enough.

     All the same, I think some of our posters here are having some misgivings, bearing in mind what is being brought to light day-to-day. Time will reveal more and will enable a self inflicted course to infamy. I can only be an optimist, and indeed I am.

     Posted by doumer at 01/13/2006 @ 8:08pm

153. Will The Nation publish it as a podcast?

     Werner

     Posted by werner at 01/13/2006 @ 8:19pm

154. I think he was "kidding on the square."

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/13/2006 @ 6:45pm

     I know whom you read. Funny.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/13/2006 @ 8:26pm

155. Last Month Al Gore said."Gobal warming is The greatest threat to our nation as we are having severe ice stroms and the Anartica ice cap gets larger. Tell Al that Bush won in 2000. (Someone please explain the 'electoral vote system to him). Bush haf to get the Supremes to siop the Democrats from stealing the elction. The Fla. Supreme Court, all Democrats, tried to change the law after the fact.Why not get someone with "credibility like Ted Kennedy instead of Al Gore. You know the man who for most of his adult life walked around with a whisky bottle in one pocket and a pair od pantyhose in the other.

     Posted by Dean Johnson at 01/13/2006 @ 8:31pm

156. Because under article 2 since the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and in a time of war. He is CONSTITUTIONALLY allowed to conduct war against an enemy of the USA. AND gathering INTELL on AQ, FALLS under that subset. REGARDLESS of any other statued, that says to the contrary, and PRECEDENT backs this up. And your almighty polls back him as well. So get ready to be upset and decry a foul. That is seemingly what todays Gores like to do. Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person

     Under Article 2, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…" Our Constitution makes this distinction of his command over the military and not the civilian population; this is not trivial.

     You maintain he possesses some power "regardless of any other statute" yet nowhere is this found in the Sacred Parchment. Do you have some legislation or case law to cite to back up this claim? I am not aware that the president is above the law. Even Judge Alito says the president is not above the law. (Unfortunately, given Alito's and Bush's views on the "unitary executive" theory, none of the senators assembled asked whether that meant the president is the law.)

     Contrary to your opinion, I know of no "controlling legal authority" that gives the president a pass on violating the law and abusing his power – even in times such as these. If we as a society permit this to happen, then we deserve to be ruled by generalissimos and other "tin horn dictators" that infest our planet.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/13/2006 @ 8:42pm

157. Congress cannot create statutory laws that undermine the POTUS CONSTITUTIONAL authority, inherent in Article II. Where the two come into conflict, the Constitution WINS.

     That is the question, that will be decided upon, and with Alito on the Court. There is NO WAY they rule what Bush did;

     Spying on Americans calling AQ numbers...no way will they hold that that is illegal.

     CPT you simply haven't done your homework. The Supreme Court case is YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/343/579.html

     President Truman, "[t]o avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."

     The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the steel companies that sued to stop the seizure. The Court pointed out that Congress had rejected giving the Executive that power as a method of dealing with labor disputes when it passed the Taft-Hartley Act and that the President's argument of inherent power, which included a reference to the Commander-in-Chief clause, was not applicable. Justice Jackson, in his concurrence, expressed the three-fold standard I apply here:

     "1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

     2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

     3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system." (emphasis added, case citations omitted)

     Unless you can argue that Congress has no authority to regulate when wiretaps may be done, FISA places arguments of Presidential inherent authority in category 3 "at its lowest ebb". Indeed, in rather prophetic words, Jackson continued

     "But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture."

     Indeed, even his powers as Commander-in-Chief are subject to regulation. Not only does Congress have the power to raise armies, it also is given the power the make the rules and regulations for the armed forces.

     It should be remember that the country was at war (in Korea) then as well. In fact, the dissent raised arguments very similar to what this Administration does: "Those who suggest that this is a case involving extraordinary powers should be mindful that these are extraordinary times. A world not yet recovered from the devastation of World War II has been forced to face the threat of another and more terrifying global conflict." The fact that this was the view of the dissent suggests that this rationale doesn't carry constitutionally decisive weight.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/13/2006 @ 9:07pm

158. SEATTLESCRIBE

     Never said he was Commander in Chief over the civilian population.

     But as Article II says, he is vested, inherently with executing war operations againsts enemies of the USA. AQ, is clearly an enemy of the USA. This is an equally important distinction.

     Its KEY, the report in the press stated NSA listening to people calling AQ phone numbers.

     AQ enemy of the USA

     Listening in on Americans calling phone numbers associated with AQ is a form of intelligence gathering which is a SUBSET of war operations. clearly within the POTUS authority to do.

     This occurred in 2002, POST-911

     War Powers Resolution by Congress authorizes the POTUS to conduct military operations against AQ, in 2001 shortly after 911.

     The NSA at the time FELL UNDER the auspices of the DoD, its head by a 3 star.

     Hence this is CONSTITUTIONAL, as uncomfortable as it may seem. No statute, can trump that constitutional prinicple, inherent in Article II

     I find it hard to believe that you do not want the POTUS, esepecially in the wake of 911, to be listening to anyone who called an AQ number.

     That is well within EVERYONE oath FRANKGITS.

     Anyway it will all be settled in the preceeding months. We will see who is right and who is wrong

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 9:20pm

159. BRUNOWE

     Good citing example,

     But the issue here is intelligence GATHERING, not operating vital industry. BIG DIFFERENCE

     Intelligence gathering is a WAR operation, and it was conducted against those persons in the USA who were calling numbers connected to AQ.

     BIG difference there, the STEEL workers were NOT coordinating their strike with the North Koreans to paralyze supplies.

     Posted by CPT at 01/13/2006 @ 9:24pm

160. Bruno, nice work, we shouldn't even be having this argument, Bush is a turkey, like the one he was serving in Iraq, plastic and phony.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/13/2006 @ 9:45pm

161. CPT,

     The problem comes down to the fact that the Dems and these liberal bloggers want Congress to have control over the president and the military. And not just any Congress, but a liberal Congress that will shred all authority from the presidency until they can find a way to get a Democrat or 3rd Party candidate into the White House.

     This is the only thing that will satisfy them. They do not believe in the power and authority of the office of the president, except when they can control it.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 10:01pm

162. Democrats: Give me liberty or give me death!

     Republicans: I give you my liberties, Please save me from death!!

     Republicans are cowards and are destroying our rules of law.

     Ben Franklin: Those who would give up their liberties for security deserve neither liberty or security!

     Posted by kitchingd at 01/13/2006 @ 10:54pm

163. In article one however, it does state the congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of insurrection or invasion.

     But only congress has that power

     Posted by WILL C. 01/13/2006 @ 6:56pm

     Will C,

     Actually it is the President and not Congress that has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus for public safety as Lincoln did during the Civil War.

     Article 1 Section 9 is not found under the enumerated power of Congress which is Section 8.

     There is a logical reason for this. The president is solely responsible for declaring Marshall Law, sending out the National Guard or the Military in support of the public safety.

     As I have stated before, you cannot have 535 Commander's-in-Chief.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 10:58pm

164. LL

     So now king goerge can declare marshall law and usurp the throne oh wait we don't have a throne ..... yet.

     Thank God for the NRA and the protection of our 2nd amendment rights

     Posted by dycel8r at 01/13/2006 @ 11:06pm

165. opp's thats king george

     Posted by dycel8r at 01/13/2006 @ 11:25pm

166. What bothers me most about the New York Times story that Bush spied on Americans is that the Times sat on the story for over a year. If they had reported on it when they first found out about it, Bush would not have been re-elected and we not be talking about impeachment now. John Kerey would be president and we would be preparing a way out of Iraq.

     Posted by DANAMES at 01/13/2006 @ 11:46pm

167. Frank,

     The lobbyists have nothing to do with the Iraq war or SCOTUS nominations. As has been maintained here by conservatives, the issues are understood best as a division between conservatives and liberals over how best to deal with global and national issues. The sooner liberals return to a classic debate instead of all the hate mongering and conspiracy fantasies, the better it will be for the nation.

     We do best when there are two competing sets of ideals clearly laid before the American people. Let the best ideas win (or at least those that resonate best with the American public).

     This week has clearly demonstrated that many in the Democratic leadership have no interest in debating ideas. They would rather sling mud at public servants who dare to be conservative. Likewise with the liberal lobbyists who have hissed and slurred in a manner similar to Kennedy and Schumer.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/13/2006 @ 11:56pm

168. Actually it is the President and not Congress that has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus for public safety as Lincoln did during the Civil War.

     Article 1 Section 9 is not found under the enumerated power of Congress which is Section 8.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/13/2006 @ 10:58pm

     Liberty!

     You no longer have to vie for the title of "Dumbest Motherfucker on the Planet". We all recognize you as the title holder. Article one, section nine lists the limitations on congressional power. And one of the limitations is this:

     The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

     Of course once the rebellion or invasion exceptions are met, the congress, and not the president, may suspend Habeas Corpus, but only if the public safety may require it.

     I'd ask if you were aware that Article One of the US Constitution deals with the make up and powers of the legislature, but since you are the recognized "Dumbest Motherfucker on the Planet", I'd be wasting my finely honed typing skills for nothing.

     Oh by the way, nice example of moral relativism with that Ted Kennedy accusation earlier today.

     You are clearly not a man of principle.

     But then we already knew that.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/13/2006 @ 11:58pm

169. Sorry, but I'm getting a bit discouraged. There are all these things that are supposed to be about to cause something to happen, but they never do. I've protested, written letters, called my congressman, but nothing seems to be happening. I was around in the seventies when Watergate happened, and the fallout seemed to be almost immediate. Am I just getting old, or is nothing going to happen?

     Posted by tjscoggin at 01/14/2006 @ 12:59am

170. If John Kerry were President we would already have SURRENDERED to France, Russia, and Germany last Janruary and Usama Bin Laden would be the U.S. ambassader to the U.N.!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/14/2006 @ 12:13am

     Losing it again eh Rio?

     Pressure getting a little too much for ya?

     Is reality slowly releasing is grasp?

     From where I'm sitting it seems that all you have left is the Hamsterland fantasy desperately skittering around your own mind.

     The barrel of a pistol must be staring to get real tasty right now.

     It's Ok, give it a lick.

     Just one lick.

     And don't forget to hold the trigger real tight.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/14/2006 @ 01:32am

171. I find it hard to believe that you do not want the POTUS, esepecially in the wake of 911, to be listening to anyone who called an AQ number. Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person

     This is a canard. I asked you to support your claim of legal precedence giving the president a pass on obeying the law. No surprise, you can't.

     Your boss is given maximum latitude under the law to eavesdrop on al-Qaeda related phone calls and/or other electronic communications. He chose not to follow due process and the law. He owes us an explanation.

     Since he bypassed the FISA court it is only natural to be suspicious of his motives and targets. You confidently say he was eavesdropping on AQ, but you don't know for a fact that they were his only targets. You don't know for a fact that he wasn't conducting domestic political espionage a la Nixon.

     You offer a convoluted rationalization of Article II and link it to Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors. Instead of digging yourself deeper into a hole, you would be more credible writing that you were awaiting Mr. Bush's explanation too.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/14/2006 @ 01:40am

172. LL

     The problem comes down to the fact that the Dems and these liberal bloggers want Congress to have control over the president and the military. And not just any Congress, but a liberal Congress that will shred all authority from the presidency until they can find a way to get a Democrat or 3rd Party candidate into the White House.

     Congress does have a measure of control of the military. It is Congress that is responsible for raising armies and ultimately approving the rules and regulations of the military.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/14/2006 @ 02:09am

173. CPT,

     Here is a more practical reason why a career military officer might care about Mr. Bush's illegal use of the NSA to spy on US citizens. Those NSA boys (and girls) who might intercept our blogs and ascertain our true identities are mostly civilians. I bet some are even Democrats! Imagine a Democrat NSA technician/analyst's career advancing in parallel with an ambitious junior officer who aspires to flag rank before retiring. Imagine the military officer becomes eligible for a star when a Democrat is elected potus and selects our career NSA analyst as his new national security advisor. You see where I'm going with this?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/14/2006 @ 02:10am

174. CPT "This occurred in 2002, POST-911 War Powers Resolution by Congress authorizes the POTUS to conduct military operations against AQ, in 2001 shortly after 911.

     The NSA at the time FELL UNDER the auspices of the DoD, its head by a 3 star.

     The only problem is that the AUMF didn't specifically repeal FISA. This is important since FISA as a provision that suspends it for the first 15 days of a war, afterward FISA kicks in as usual.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/14/2006 @ 02:14am

175. CPT BRUNOWE

     Good citing example,

     But the issue here is intelligence GATHERING, not operating vital industry. BIG DIFFERENCE

     Intelligence gathering is a WAR operation, and it was conducted against those persons in the USA who were calling numbers connected to AQ.

     BIG difference there, the STEEL workers were NOT coordinating their strike with the North Koreans to paralyze supplies.

     Actually its immaterial. Truman's Executive Order stated that the steel industry was vital to the ongoing war effort and that a work stoppage would immediately jeopardize that effort, endangering the armed forces. The fact that weren't coordinating their strike with the North Koreans is immaterial.

     Further, this surveillance isn't just a war operation, it has aspect of a criminal operation as well when directed against persons in the US. The President's powers as commander-in-chief are limited to the theatre of war, which is not the United States.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/14/2006 @ 02:35am

176. You don't know for a fact that he wasn't conducting domestic political espionage a la Nixon.

     Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 01/14/2006 @ 01:40am

     Remember back before the last election a number of emails to and from congressional Democrats were hacked and released to the press?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/14/2006 @ 03:26am

177. It is my fervent hope that Al Gore's speech WILL get good coverage in the media and that he will persuade quite a few senators and lots of Americans that Samuel Alito is a huge threat to democracy and freedom. He will move our system of government back to our dark ages. Stop Alito! Bravo, Gore!

     Posted by Seattle2006 at 01/14/2006 @ 04:15am

178. Well. WHAT TIME? Will it be on C-SPAN? What television coverage is there going to be? Are we all making a lot of noise where it counts?

     Posted by agent99 at 01/14/2006 @ 05:21am

179. .

     Advice to Gore on: "The Crisis"

     The country doesn't have a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is not under assault. The Bill of Rights is not being savaged.

     It is the Left that is in crisis, not the United States. The Left has lost its bearings. It marched in support of a tyrant who tore out the tongues of his critics. It went crazy and sought his victory over America. It now sides with an insurgency opposed to democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration. And as that insurgency is being slowly contained, the Left, in its chagrin, is projecting its madness. It is charging the administration with crimes and is imagining the nation in a constitutional crisis. Nonsense.

     What we have are dangerously disturbed left-radicals who threaten to infect the entire Democratic party. They have already snared people like Pelosi and Murtha, Conyers and Kucinich. If they pull in the likes of All Gore the party may well be buckle. The Democrats will be set back for a decade, or even destroyed.

     No one can want that. The country needs two viable, competitive parties. If the Democrats become a permanent minority party, a bastion for crackpots and radicals, American democracy will be the loser. That is the crisis shaping up. Either a new centrist like Bill Clinton emerges, an American Tony Blair, to slap the Democrats out of their nervous breakdown, or an entirely new party must fashion itself. One that will appeal to white working class America, as well as to the minorities.

     An opposition party that makes common cause with anti-American Europeans and Arab Islamists and anti-globalists, hasn't a chance. That is not the way to be distinct and competitive. Republicans won't be beaten by people who refuses to defend the country against terrorism and Islamofascism. That is not the alternative the America wants.

     ______________

     The United States has been coasting for more than five decades. It has been living off the achievements of the first half of the 20th century. Back then the country was a marvel. In a few short decades it moved from steam to electricity to atomic energy, from horse drawn streets to auto filled super-highways. A half century invented everything we consider modern, from the airplane to the radio, television, movies, skyscrapers, transistors, analogue computers, etc. Then, in the 50s it all stopped.

     A city like NY has done nothing new and important in fifty years. It has just been repeating itself. Its subway was already in 1904 built and running as quick and crowded as today. All the great bridges and tunnels, the financial district, Coney Island, Rockefeller Center and Lincoln Center, the Great White Way, the musical theater, the museums and universities, all existed and much was already old, half a century ago. With the exception of the moon-shot the US has done nothing of importance since then. The country has been squatting and going nowhere. That is the great scandal. It is time to undertake new adventures. It is time to start leading the world in new directions. That should be the rallying cry of an opposition party.

     One new commitment must be to alternative energy. With oil so costly, alternatives now have their best chance. There are novel ways they can be encouraged and advanced. One path is suggested HERE :

     Another breakout direction must be in the shape and functioning of our cities. They no longer work. They are being strangled by traffic, parking and pollution problems. Cities need to be redesigned and rebuilt on a new basis. One possibility is suggested HERE:

     Our railroad system is badly neglected and needs a new beginning and a new approach. A possibility is laid out HERE:

     Those are the kind of projects and adventures an opposition party should be urging on America. That is how to catch the imagination of the public, how to compete with the administration and capture the White House. By daring the country to step out into the wilderness of untried things (Melville). Enough of trying to drive America back into the crocodile infested swamp of Islamist reaction and European socialism.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/14/2006 @ 07:42am

180. NACL: Great piece! Finally some thoughts on infrastructure, alternative energy and the like. We have much work here that is neglected. It appears to me that we basically have one party. Maybe some bloggers here would consider running for public office.

     Posted by vano at 01/14/2006 @ 08:27am

181. if you look at Gore in comparison to Bush, he looks pretty damn good

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/14/2006 @ 08:31am

182. http://hnn.us/articles/7773.html

     take a look

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/14/2006 @ 08:51am

183. NACL

     Lots of evidence to support your article...the CHIEF parts being-

     A. Hillary still refusing to join the "Feingold camp" on Iraq....why do that even if she's not running for President, if the anti-war Left is TRULY "in the majority now".

     B. The tepid criticism of "NSA-Spying-gate" from some Democrats, who fear that they could come off as "defending the rights of terrorists" and Bush come off as "protecting us from terrorists DESPITE the liberals' efforts".

     C. The "War on Itself" attitude among Democrats...split between the DLC/centrists (who actually WON two Presidential elections) and the liberal base who consider anybody to the Right of Kucinich and John Conyers to be a "Republican-lite" and "sell-out". (Meanwhile the Repubs still embrace Hagel; McCain is still presumptive nominee; and the GOP stopped a primary challenger to Lincoln Chaffee).

     Problem for Dems is...this year will probably "put a Band-Aid on it" and they won't try to fix their problems until 2008 (when it's too late)

     They'll win a few seats in Congress (maybe a Senate take-over) and think "Oh, well...we're doing great..our 'little differences' among the coalition don't matter" and then when the Dem Senate doesn't produce the impeachment hearings the Left wants, the civil war flairs up again....and it becomes a battle i the 2007-2008 primaries between those trying to appeal to the Sane and those trying to appeal to the Insane.

     If the Liberals win...they'll go down to defeat to what will likely be a more moderate Republican (certainly one that's not as easy to attack as Bush)...and the centrists will push the liberals to the back-benches again (as they did in 1992/1996) and lay groundwork for 2012.

     If the centrist/DLC'ers win....the Liberal base drifts towards "Green", especially if they're ignored in the general election. If the centrist Dem wins, the Liberal base will be proven useless and irrelevant. If the centrist Dem loses, it means we get 2005-2008 all over again.

     Posted by Mask at 01/14/2006 @ 09:16am

184. It is the Left that is in crisis, not the United States. The Left has lost its bearings. It marched in support of a tyrant who tore out the tongues of his critics. It went crazy and sought his victory over America. It now sides with an insurgency opposed to democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration. And as that insurgency is being slowly contained, the Left, in its chagrin, is projecting its madness. It is charging the administration with crimes and is imagining the nation in a constitutional crisis. Nonsense. Posted by NACL 01/14/2006 @ 07:42am | ignore this person

     You remain in the sewer; your thesis is corrupt. Referring to Saddam Hussein, you write the left "marched in support of a tyrant who tore out the tongues of his critics." Where and when did such a march take place? Your critical faculties fail you again when you say the left "sought his victory over America." Please provide a citation for this nonsense. Your comment that [the] "insurgency is being slowly contained" is as laughable as the idiotic pronouncements issuing from Dick Cheney's pie hole.

     A glance through history reveals progressive movements are leading indicators of where America is going. From insisting that citizens have protections from an overbearing central government, we have the Bill of Rights; from insisting that America hold true to its values, we eliminated slavery; from insisting that America honor the promise of the 15th Amendment, we produced the 19th Amendment; and etc.

     Progressives tend to be more in tune with American ideals and values than are right wing "stay the course" boat anchors. Our focus now is on governance – and for a reason. The United States is indeed in a crisis and so far the left is the only political force calling attention to it. My hope is our fellow citizens will wake up soon before the crisis becomes unmanageable.

     Lastly, I have criticized you in the past for not advocating. You seem to prefer throwing rocks instead. The problems and general solutions you offer here are ones that many of us can get onboard with. However, until you correct your premise that by protesting the destructive acts of our government we are supporting a tyrant, no one can take you seriously.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/14/2006 @ 11:37am

185. SEATTLESCRIBE

     You don't know for a fact that he wasn't conducting domestic political espionage a la Nixon.

     Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 01/14/2006 @ 01:40am

     Here is the problem with that, he briefed members of Congress about it, Pelosi and Rockafeller for starters, its exremely doubtful he would spy on DEMs especially when he told them that he was doing it.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 12:15pm

186. So many of the posts here especially the first few regarded this idea of Gore speaking out as just plain dumb. That is so not the attitude that needs to be prevailing at this point in the fight. We (the people) have no choice but to keep fighting, the right has not stopped and we simply cannot roll over like sheep. That is what got us in this position in the first place, and believe me I know how frustrating it is. I have enough age to know the distance this country has gone down the toilet and we have to start going back up. Gore may not be as assertive as he needed to be in the past but he is standing up for his belief that this country is great and that it can be greater. Right now we need everyone we can get to stand up to the Bush reign of terror because after Iraq and Iran we will be next, and you don't have to be psychic to se that. Peace

     Posted by oldwolf at 01/14/2006 @ 12:16pm

187. Key question: why have we decided we're in a "war on terrorism"? Isn't that like a doctor, when treating someone with lung cancer, saying he's conducting a war on coughs or on weight loss? You have to believe that terrorism is the central objective of [insert list of many different entities but put Al Qaeda at the top] and that they will continue to commit terrorism until they're all killed. Does that make sense to anyone? Of course we have to protect ourselves and not let the "symptoms" of the disease destroy us while we're going after the cure. How do we keep entire generations of Moslems from growing up imbued with a deep hatred for us. Shouldn't that be at least part of our focus? This is a world in which folks willingly strap on bombs - does anyone believe that there's a fixed number of these guys and once we kill them all, the crisis will be over? There may have been 52 cards in the deck of Iraqi bad guys, but that analogy won't work for terrorists - the very act of killing terrorists provides the justification for more to sign up.

     Besides, in a war, everyone that isn't an ally kind of looks like the enemy.

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/14/2006 @ 12:16pm

188. BRUNOWE

     Actually its immaterial. Truman's Executive Order stated that the steel industry was vital to the ongoing war effort and that a work stoppage would immediately jeopardize that effort, endangering the armed forces. The fact that weren't coordinating their strike with the North Koreans is immaterial.

     Further, this surveillance isn't just a war operation, it has aspect of a criminal operation as well when directed against persons in the US. The President's powers as commander-in-chief are limited to the theatre of war, which is not the United States.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 01/14/2006 @ 02:35am | ignore this person

     Its not immaterial, its critical, if the steel workers had coordinated their strike with North Korean elements, there is no way the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did.

     The War Powers resolution authorized the President to fight AQ, wherever they are. Remember 20 were inside the USA for 911. AQ does not restrict themselves to the theater.

     These are huge distinctions that the administration will argue on, and according to the almighty polls, a majority of Americans want the POTUS to fight AQ wherever, they dont have problem with him doing this to Americans CALLING AQ numbers.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 12:26pm

189. Gore has given excellent speeches in the past couple of years. He has been stirring, passionate and direct in his criticism of the administration. The fact that these have been heard or read only by audiences already on his side speaks to the vast indifference that most citizens feel for national and geo-political matters. If it's not some foolish "family values" distraction (gay marriage, abortion, bad books in the library, no mama-stepdad-baby jesus in the town square), the vast majority of folks simply could not care less. I'd bet if you could compare the amount of attention given to celebrity gawking, mindless TV watching, etc. to the amount of time devoted to "hard" news, it would be clear that most citizens are basically in a trance, are not accustomed to analyzing their own position and connecting it to how their government acts.

     So I agree that no one will hear what Gore has to say, outside of a tiny number of the already-converted.

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/14/2006 @ 12:26pm

190. FISHBITE

     Fine, What alternative strategy do you advocate?

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 12:27pm

191. SEATTLESCRIBE

     "You offer a convoluted rationalization of Article II and link it to Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors. Instead of digging yourself deeper into a hole, you would be more credible writing that you were awaiting Mr. Bush's explanation too.

     Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 01/14/2006 @ 01:40am | ignore this person

     Firstly, its not convoluted, its really quite easy to follow, you simply dont like it.

     And I have consistently said , we will see who is right and who is wrong when the hearings are held, and if it comes before the Supreme Court, then I would suspect that they will rule in favor of the govt here.

     Its really clear in ARTICLE II, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

     What is the purpose of the Armed Forces? To defend and fight this nations war.

     What was agreed upon in the wake of 911? And act of war against the US.

     The War powers resolution authorized the POTUS to fight AQ wherever they were.

     Intelligence gathering on AQ, who had JUST attacked us, is an EXPLICIT operation of war.

     Which falls under whose ultimate authority? the POTUS

     You really want me to cite you cases as to who says the POTUS is the Commander in Chief in time of WAR? Look at every war since the Revolution, we have participated in, who had ultimate responsibility in each case for its conduct?.

     The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs is the prinicple military advisor to the POTUS. By Law, He doesnt report to the Congress or the Court to ask permission to do his job, his boss is the POTUS

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 12:42pm

192. CPT wrote:

     What was agreed upon in the wake of 911? An act of war against the US.

     Good argument following that, CPT, but there's just one thing. After the removal of the Taliban and the dispersal of al Queda in Afghanistan, the "agreed upon" war was over. Many people, not just liberals, now think Bush has gone too far, and is exceeding his legal authority. Unless, of course, the will of the people is not relevant any more.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/14/2006 @ 1:01pm

193. I can only hope that when Bush & co. no longer need the support of hillbillies like Love Liberty, that we'll be there to see him get royally screwed by these evil, freedom hating entities.

     Have a nice day Lewd Liberty!

     Posted by pissedoff at 01/14/2006 @ 1:13pm

194. NACL's post of 7:42 this morning is one of the most disjointed bits of fluff he has shared with us. He decries the Democrats for their lack of viability, pulling together an odd assortment of Dem names out of a hat as examplese, and links them to things to which they are linked only in the crustiest of minds. Then, he decries the Democrats for not providing a real alternative. So they are both too alternative to be an alternative. He wants them to be more like Bill (which most of them are), which is to say more like Republicans, which is also to say not much of an alternative.

     Then he pastes links to a site that shares his vision for a greater world, apparently unaware that the last fifty years has seen technological breakthroughs that make his glory period of the first half of the 20th century seem like the Dark Ages. But in any case, what politicians, or which political party, does NACL believe will support his progressive vision? A Republican-lite party such as the one he dreams will be a true alternative. Or a truly progressive Democratic party.

     You decry Kucinich and want a greater emphasis on alternative fuels? You want a major effort for urban renewal and reconfiguration and think that anyone beyond a tax hiker can get the job done? You want a high-speed rail system? So do I. Good luck finding a Republican or moderate Democrat to pony up the funds.

     You want a Progressive. You want Kucinich to be President, or at least Al Gore. You'll get nothing from the Democratic party you want. Think about the money wasted in Iraq and what it could have done to the rail system or alternative fuel R&D or grants to cities to revamp their traffic flow.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/14/2006 @ 1:24pm

195. Mr. Nichols, you could have JFK come back from his grave to speak about this Bush mendacity, and yet the coporate media wouldn't cover it like they should.

     I've said it before and I'll say it again, this so called liberal media continues to give this two-bit, bellicose, xanax cowboy a free rein. You watch and see, he and his cabal are going to invade Iran next! Cheney, who is really in charge will not tolerate Iran's oil bourse.

     You can forget about them spying on American's, Iran is the next stop on their Axis of Evil tour. This is why Bolton's at the U.N.

     The PNAC's plan is in full gear. No one will stop it!

     Posted by Munich at 01/14/2006 @ 1:29pm

196. CPT - Suggested alternative strategy: have some experts (I am not one of those) establish a foreign policy focused on working towards long-term economic viability on a global basis. This would likely involve an interlocking and mutually-supportive set of trade treaties, international debt governance, national economic policies, direct aid, "nation building" support, etc. Again, the focus would be: what can we do, as the only super power in the world, in our own self-interest, to help other countries achieve at least some minimum standard of living for their citizens? Folks who have a job, who can raise a family, are less likely to listen to fundamentalist maniacs who want them to kill themselves in the name of Allah or what-have-you.

     Doesn't it seem counter-intuitive to pursue a policy focused on the symptoms (terrorism) and not the disease?

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/14/2006 @ 1:41pm

197. It's fear: Patrick Henry's famous line, "Give me liberty or give me death." Cornyn's bizarre twist…"None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

     Are people in the USA too scared to fight for our liberties? If so, we loose them.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 2:38pm

198. Ridiculously long address, but this story discusses the news that we managed to miss al-Zawahiri, but we did kill 17 other people and managed to piss off Pakistan. Of course, the speculation last night was titillating. Anderson Cooper and his pieced-together gang of al-Qaeda and Pentagon reporters spent the evening wondering about this and that, as the world continued to rotate and orbit and other things actually did happen. But nuthin's more fun than speculatin'.

     http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BDDF3C6A1-D0FA-4728-B03 0-E2ABC2F38A35%7D&siteid=google

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/14/2006 @ 2:40pm

199. Should read: Are we the people of the USA too scared to fight for our own liberties?

     Per: Patrick Henry's famous line, "Give me liberty or give me death." Cornyn's bizarre twist…"None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 3:38pm

200. he briefed members of Congress about it, Pelosi and Rockafeller for starters, its exremely doubtful he would spy on DEMs especially when he told them that he was doing it. Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 12:15am | ignore this person

     Look, Bush is still using that line of deception, i.e., he briefed members of congress. But, here's what we have already learned about his briefings – it's not what he tells them (MCs), it is what he chooses to omit. Remember the dissenting intel analysts whose opinions were not shown to Members?

     If you write four paragraphs on a piece of paper and you show me two of them, and you show someone else all four, then you can say you showed us both the same information – with some degree of truth, but the statement is still a weasel.

     The burden on Bush is to tell us why he circumvented the law. The FISA court still gives him all the room and time to operate and still comply with the law, but he chose not to. After watching Nixon, I am not as trusting as you are. And by the way, while we should expect that we are electing honorable men and women to office, our system of checks and balances is not one based on trust. Skepticism is not only warranted, it is healthy.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/14/2006 @ 4:00pm

201. You really want me to cite you cases as to who says the POTUS is the Commander in Chief in time of WAR? Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 12:42am | ignore this person

     No. Once again, I asked you to support an outlandish statement you made up thread:

     REGARDLESS of any other statued, that says to the contrary, and PRECEDENT backs this up. Posted by CPT 01/13/2006 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person

     I asked you to support your claim of legal precedence giving the president a pass on obeying the law. No surprise, you can't.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/14/2006 @ 4:12pm

202. I think he was "kidding on the square."

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/13/2006 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person

     thanks BB - i was racking my noodle to remember that phrase. "50 foot geyser of pig shit"

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/14/2006 @ 5:33pm

203. I continue coming to the same conclusion time after time that we, the US public, media and opposition, are being blackmailed by the BC BS regime into, if not totally turning a blind eye, at least cowering into impotence, upon the continual threat by the BC BS regime of allowing another 9/11 to happen if they don't get their way. The 'you're either w/us (let us do as we will, RMS) or you're against us (one w/the enemy)' is as old and tired as an organized crime protection ploy.

     If Pat Robertson knew any truth whatsoever, would he be saying that the USA is being punished by gaud because we allowed the BC BS regime to be selected and did nothing? This has got to be the worst president in our entire history. No I do not see Gore speaking up as in any way other than appropriate. That more dem's, independents and moderate repub's aren't speaking up is truly a shame.

     Whether it's blogs or more and intense pounding of the truth via independent media and demonstrations on DC itself, I think we're slowly but surely about to hit a critical mass of disgust with the BC BS regime. It is my hope that the dem's continue to hold the BC BS regime's feet to the fire and accountable for their crimes.

     Even the faux news may be getting it:

     FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 10-11, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).

     "In general, do you think most elected officials in Washington make policy decisions or take actions as a direct result of money they receive from major campaign contributors?"

     ______________Yes_____No_____Unsure

     1/10-11/06______65_____21______14

     "Which political party in Washington do you think is more corrupt: Democrats or Republicans?" Options rotated

     ____________Democrats__Republicans__Same__Neither___Unsure

     1/10-11/06______15_________33________40_____4________8

     "Do you think your own congressional representative has ever taken money or things of value in return for voting a certain way?"

     _______________Yes_____No____Unsure

     1/10-11/06______44______33______23

     "Have you heard or read about Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea on federal corruption charges?"

     ________________Yes____No____Unsure

     1/10-11/06_______57_____40______3

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 6:49pm

204. Oops forgot this one:

     "Do you think one political party is more closely tied than the other to lobbyist Jack Abramoff?" If Yes: "Which party?"

     ____________Dem Party___Repub Party__Both/Neither__Unsure

     1/10-11/06______5__________33___________40________22

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 6:57pm

205. SEATTLESCRIBE

     I asked you to support your claim of legal precedence giving the president a pass on obeying the law. No surprise, you can't.

     In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

     For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

     Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days.

     I will accept your forthcoming apologies, just kidding dont get all upset over a flippant comment. I trust this will satisfy you, but somehow I dont think it will.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:31pm

206. It is much later than the last post, so perhaps the thread is, um, dead. Still.

     CPT cannot support his claim of legal precedence; he has been bitch-slapped by too many informed posters. Love Liberty cannot (and I admit I'm referring back in this) support Jesus' clear refusal to allow divorce without admitting that his own acceptance of the Bible is somewhat fluid--he hates Clinton's adultery but apparently doesn't mind Gingrich's.

     I won't return to my earlier frustration with the way we allow these non-reflective barkers to hijack an admittedly progressive magazine's discussion thread. BUT, if anyone's still reading, could you tell me about Gore's speech, if it's already happened? Sorry, but I don't have TV.

     (I live in a place where if you don't buy cable, you don't get anything on your TV. I'm a schoolteacher who gets paid squat, and I chose high-speed Internet over cable TV).

     Anyone?

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/14/2006 @ 7:34pm

207. SEATTLESCRIBE

     Forgive me, for not citing my qoute in bold. Harmless ommision

     The quote comes from an article a newspaper article in the Wall Street Journal 28 Decemeber 2005

     Author is : Mr. Roger Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:40pm

208. Just think how secure SS would be if all that $$ was in Al Gore's "Lock Box."

     Wouldn't that be grand!

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 7:40pm

209. LISAJO

     "CPT cannot support his claim of legal precedence; he has been bitch-slapped by too many informed posters."

     lol I will happily accept your apologetic revision in light of my most recent post.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:41pm

210. LISAJO

     "Bitch slapped"??? You are a school teacher and "bitch slapped" is all you can come up with?

     Very dissapointing, not for the fact you said it, but because that is obviously the limit of your imagination.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:44pm

211. USAPRIDE

     Every utterance by Gore post 2000 election reaffirms that the Supreme Court held, correctly.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:46pm

212. CPT - Amen.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 7:48pm

213. Just think, if Gore would have only won his own state, the dumb as a stone Bush would have been history.

     Gore never was POTUS material.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 7:53pm

214. Yo, Cap ol' buddy?

     I'm trying to find the section of the ATUF that says Bush can piss on the law (FISA) and have a dump on the Constitution (4th Admendment). Perhaps you will point it out to us leftie pukes.

     Bushco specifically sought the authorization to use electronic means within our borders and were rebuffed by Daschle, et. al. (somehow, since Bush et al have been caught in multiple lies, I find the former senator to be a little more credible) - the fact that they sought such authorization would imply that they thought that Congress had the power to grant (or deny) such authorization.

     Tell me, when Dubya is finally gone (whenever that may be), will you have as much zeal for granting these sorts of unchecked powers to the next president? Do you really want to see Hillary or Dickie/Darth Cheney with such power? Both are infinitely smarter than the poster boy for white male quasi-aristocratic privelege. How're you gonna feel with that much power concentrated into a single pair of hands?

     Skelerama

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 7:56pm

215. LISAJO

     Inform me, when your informed posters reply to my most recent posts.

     USAPRIDE

     Its pitiful what Gore has been reduced to, a DEANIAC-like speaker, appealing ONLY to Nation-types.

     Hey Libs there is a REASON Gore is not covered the way he once was, he has been afflicted with the dreaded disease commonly known as DIARREHA of the MOUTH.

     Is it really any wonder why no one wishes to get near him?

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:57pm

216. SKELETONMAN

     Just for you, I will repeat it

     In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

     For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

     Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 7:59pm

217. Sorry, Cap, it ain't in there. FISA is allowed a brief hiatus at the onset of hostilities, nothing in there about it being ok for POTUS to BREAK the law or VIOLATE the Constitution.

     This is the problem with cut and paste posts. You end up looking like a dolt when someone questions you and you can't come up with the specifics.

     Try again, ace.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:03pm

218. SKELELOTON

     You didnt read it, I cite all my cut and paste, buddy

     sorry if its above your level of thinking

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:06pm

219. SKELOTON

     I believe the original question was to a cite a case, I did.

     GAME, SET, and MATCH

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:07pm

220. "....Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful."

     So based on the above, you would have to agree that Bush broke the law here, too, since Iraq never attacked us.

     As Cardinal Richelieu says to D'artagnian (?sp) and the Musketeers after the beheading of Milady, 'one must be careful of what one writes, musn't one?' (In the movie version with Michael York, Oliver Reed, Charleton Heston, et. al.)

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:08pm

221. What really shows the lib, snobby, I'm better than you additude is that you are all missing the point.

     The prez is only doing what he feels he has to do to protect us.

     All else fails when you put it into context.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 8:09pm

222. SKEL

     4th ammendment says "UN-reasonble" searches and seizures.

     Only guys like you believe that listening to Americans CALIING AQ numbers is UN-reasonable

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:10pm

223. SKEL

     Posted by SKELETONMAN 01/14/2006 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person

     Now, you are trying to back away and obfuscate the real issue.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:12pm

224. SKEL

     But fine, SADDAM was a swell guy, I guess, right? He never KNEWE those TERROR camps were in his backyard and both had DEFINITE AQ links. right?

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:13pm

225. I believe the original question was to a cite a case, I did.

     GAME, SET, and MATCH

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006

     Game, Set, Match?

     Dude, you really do need something in the way of a life, don't you? You quote a few lines out of context, but document nothing that backs your fundamental assertion, i.e. that POTUS has the power to set him/herself above the law and Constitution (even your boy Sammy A-lito had to admit to that this week past). How 'bout posting the links, so that those of use who choose to open our minds can read for ourselves and come to our own opinions?

     Another problem with the cut and paste approach - when you don't do the research, all you can do is cut and paste.

     When you find the thingy that say POTUS is above the law, let me know.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:15pm

226. 4th ammendment says "UN-reasonble" searches and seizures.

     Only guys like you believe that listening to Americans CALIING AQ numbers is UN-reasonable

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 8:10pm

     And goes on to define reasonable searches as those that are of sufficient merit to result in a warrant. In other words, by definition, a warrantless search is unreasonable.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:18pm

227. SKEL

     Dude, thanks for the sage advice, duly noted.

     SKEL, your post are reflective of what happens when you smoke too much of the funny green stuff and cannot comprehend what is written.

     Dude go to Sylvan Learning Center

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:21pm

228. SKEL

     I posted where I got my previous reference on the last page and IF i took you out of context, my apologies, its a web blog after all

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:24pm

229. SKEL

     Talk about taking things out of context, I never said the POTUS was above the law. Nor was that my assertion, but in relation to the NSA taps, I believe Bush acted within his authority; and my reference CLEARY supports THAT position

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:28pm

230. What really shows the lib, snobby, I'm better than you additude is that you are all missing the point.

     The prez is only doing what he feels he has to do to protect us.

     All else fails when you put it into context.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 01/14/2006 @ 8:09pm

     To whom this is addressed is uncertain, but I'll answer for us 'snobbies.'

     The president has the duty to respond to threats to the US and to try his/her best to protect the US, this is not in dispute.

     What you fail to perceive is that by stomping on the Constitution and setting himself above the law, Bush is in the process of supplanting AQ as the chief threat to our nation. What use is there in fighting AQ when our way of life is being assualted from within; by distracting the weak minded with a bogeyman (e.g. Saddam), the true enemies of America are able to have their way with us. That is Bush's crime and it sickens me that there are people in this country who are so blinded by his BS that they will not see this.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:28pm

231. Talk about taking things out of context, I never said the POTUS was above the law. Nor was that my assertion, but in relation to the NSA taps, I believe Bush acted within his authority; and my reference CLEARY supports THAT position

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006

     But this is the implication of what you are saying. Believe what you will. This is America, and you are allowed to be wrong. For now.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:31pm

232. Dude go to Sylvan Learning Center

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006

     This is funny stuff. I suspect that I am at least as well educated as any here. Shoot, I even proof-read my posts and am sure to correct my typos.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:33pm

233. SKEL

     It not an implication AFTER one EXPRESSLY states the true intention.

     But its America and your are allowed to have your own take on those statements.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:36pm

234. Hey Bones: Define the real enemy to our well being.

     Who are the bad guys?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 8:36pm

235. SKEL

     IF you are IMPLYING that I am a hrrible speller, your right. Spell check in college was my crutch

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:37pm

236. Only guys like you believe that listening to Americans CALIING AQ numbers is UN-reasonable

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 8:10pm

     Silly boy, now you are putting words into my mouth. I think that it is perfectly acceptable to listen in to AQ communications. Just follow the damn law, that's all I ask. If the law is unworkable (too 'pre-911') to be effective in today's environment, then seek to change it. But don't become like the evil doers by eschewing the rule of law and then try to tell me that you are protecting America by doing so. That's 10# of BS in a 5# sack, that is.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:38pm

237. SKEL

     Well its what you IMPLIED, so I thought at the time

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 8:42pm

238. Hey Bones: Define the real enemy to our well being.

     Who are the bad guys?

     Posted by USAPRIDE

     What a softball!!!

     Who is the real enemy of the US? Anyone who seeks to undo our way of life to advance their own purposes.

     AQ would be an example, as they seek the destruction of our political, economic and financial systems so as to advance their perverted view of Islam.

     Bushco are coming dangerously close to becoming enemies to our way of life, by their rapine of our Constitution, without which, there is no US. The 4th Amendment is the current point of attack, but there will be others if Bush-Cheney et al are allowed to proceed unchecked.

     By his haughty refusal to submit himself to the rule of law, Bush fails his oath of office and to remember who the Constitution is ('We the people...') This is the ultimate meaning of the phrase 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.'

     With POTUS setting himself above the law, AQ isn't even a pimple on the butt of the US when it comes to threatening our way of life. I guess I don't expect you to agree with that, but it would be nice if you thought about just how dangerous our situation is right now.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 8:50pm

239. Before I comment on SKEL'S response I'd like to ask one simple question to my left leaning friends.

     Do you agree that GWB is more of a threat to you and your loved ones than the likes of Saddam, Osama and their followers?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 9:00pm

240. Do you agree that GWB is more of a threat to you and your loved ones than the likes of Saddam, Osama and their followers?

     Posted by USAPRIDE

     This is actually a tough question, one that needed to be asked.

     If the question is whether Saddam, OBL/AQ are PRESENTLY a greater threat to the US than GWB, then the answer is 'no.'

     If the question is whether GWB, et al are a greater POTENTIAL threat to the US than Saddam, OBL/AQ, then I sadly have to answer 'yes.'

     The threat of AQ is insignificant compared to the cancer which might consume the Constitution from within if allowed to.

     Happens to be that I think GWB (well, more Dickie C) is that cancer and that said cancer should be excised without mercy or remorse. Others differ, which is fine so long as sufficient independent, critical thought has been given to the question.

     Put another way, AQ can never take away what it means to be American, so long as we hold true to the core values (which I would define as those expressed in the Consitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments).

     Any enemy from within (again, you are free to make up your mind if such an enemy exists) is far more dangerous, as such an enemy might have the ability to induce us to give up our values (same definition) without our being aware of it.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 9:19pm

241. Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 7:31pm | ignore this person

     I've been watching the Seahawks v Redskins game – happy outcome.

     OK, to the issue here. You cite the Truong case, but that is not a good example of the president getting a legal blessing to bypass the law. Truong was a refuge from Vietnam who enjoyed lawful permanent residency until his conviction for robbery. He was facing deportation – a situation most of us would not be in.

     I assume your reference to the joint House / Senate Resolution is in support of Bush's contention that that document gave him authority to expand executive branch authority to eavesdropping on American citizens. That's not what the members said then, including some from his party:

     Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept of giving him the authority to pursue those who have brought this terrible destruction to our country and to pursue those who have harbored them or assisted them and conspired with them in any way. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

     The body of this resolution is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11th…It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States, but provides no new or additional grant of powers to the President. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

     Regarding FISA, here is what the Act actually says:

     A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

     So, you still haven't answered my question.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/14/2006 @ 9:25pm

242. Bones:

     I respect your comments. Please consider...

     Another hit inside the USA. This time the hit (s) are well withinin the heartland. Image 10 OKC type bombings all aroung the country within 1 hour.

     At that time, how worried are you that GWB is pushing the limits of his powers.

     My answer would be, if those basterds would have just understood and given him the power to check these guys out, a lot of innocents would still be alive.

     When this happens, would you be concerned about your fucking civil rights?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 9:34pm

243. "Would a president who believes he has spy powers, the right to torture, the ability to wage illegal wars based on bogus, manufactured intelligence reports, simply refuse to spy on Kerry and rig an election electronically? In Ohio, two burglaries occurred against the Democratic Party in Lucas County and Franklin County, just prior to the 2004 election, involving computer theft."

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_410.shtml

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 9:44pm

244. USA-P

     There is nothing that would convince me to sell off my civil liberties to that snake oil salesman.

     Bushco went around FISA for the same reason that dogs have licked their balls - because they could.

     There was no reason for going around FISA, at least not where AQ was concerned (I am not a conspiracy theorist); Dickie hog-wrasstled Dubya into doing because he saw an opportunity and went for it.

     I'll say it again, if you don't like the law, change it (Congress would have gladly serviced Bushco and swallowed, to boot), but don't you dare steal from me my legacy as an American and then tell me it's for my own good.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 9:44pm

245. "State-run media"

     "Earlier this year, several "journalists" were exposed as propagandists on the White House payroll. We then learned that broadcasters routinely air government-funded video news releases without disclosing their source; the White House has set aside a quarter billion taxpayer dollars to hire public relations firms and infiltrate our news system with fake news."

     http://www.freepress.net/propaganda/

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 9:49pm

246. Bones, I fear your answer.

     I won't argue your points any further. You guys keep your march against what you feel is right.

     My only comfort is knowing you are the small minority. I thank God for that fact.

     Rock on my silly friend.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/14/2006 @ 9:53pm

247. USA-P

     Whatever floats your boat. When Dubya is in his 4th term and the secret police come knocking, at least I'll know who will be wearing the arm bands and clicking those shiny boots

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/14/2006 @ 9:58pm

248. Today: January 14, 2006 at 19:1:21 PST

     Challenge to Bush Initiative Reinstated By RYAN J. FOLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS

     MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A group can sue the federal government over claims that President Bush's faith-based initiative is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, a federal appeals court ruled.

     A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The group claims Bush's program, which helps religious organizations get government funding to provide social services, violates the separation of church and state.

     "Bush says this is constitutional, but it's never been tried by the courts. So we're pleased," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, said Saturday.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 10:06pm

249. Today: January 14, 2006 at 19:6:13 PST

     Poll: DeLay Losing Support in Own District

     ASSOCIATED PRESS

     HOUSTON (AP) - Barely one of every five of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's constituents would vote for him if the election were held now, according to a newspaper poll released Saturday.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 10:12pm

250. January 13, 2006

     Court Rejects Police Immunity From Lawsuit By TONI LOCY ASSOCIATED PRESS

     WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court refused Friday to exempt two top police officials in the nation's capital from a lawsuit filed on behalf of nearly 400 people who were corralled at a city park and arrested during protests at the World Bank-International Monetary Fund annual meeting in 2002.

     A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a trial judge's ruling that said Metropolitan Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham can be sued for violating the constitutional rights of the people who were arrested Sept. 27, 2002.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 10:19pm

251. Today: January 14, 2006 at 9:51:19 PST

     Editorial: Disclosing IRS' heavy-handedness Agency's taxpayer advocate discloses to Congress that hundreds of thousands of innocent, low-income Americans have had tax refunds frozen every year

     Earlier this week the IRS taxpayer advocate revealed that the IRS has been annually freezing hundreds of thousands of refunds to low-income Americans without notifying them that they're being investigated for tax fraud. The failure to tell taxpayers what is going on, the taxpayer advocate noted, means they can't effectively challenge the IRS' determination.

     "At a minimum, this procedure constitutes an extraordinary violation of fundamental taxpayer rights and fairness," Nina Olson, the IRS taxpayer advocate, wrote in her annual report to Congress. "In our view, it may also constitute a violation of due process of law."

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 10:24pm

252. Yep, we the people, need fair courts for the little guy, not the corporations, not for a dic-tator.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 10:28pm

253. good stuff Fooly

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/14/2006 @ 10:32pm

254. Good post Frank. Thanks Johannes.

     Why am I not surprised that the BC BS regime wants even more power in order to cover up all its glaring neglect and persistent incompetence:

     Today: January 14, 2006 at 20:6:25 PST

     Glitches Interrupt Medicare Prescriptions By KEVIN FREKING ASSOCIATED PRESS

     WASHINGTON (AP) -

     Tens of thousands of elderly poor people may have had trouble getting their medicine during the first two weeks of the government's prescription drug benefit, and about 20 states have been forced to step in to help them, the top Medicare official acknowledges.

     The problems will be fixed, pledged Mark McClellan, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in an interview with The Associated Press.

     In some cases, people are not showing up in databases as being enrolled in a plan. When they do show up, many people are being told they need to pay hundreds of dollars before they can get their medicine. Instead, they should owe only nominal amounts.

     "I'm working with the states, with the plans, with all of our partners to make sure people get the prescriptions they need," McClellan said Friday.

     Under the program, about 42 million disabled and older people are eligible to enroll in private plans that will subsidize their prescription drug costs. Millions of prescriptions have been filled without trouble, McClellan said, but there is growing concern that some of the poorest beneficiaries cannot get their medicine.

     Some advocacy groups say they believe McClellan underestimated the problems.

     "We could see the problems coming. We expressed concern, and it was just pooh-poohed. Now, our worst fears have been realized," said Jeanne Finberg, a lawyer with the National Senior Citizens Law Center, which is based in Oakland, Calif.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/14/2006 @ 11:37pm

255. Martial law isn't going to be televised. Maybe Fox will carry it?

     Posted by Munich at 01/14/2006 @ 11:46pm

256. SEATTLE

     You asked me to cite a case supporting my position, I did.

     Maybe you didnt read it though carefully, to see how it applied, it was pretty specific as to how, the article was written by a Viriginia Law School Professor, who has practical experience in National Security Law.

     And your own statement answers this

     "It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States,"

     By your words, listening in on people CALLING AQ NUMBERS, falls into that category of "taking action to defend the United States"

     I dont know any rational person who would believe otherwise.

     I am glad we agree.

     Seriously though, we will see who is right and who is wrong as this plays out.

     Bottomline, I believe the POTUS was well within his Constitutional Authority, you believe it wasnt within that authority.

     Posted by CPT at 01/14/2006 @ 11:51pm

257. CPT,

     In my post above (1/14/2006, 9:25PM), I accidently omitted the attributions from the Congressional Record of 9/14/01. The first quote is from Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and the second is from Rep. James McGovern (D-MA).

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/15/2006 @ 12:08am

258. And your own statement answers this

     "It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States," Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 11:51pm | ignore this person

     Hey,

     You don't play fair. That was a hatchet job on my comments and citations. The quote you used above as [my] "own statement" is from, as I cited, the Congressional Record. Here is the rest of that quote you surgically excised: "But provides no new or additional grant of powers to the President." - Representative James McGovern (D-MA) [Congressional Record, 9/14/01] In my post up thread, I did accidentally omit Senator Stevens and Rep. McGovern's names from the citation. I corrected that in my post at 12:08 AM.

     Come on, man. If you're going to play back my words, at least put them in proper context.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/15/2006 @ 12:31am

259. "Some commentators are complaining that Judge Samuel Alito Jr's confirmation hearings have not been exciting, but they must not have been paying attention. We learned that Judge Alito had once declared that Judge Robert Bork - whose Supreme Court nomination was defeated because of his legal extremism- "was one of the most outstanding nominees" of the 20th century.

     We heard Judge Alito refuse to call Roe v Wade "settled law," as Chief Justice John Roberts did at his confirmation hearings. And we learned that Judge Alito subscribes to troubling views about presidential power.

     "Those are just a few of the quiet bombshells that have dropped. In his deadpan bureaucrat's voice, Judge Alito has said some truly disturbing things about his view of the law. In three days of testimony, he has given the American people reasons to be worried - and senators reasons to oppose his nomination."

     The NYT then goes on to detail serious shortcomings it has detected in Judge Alito's judicial make-up, among them: . "Evidence of extremism" in his unqualified praise for Robert Bork, an extreme right-winger who was rejected by the Senate when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in the 80s. . "Opposition to Roe v Wade" - the landmark case giving American women the right to abortions.

     . "Support for an Imperial presidency". By backing an extremist concept known as the "unitary presidency", Alito supports almost unlimited power for the president, superseding the idea of checks and balances. . Insensitivity to ordinary Americans' rights.

     Professor Martin Garbus says "Alito's muffled views on race and gender, two of the most important issues facing the country, are pernicious. Alito does not attack women or African-Americans directly. He just refuses to believe their testimony."

     In relation to a specific case alleging discrimination, Garbus says: ".Alito wanted to use Barbara Sheridan's case to do more. He wanted to change the burden of proof in Civil Rights discrimination cases - make the employee prove racial, gender or age discrimination rather than placing the burden on the company to prove they had a valid reason for firing her. That seemingly small procedural change would reverse the result in well over 90% of discrimination suits."

     http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20060114T200000-0500_96580_O BS_THE_ARTFUL_DODGER_.asp

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 12:33am

260. I find a lot to be disturbed about with Alito but more specifically all the televised misrepresentation of what happened and is happening with the Vanguard appeal. Alito and repub's were all over the place on this one.

     Whenever the Vanguard matter came up, Sen. Hatch made leading statements to Alito whereby Alito repeatedly and falsely stated that he recused himself from this case. The fact is, Alito never recused himself from this case - but actually decided this case in 2002. When Ms. Maharaj sought to vacate his decision in 2003, Alito only stated to the chief judge Scirica that he was recusing himself from participation in that motion. This was one year after the fact. Alito also lied about this case being reheard. The court records show no such thing ever happened. Alito's cohorts simply rubberstamped his void opinion after it was vacated without ever giving Ms. Maharaj or her lawyer any opportunity to be heard whatsoever. No hearing ever occurred in this appeal, ever.

     http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/13/105110/806

     Nominee sees 'oversight,' but no ethics breach in Vanguard case

     By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 11, 2006

     WASHINGTON -- Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. yesterday said that his failure to recuse himself from a Boston-based case involving Vanguard, a company in which he held at least $390,000 in mutual-fund shares, was an oversight but not an ethical breach because his participation did not benefit him financially.

     But critics of Alito, including a lawyer for the Boston widow who sued Vanguard, insisted that Alito should have known that any involvement on his part was unethical and that he did have a financial interest in the case, however slight.

     ''The name Vanguard is plastered all over the documents he had to read in order to rule on the appeal, including the orders he signed and the opinion he issued," said lawyer John G. S. Flym, who represented the Boston widow. ''It's just baloney to think it never crossed his mind that Vanguard would raise an issue."

     Flym said he believes Alito broke a 1974 ethics law. The law says a federal judge ''shall recuse" himself from any case in which he has a financial stake, ''however small," in one of the parties.

     The Vanguard issue traces back to the congressional hearings when Alito was first nominated to the federal appeals court, in 1990. At the time, he promised that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard because he held Vanguard funds.

     In 2002, however, Alito did not recuse himself from a three-judge panel hearing the case brought by the Boston widow. Alito wrote an opinion that favored Vanguard.

     After Flym raised concerns about Alito's participation, Alito wrote to the chief judge of his appeals court that ''I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of mutual fund shares," but agreed to step aside.

     The chief judge appointed a new panel to redecide the case. Alito's defenders note that the replacement panel reached the same result and that the identical outcome shows that Alito did not distort his reasoning to favor Vanguard.

     But Flym said yesterday that the new panel did not take its mandate seriously. It did not allow him to reargue the case, and simply reissued the same opinion Alito had written.

     Alito had told another senator that the court clerk's office failed to notify him of the potential conflict, but he took responsibility more directly when pressed by Kennedy, saying his failure to recuse himself was ''an oversight on my part."

     http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/11/nominee _sees_oversight_but_no_ethics_breach_in_vanguard_case/

     "The only issue during three days of hearings that both seemed to rattle Alito and make him seem untruthful was what he remembered about joining the now-infamous Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), the group of Ivy League graduates who fought against blacks and women entering Princeton in the 1970s and 1980s. Alito bragged about his membership in the group in his 1985 Reagan administration job application, but, as he told the Judiciary Committee several times, "I have no specific recollection of joining the organization." (Whenever he said this, his muscles tightened and his face assumed an awkward hostage-like expression.) Judging from the rest of the application, Alito was a bit of a suck-up, so it's more likely that he added a mention of the group only to catch the eye of the Reagan conservatives reviewing his application and now finds it untenable to admit to the deception. CAP started as an issue about Alito's views on race, but it has turned into an issue about his credibility--one that Democrats could find useful as part of a larger filibuster argument. "

     http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060123&s=lizza012306

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 04:03am

261. I just don't have time to read this whole 6 pages, but:

     CPT said:

     "Because under article 2 since the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and in a time of war. He is CONSTITUTIONALLY allowed to conduct war against an enemy of the USA. AND gathering INTELL on AQ, FALLS under that subset. REGARDLESS of any other statued, that says to the contrary, and PRECEDENT backs this up. And your almighty polls back him as well. So get ready to be upset and decry a foul. "

     Now, try to follow me thru this -- it's not that complicated.

     1. The FISA court has only refused 4 requests for warrants out of 19,000

     2. Historically, when presidents spy on Americans, their targets are their political opponents in the Congress, the Press, the Judiciary, and whistleblowers in government service

     Conclusion: if Bush was doing what he should be doing, he'd have had his warrant no sweat, even AFTER THE FACT, up to 72 hours.

     So it is obvious that whom he was spying on was targets he dared not let the FISA court know about, ipso facto.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 04:55am

262. we have a lot of Tories, my new term for the right wing, which is too cumbersome, who keep asking why we hate Bush so much and are constantly criticising him.my answer: why did the colonists hate George III so much? he was their sovereign, all he wanted was for them to pay a bigger share of the cost of defending them, and the rest of the empire. same reason then as now

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/15/2006 @ 10:22am

263. Late to the ball again. Sheesh, I gotta start staying up later, or getting up earlier, or something!

     Whoa, CPT responded. Sorry that you find the term "bitch-slapped" surprising, coming from a teacher. Let me put it this way: Teachers are people. When we're not in the classroom, we talk like people. Jezzum Crow, do you expect teachers to be 24/7 gods and goddesses? Sheesh, what a dope you are.

     Sometimes we even act like people. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this discussion thread is not my 7th-grade classroom. Wait, given your level of argument, maybe it is. OK. Sorry I offended your 12-year old ears, little buddy.

     I didn't respond to your devastating precedent because others on this post have already annihilated it.

     But I'm already angry with myself with even bothering to reply to you. Never again!

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 11:05am

264. CPT,

     Please stop dragging the Truong case back into this discussion. It dealt with actions taken before FISA was enacted--the fact that the trial took place in the FISA era is irrelevant.

     Your reference to the 2002 case of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is similarly irrelevant and inaccurately represented. In fact the court in this case found problems with Truong (The court found that "the line the Truong court adopted–subsequently referred to as a 'wall'–was unstable because it generates dangerous confusion and creates perverse organizational incentives").

     What the court in 2002 was determining was whether the FISA court could impose limitations on law enforcement when granting approval for a government action. The court found that FISA could not do this. It said that

     There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government's application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism. The FISA court authorized the surveillance, but imposed certain restrictions, which the government contends are neither mandated nor authorized by FISA.

     Note that the government went through FISA--this was not a case of warrantless searches.

     Furthermore, the court concluded that

     Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close.

     The court in its decision refers to the "Keith" case in which domestic wiretapping was conducted. It finds in Keith a good model for for the privacy v. security concern, but says it might not apply to foreign threats. This is an important issue since Bush is accused of not only spying on foreigners but citizens as well.

     You pull quotes out of context to indicate that this case supports warrantless searches by the President. But the overriding impact of this case did not touch on this issue. So this case, like Truong, does not support your opinion.

     The September 14, 2001 as the equivalent of a declaration of war. "The Joint Resolution's authorization to use force is limited only to those individuals, groups, or states that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, and those nations that harbored them. It does not, therefore, reach other terrorist individuals, groups, or states, which cannot be determined to have links to the September 11 attacks." (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm) With these limitations comes responsibility for the President to restrain himself from using this power for political gain. It appears he could not restrain himself and has, therefore, violated the law.

     I'm done. Long post. Sorry. Back to brunch.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/15/2006 @ 11:22am

265. TJ, thanks very much for putting CPT's "argument" to bed.

     I think I sometimes get distracted by the Wingers' arguments on this site, which I suppose is why they're here. And perhaps this thread is on its last legs; I'm not sure.

     But I'm feeling rather crushed and hopeless just now. Alito is more or less a shoo-in; the Dems are in disarray; Bush and Co, it seems to me, are well on the way to dismantling the Constitution. Bush-hags like CPT and LL and NACL and Rio and even Mask (to some extent) can't seem to see past their blind allegiance, and cannot understand that unfettered executive power is only nice when your guy is in power.

     I am very, very depressed. The MSM is still playing administration butt-monkey. Alito's wife bursts into tears, and everyone says, "Awwww, poor little thing." The MSM sucks it up, and as far as I know, no one but Daryl Cagle has attempted to question this "sob-story."

     What has happened to my country? Are we nothing but CPT's cowards, cringing in fear, trading out liberties for safety? Are we nothing but sentimentalists, who allow a woman's tears (and frankly, I'm thoroughly pissed off about THAT. Shit, woman, act like an adult) to convince us to ignore serious questions about a SCOTUS candidate's biases?

     OK, let the scouring begin. I'm angry and depressed. But if it will help, I'll bring in a whole bunch of family members to start crying if you're too mean to me.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 11:58am

266. Teacher said "butt-monkey". TJ is pleased.

     'twould seem to be a simple thing, taking a Supremer wannabe for a test spin. And yet, we turn it into a freak show. I cannot recall my wife sitting in on my job interviews, nor do I recall an interview committee finding numerous problems in my background and then turning around and saying, "Welcome! You now hold a position more significant than any of ours."

     But it's no worse than any election, I suppose. But the political world in this country is Exhibit A in the fight against Freiheit's beliefs on the other blog that each of us attains what we deserve, and the related implication that the best people get the job.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/15/2006 @ 12:11pm

267. Well, I didn't exactly say this, but I think it's sort of implied in my last post. "Democrats in disarray," don't you know.

     Now, I'm going off-topic, but please indulge me. I was abslutely infuriated by Mrs. Alito's breakdown. Reps and Dems argue about who made her cry, and I suppose I should be sympathetic, but I'm just NOT. It was a goddamned embarassment. Geez, woman, suck it up or stay home. Are you a grown-up, or not?

     OK, I'll respond to the last post soon. But GAWD, I'm so pissed of by little missy Alito, the real-crying doll.

     (Yes, I know I'm being mean. But if you guys DARE to be mean to me, I'll cry. Cuz I'm a woman and all.)

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 12:35pm

268. Ahem. See, I'm not really all that mean. In a normal world, I would never criticize anyone for crying.

     But we no longer live in a normal world. The President breaks the law, and brags about it. His butt-monkeys applaud his lawlessness. The media fuss and harrumph about, and make excuses for him. He attempts to appoint one of his supporters to the SCOTUS. The candidate, who is there precisely because he supports unfettered executive authority, cringes and evades and does everything but say, "I'll do or say anything to get a job I want," and then his wife bursts into tears, and the media treat it like it's another missing blonde in Aruba.

     I am furious. Any sympathy I might have felt for Mrs. Whatever-Her-Last-Name-Is has been trumped by my desire to not be made to seem an infant. On top of that, I have to (well, "have to" is an exaggeration. I don't really have to read the Nation's blogs) read the crap written by cowards who are more than willing to trade MY freedoms for their own safety.

     OK, OK. I'm breathing deeply. I realize that I've gone off the deep end. Thank you for listening; I promise that my next post will be more measured.

     Grrrrrr...

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 12:50pm

269. I think I've been stating this for a couple of years now. I think it takes a while for history to catch up with intuition.

     Perhaps that's why it usually takes a few news cycles for the TV media to catch on to the intelligent news in print... One would think they'd be in front of it when it's in your face. But I've been reading this for a while now and not heard the term 'dictator' in any of the news/talk broadcasts being discussed. Maybe they're just whispering right now. Think Gore will use the 'd' word?

     An imperial presidency based on constitutional quicksand By Ivan Eland Online Journal Guest Writer

     Jan 11, 2006, 02:12

     In particular, the founders feared the power of a potent executive to impose wars upon the American people in which they would bear the brunt of the costs in blood and treasure -- much as the autocratic European monarchs of the day inflicted such costs on their subjects. Thus, the framers, contrary to conventional wisdom, gave most of the war powers to Congress. The legislature has the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate the land and naval forces, make the rules for captures on land and water, and provide for organizing, arming, disciplining, and calling forth the militia in times of insurrection and invasion. In contrast, the president has only the power of commander-in-chief of the army, navy, and militia when called into service by the federal government.

     It is this last power that modern presidents, especially the current incumbent, have attempted to stretch from its narrow origins into the very nightmare the framers wanted to avoid -- a single official with unchecked war powers. President Bush has justified unconstitutional acts in the "war on terror" by expanding the power of the commander-in-chief beyond the founders' intention. He has used that power to justify torture, the surveillance of Americans without a warrant, and the effective suspension of habeas corpus by indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" -- including some Americans -- without a trial or access to lawyers. Yet the founders intended only that the president command forces on the battlefield because it was difficult for the many members of the legislative branch to do so. Yes, gathering intelligence is part of that effort, but another part of the Constitution -- that is, the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- implicitly guarantees that people will be protected against searches without a warrant. For conservatives that love original intent, the Constitution says nothing about being suspended during wartime. Also, torturing prisoners in violation of the congressionally approved Geneva Conventions and indefinitely detaining them without a trial seem to run afoul of the constitutional provisions providing that Congress has the power to make rules concerning captures on land and water and implying that only Congress, rather than the executive, has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion (this provision is in Article I and not Article II).

     Of course, there is currently no rebellion or invasion, so any suspension of habeas corpus -- whether by the president or Congress -- is likely to be unconstitutional. In fact, there is no war; the "war on terror" is not really a war at all. The post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against the attacks' perpetrators and those that harbored them, which the president uses as an additional justification for his domestic snooping, did not even imply the approval of such surveillance, expanded executive power (in fact, members of Congress from both parties went on record specifically rejecting that interpretation), or a declaration of war.

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_406.shtml

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 1:07pm

270. Zero:

     "Don't vote for them."

     I'm sorry, but while agree with everything else you've said, I can't agree with this. Until we have a viable alternative, people who care about this country must vote for the opposition, even if they have to hold their noses while doing it.

     Throwaway voting on principle is no longer an option. In my opinion, the opposition's only legitimate choice is to vote for "anyone but." I'm sorry, but Bush (who was elected in part by people who refused to sully the purity of their principles) is on a rampage, and so is his party. We must stop them.

     If you can convince me that there is a realistic alternative to the Dems, I'll give you a big, wet kiss. But I will never again allow my principles to keep me from thwarting a dictator and his supporters.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 1:18pm

271. Zero,

     Who's lobbying you?

     True, the dem's need better leadership, but to butter the way for a dictator by deminishing what little opposition there is, is well very disturbing when there isn't anything else there currently that can mount a filibuster. I'd rather we all sceem at the tops of our lungs that the dem's and moderate repub's filibuster this little grovelling shit or we will vote them out. First things first.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 1:21pm

272. Lisa you read/type faster-- but yes we have to push our current leg.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 1:23pm

273. I should anticipate my critics by saying, "Hypocritical? You bet!"

     Except, not. If the patient is stable, you might have the luxury of tinkering with possible cures. But right now, our country is crashing. Any vote that keeps this "Republican" party in power is a vote to pull the plug. We have to stop them, even if it means voting for the lesser of the evils.

     Sorry, Zero, but I just can't agree with you on this matter.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 1:25pm

274. @ 1:21pm And that should be 'scream' at the top of our lungs...

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 1:26pm

275. Lisa, the patient is being prepped for organ harvesting and he ain't even dead yet!

     Sorry just had to retype this:

     True, the dem's need better leadership, but to butter the way for a dictator by diminishing what little opposition there is, is well very disturbing when there isn't anything else there currently that can mount a filibuster. I'd rather we all scream at the tops of our lungs that the dem's and moderate repub's filibuster this little groveling shit or we will vote them out. First things first.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 1:41pm

276. Lisajo said:

     I am very, very depressed. The MSM is still playing administration butt-monkey. Alito's wife bursts into tears, and everyone says, "Awwww, poor little thing." The MSM sucks it up, and as far as I know, no one but Daryl Cagle has attempted to question this "sob-story."

     What has happened to my country? Are we nothing but CPT's cowards, cringing in fear, trading out liberties for safety? Are we nothing but sentimentalists, who allow a woman's tears ...

     It's the nightmare scenario -- in more ways than one (ie., the BBC piece, "The Power of Nightmares" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm ).

     The nightmare scenario, wherein the ace lockpicker manages to get open our safe, without tripping the alarm (the safe being the Constitution, and the alarm being the Press and the Good Sense of the People).

     Expertise has been developing over the course of my lifetime. When I was 13 (1960) I learned the term "motivational research" from a book of comics by Jules Feiffer called "Sick, Sick, Sick" that my big sister gave me. "Motivational research", the highly engineered technology of advertising, that with the advent of television has become the vehicle of choice for turning "1984" and "Brave New World" into reality, and putting Leo Strauss's philosophy into effect.

     When the Nazis took over in Germany, people who were on their toes could always escape to the USA. But when the USA goes under the dark cloud, where do you run to? China? I don't think so. Denmark? But if you escape, what have you got? What's left to live for? Better to stay and fight, but what's the use? To languish in prison, or pretend you're on their side?

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 1:41pm

277. Thinking of the future is fine, but we have a crisis now.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 1:47pm

278. Love Liberty,

     You miss my point. Gore remains an important figure because of the office he once held. What his current poll numbers are is not important, what matters is that as a former VP he has stature. So, if he gets up and speaks out, it does matter.

     Posted by hhemwm at 01/15/2006 @ 1:57pm

279. Besides, Gore is not "yet" running for any office, so who would be doing his polling?

     Posted by hhemwm at 01/15/2006 @ 1:57pm

280. What obscure unelectable 3rd party is lobbying zero? Is it one that will allow the BC BS regime to continue to succeed towards dictatorship? What progress is that?

     I say we petition our rep's. We threaten them with their own cowering ways, ones that won't be forgotten come election time. Tell them in no uncertain terms that we demand a filibuster of any and all dictator leaning appointments and if the repub's pull the nuclear op, then we know dem's tried it all out. But we also need to duplicate our efforts and voice them to the media, write, call, march, scream, and don't forget MLK.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

281. Zero says:

     he announces, in signing a bill that should curtail his power, that his intent in signing the bill into law is to shortly break the law

     The image that comes immediately to mind is the Nazi troops snapping off the turnpike at the Polish border.

     Image (a bit darker than I remember) at http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,1464347_4,00.jpg -- don't miss the grin on the face 3rd from left)

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

282. Those of us who share Zero's frustration at the lack of opposition in congress to the Bush/Cheney/Neocon power grab have basically one problem: we are not organized. We need a clear agenda and a leader. Does anyone doubt that the Dems would find their spine if their re-election antenna detected a viable political movement with focus is growing?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/15/2006 @ 2:09pm

283. BUSHFOOLS says:

     I say we petition our rep's.

     Reps can't filibuster: only Senators, and few there be that we can appeal to. But yes, they must. What if they do get the Nuclear option? It would be a plus come election time, I think

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 2:14pm

284. Anybody here that has not seen this 22 minute video is in no position to comment about what motivates the electorate.

     http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 2:16pm

285. Reps can't filibuster: only Senators, and few there be that we can appeal to. But yes, they must. What if they do get the Nuclear option? It would be a plus come election time, I think

     Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 01/15/2006 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person

     Apologies, damn acronyms-- I meant all our elected representatives: house, senate, governors, mayors, counsel, chiefs, boards...etc, but remember to cc the BC BS regime.

     I think it's important to be systematic/methodical concerning our approach to blocking progress toward solidifying a dictatorship in what may end up being the last possible bastion for freedom. It's domino dominion in progress as we speak.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 3:03pm

286. Gore refused to cause a "constitutional crisis" when he was elected in 2000. In doing so he caused this one. I am so very pissed at him.

     Posted by ntisuzi at 01/15/2006 @ 3:31pm

287. Zero, I'm not sure what I did to deserve your towering denunciation, other than disagree with you. I'm not George Bush;

     To a certain extent, your "Do-Nothing" Democrats are the reasons I'll stick with my answer. I am fairly certain that Al Gore would NOT have invaded Iraq, insisted on tax cuts for the top income-earners in the country, nominated either John Roberts or Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, repudiated Kyoto, or approved the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

     All of the things you listed were acts Congress. I believe that none of those things would have been an issue to begin with, if a Democrat had been in the White House.

     I disagree with you, Zero; that's no reason to rail at me. Intelligent, caring people can disagree about what to do when the country is in crisis.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 3:54pm

288. Gore refused to cause a "constitutional crisis" when he was elected in 2000. In doing so he caused this one. I am so very pissed at him.

     Posted by NTISUZI 01/15/2006 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person

     Might I predict that Gore's about to attempt an act of contrition on MLK Day and voice a resonating 'correction plan' to the mess the BC BS regime is steering the nation into? But will he use the 'D' word? Is the public and media ready to hear it?

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 3:56pm

289. And now I'm a kool-ade drinker as well, according to Zero. It's a pity you can't see me, Z--I'm hurt, devastated I tell you, and I'm crying my eyes out. Alert the MSM!

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/15/2006 @ 3:59pm

290. BUSHFOOLS :

     "But will he use the 'D' word? Is the public and media ready to hear it?"

     If the public's/media's readiness to hear truth is to be the criterion, we're toast. Somebody needs to start a tidal wave of things they are patently not ready to hear.

     Knocking politely is a tactic whose time has passed, it grieves me to say. Notwithstanding, we must preserve our own honor, even as we excoriate Bush's dishonor.

     Becoming trolls will have effects contrary to our intentions.

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 4:03pm

291. And now I'm a kool-ade drinker as well, according to Zero. It's a pity you can't see me, Z--I'm hurt, devastated I tell you, and I'm crying my eyes out. Alert the MSM!

     Posted by LISAJO 01/15/2006 @ 3:59pm

     LJ -

     I feel proud to be on Z's 'ignore list,' don't you?

     Skelerama

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/15/2006 @ 4:13pm

292. TJBehrens and Bushfools, great posts!!! TJBehrens--I've been trying to make the argument re Truong et al. for some time but you did a more thorough job of dissecting the case than I did. I would only reiterate my points that 1) SCOTUS has held that inherent presidential power is at its lowest ebb in an area where Congress has leglislated (the fact that that was from the steel seizures case and this deals with wiretapping is immaterial, the court was stating general principles that apply here unless you argue that Congress can't legislate at all on the subject of wiretapping) and consequently pre-FISA cases can't speak to the current reach of Presidential power, 2)that Congress specifically intended FISA to apply in time of war, hence the existence of a fifteen-day window after the beginning of a war after which it applies and 3) since Congress didn't specifically repeal FISA for purposes of actions against al-Qaida when it passed the AUMF, FISA applies here as well.

     Bushfools--I think that power of Congress to organizae and pass regulations for the armed forces is overlook by the "unitary executive" supporters. What it essentially means is that the Commander-in-Chief doesn't just get to set his own rules (i.e., torture).

     Posted by brunowe at 01/15/2006 @ 4:39pm

293. Aren't all the alphabet bureaucracies created by Congress? Shouldn't that give Congress some say over them?

     They ought not to be like a democratic election, say, in Algeria, that elects a government that immediately begins the undoing of democracy.

     The idea of a voracious Executive that has the power to turn everything Congress does against the power of Congress to control it -- how come nobody mentioned that at the hearings? (or did they?)

     Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/15/2006 @ 5:04pm

294. Bushfools--I think that power of Congress to organizae and pass regulations for the armed forces is overlook by the "unitary executive" supporters. What it essentially means is that the Commander-in-Chief doesn't just get to set his own rules (i.e., torture).

     Posted by BRUNOWE 01/15/2006 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person

     Thus the errosion of the leg and a check on the check if they don't call on it. The only reason I can see that they wouldn't appart from repub stonewalling, would be an NSA intel blackmail MO.

     %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     The idea of a voracious Executive that has the power to turn everything Congress does against the power of Congress to control it -- how come nobody mentioned that at the hearings? (or did they?)

     Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 01/15/2006 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person

     I heard it a few times as a preamble to questioning. What's the worse case scenario if there's no to little action until '06 elections in November, the BC BS regime could consolidate power with no SCOTUS check, and so used to doing whatever it wants that even if there's an eventual impeachment, what says the BC BS regime has to honor that even with such a weakening congress...

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 6:35pm

295. Does anyone really believe they don't see this one coming a mile away? Of course I believe it was Specter that simply stated he just 'don't agree' with the testimony of the lawyer appealing the Vanguard case per required recusal and bad law usage. Gave a pass and ran from the details.

     Specter Skeptical of Domestic Spy Program Jan 15 10:03 AM US/Eastern

     WASHINGTON

     The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed skepticism Sunday over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, joining a chorus of Republicans and Democrats who are questioning its legal justification.

     Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will hold hearings next month on the decision to allow the National Security Agency program without court approval, said he has told Bush administration officials that he believes they are on shaky legal ground.

     Bush has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program. The program authorized eavesdropping of international phone calls and e- mails of people deemed a terror risk.

     "I thought they were wrong," Specter said on ABC's "This Week." "There still may be different collateral powers under wartime situations. That is a knotty question."

     A number of members of Specter's committee, including GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, have expressed doubt about the administration's legal basis. The hearings, planned for early February, will feature Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

     Specter, speaking in general terms, noted that impeachment and criminal prosecution are possibilities in the event a president acted unconstitutionally.

     But Specter added: "I don't see any talk about impeachment here. I don't think anyone doubts the president is making a good-faith effort. He's acting in a way that he feels he must."

     http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/15/D8F568PO0.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/15/2006 @ 6:55pm

296. Crash, burn, total carnage!

     It is worth scrolling through these pages just to witness firsthand the disintegration of the American left and more to point, the Democratic Party.

     The term that seems most definitive about the current emotional and political state of the left is "NOT A CLUE"

     One clarification: I have long noted that Zero at least has consistently stood firm in his stance against the possibility of the Democratic Party ever resembling a true leftist political movement such as many who post here and elsewhere desire. (you can add some others like Philbq).

     Posted by love liberty at 01/16/2006 @ 12:30am

297. You didnt read it, I cite all my cut and paste, buddy sorry if its above your level of thinking

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 8:06pm

     Section 1811. Authorization during time of war

     Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

     Cpt

     I think those fifteen days were up about four years ago

     You said in an earlier post that you could read. Perhaps your level of thinking doesn't allow for that after all.

     Next time if you're going to claim a cut and paste, you actually have to go cut the text from the document and paste it onto the thread. Paraphrasing don't cut it baby.

     and it certainly don't paste it.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/16/2006 @ 02:31am

298. 4th ammendment says "UN-reasonble" searches and seizures.

     Only guys like you believe that listening to Americans CALIING AQ numbers is UN-reasonable

     Posted by CPT 01/14/2006 @ 8:10pm

     I hate to rain on your parade shit for brains but the forth amendment also says something about warrants. The "and" (my italics) sitting between the two phrases means that both conditions must be met. Old Gee Dubya doesn't get to pick and choose between the two

     Amendment IV

     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

     Also note that there are no exceptions made for al Qaeda, war, idiot conservatives…

     Posted by Will C. at 01/16/2006 @ 02:43am

299. Crash, burn, total carnage!

     It is worth scrolling through these pages just to witness firsthand the disintegration of the American left and more to point, the Democratic Party.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/16/2006 @ 12:30am

     Liberty!

     you must be blogging from your hotel room since by now you must be taking that much needed rest from your hot persuit of the murderer Ted Kennedy.

     Get a good night sleep. You'll need it bring that old man down.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/16/2006 @ 03:07am

300. and don't forget to power up your moral relativity drive.

     Teddy will never see you coming.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/16/2006 @ 03:08am